Would you buy a house that had been underpinned in 1997

[Dingdong99]

We're looking to buy a house and the searches have revealed that it was underpinned in 1997

However, the sellers have no further info on this about the level of subsidence, what was underpinned etc.

Building control don't have any info either

My concern is firstly, although my current home insurer say they will cover this address (I've been frank with the underpinning issues but they say as it's over 25 years ago they're not concerned), all other insurers I've spoken to either say they won't cover any property that has had subsidence, or that they need further info on what proportion was underpinned

Secondly, when we eventually sell the house, perhaps this will put a buyer off, or they won't be able to get a mortgage very easily. (We're not getting a mortgage)

My surveyor doesn't seem to think it's a big deal, as it was so long ago. Whereas my solicitor thinks it's more of an issue

I could ask the seller to obtain a certificate of structural integrity, or I could even organise one (£££)

I think it would put me off tbh, because I think it would be difficult when reselling.

https://www.parkersproperties.co.uk/news/what-is-underpinning

Is it okay to buy a house that has been underpinned?Buying a property that has previously been underpinned shouldn’t cause an issue with your mortgage, as long as a full structural survey reveals no further problems with the property’s structure.
However, you could face a higher premium for more specialist buildings insurance if the property has a history of structural issues.
How long does an underpinning guarantee last?Many contractors will offer a guarantee for underpinning work, covering a certain period of time – usually a number of years.
However, most underpinning guarantees only cover against the original cause of subsidence and the underpinning work itself and not future issues.
Does underpinning devalue a property?A property that has been underpinned could be worth 20% to 25% less, depending on the severity of the subsidence.
However, because underpinning stabilises a property, it can help guard against future subsidence issues – in some cases making it more stable than properties that haven’t experienced any subsidence problems.

Wouldn’t put me off. After 25 years it was obviously a job well done. The house we bought 2 years ago had subsidence which was fixed. Much more recently, only a couple of years before we bought it. Definitely didn’t put us off. We have insurance etc etc and all is well. Always a risk with any house really.

Where is the house you're looking at?

We had to do a lot of research around this and decide if we were comfortable taking the risk. We ended up taking it on as we were able to get a mortgage, insurance with no issues and a structural survey to confirm no recent movement.

If it's London, underpinning is much more common for historic properties and land value is quite high even if the property fell down, so there's a slightly different risk profile for everyone involved.

Ironically an underpinned house can be more structurally sound than one which is not, assuming of course the underpinning has fixed the issue.

We bought an underpinned house whose sale fell through at least once because the buyers could not get insurance. Through our contacts, we found a specialist insurer to insure at a very reasonable premium and got the house for a good price as we were the only buyer.

It has been more than 10 years and the house has not given any problems and we are still with our insurer.

I would agree with your surveyor it is not likely to be an issue since the underpinning was so long ago and presumably did not present any subsidence since then. For the insurer, you can go with your own insurer or use the seller's insurer (who I believe are under a duty to continue to insure). So long as there is at least one insurer prepared to take it on at a not extortionate premium, the house will sell assuming the house itself is a desirable one of course.

Our neighbour, who had the same subsidence problem, sold their house for a tidy sum, by giving our insurer's name to their own prospective buyers.

If it's London, underpinning is much more common for historic properties and land value is quite high even if the property fell down, so there's a slightly different risk profile for everyone involved.

Good point. I would agree with this.

Nah, I wouldn’t let it put me off.

We are all in trouble further down the line with our houses when it comes to climate change.

And insurers have been grabby and greedy to eye popping levels over the last 18 months and that isn’t going to change any time soon.

We can’t all live in risk free, new build estates…

… which often cause flooding.

Go for it if you love it and try not to worry too much about re-sale.

My road in south London is notorious for subsidence and at least 50% of the houses in my part of the road have either been underpinned or had structural repairs carried out, including my house. Looking at the price houses have been selling for, underpinning doesn't seem to be putting people off. My husband is a surveyor with over 50 years experience and he has always said that our house has been much more stable since we had major structural repairs carried out. It does affect insurance, and quite a lot of companies refuse to insure properties in our road thst have had subsidence work carried out, but it's easier to get insured after 15 years or more. My understanding is that if you buy a house which has had structural repairs carried out under an insurance claim, the existing insurers are obliged to continue to provide insurance cover to new buyers.

Wouldnt put me off. i bought one that's had been done in 1988 and had a letter from 1988 stating it was done by the council as a precaution. Didn't put me off, had a survey done that I sent to insurers. Tbh it was likely the most stable house in the street. See if insurers will accept a structural report some did for me.