Would you buy a house with

[kirinm]

Subsidence. Or rather a house that has an ongoing but due to be resolved soon claim for subsidence. No underpinning but monitoring for two years, vegetation removal and repairing of drains.

We were prepared to buy but have had our offer rejected. The sellers want more than the ceiling price of the road and I'm wondering how many people would be willing to pay it or if people would be put off by the insurance claim,

I doubt anyone would get a mortgage on it, nor a new insurer who would pay out on an insurance claim

I work in the subsidence industry and no, I absolutely would not. Maybe it’s just the area I’m in, but the number of houses that have recurring problems for years (decades even) would put me off.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't mortgageable but I suspect insurance will be difficult or at least very expensive.

No I would not. We sold a house recently (I was executor) and it had been badly flooded twice in the last 50 years. We had all the info about remedial works done etc.. I was so glad to get that over the line. Wouldn't have bought it myself! Same with subsidence.

No a house with subsidence is likely hard to shift and should be bought heavily discounted. Even when fully remedied houses with previous subsidence sell slowly.

I might do if the claim was resolved (I have friends who have bought houses with underpinning). But it seems odd to me that
they have put the house on the market while the claim is still ongoing. Do you know why they are selling?

No I wouldn’t - especially with sellers that wanted to break the ceiling price!

In some areas, subsistence is very very common. I'd only buy if the house has had proper remedial work, eg underpinning and has been stable for several years.

The works are just about to finish. The EA's view is that the works are done and that's the end of it. They don't seem to appreciate that having a claim for subsidence has long lasting implications for things like insurance.

No.

Not so soon after the work is done, no. We bought a house that had “historic movement” which the structural survey missed and I would never risk a situation like that again.

It cost us £15k upfront to fix, and delayed us moving in by 3+ months. We got £10k back from the structural engineer for the biggest issue, which was visible during the survey, but it was hugely stressful. Insurance was really high for the first year but has started to come down now, particularly as it doesn’t seem to be classed as true subsidence.

Our house had been underpinned in the 60s too so doing the work is no guarantee. Unless the house is exceptional and you have deep pockets, steer clear.

I think the seller thinks that it's not subsidence. The actual cause of the moment was initially thought to be tree roots but over the last two years it was established that there were issues with drains. So perhaps they now think they don't need to call it subsidence even though the soil under the house was saturated by the damaged drains and caused the movement.

That is still subsidence. And yes it's probably fixed but I'm not sure how they can go from identifying tree roots in trial pits to suddenly deciding there aren't any tree roots. You'd think a drain inspection would've been carried out early doors and before spending two years monitoring the place.

My previous house had had subsidence which had been resolved by tree removal and a firm of underpinning. On London clay (like literally millions of London homes) our structural engineer was of the opinion that an underpinned 1920s or earlier house on London clay was a much better buy than a non underpinned house.

I understood that the current insurance Co have to offer ongoing insurance. As proof of commitment, perhaps, that they have dealt with it effectively.

We did continue with our vendors insurance co, and our buyers likewise

Whether I would buy while monitoring was still in progress, not sure. Because underpinning, should it be shown to be beneficial in the end, isn’t something you want to live with while it is being done, as I understand it.

There is a lot of hysteria about underpinning. But basically it improves the foundations and structure of your house.

Yeah I'm not worried about the movement. I'm sure it's been fixed but if not we'd almost certainly want to extend at some point which would stabilise the house / prevent movement with deeper foundations (Victorian house).

I don't think our area is known for subsidence and / or it's accepted that you have to be underpinned. But I think the cost of insurance, just the fact you've got to disclose it for ever, and the potentially high excess is what makes it less attractive. That and the fact they're asking for more money than anything else has sold for of course.

Steer clear of this house. Many other houses with no issues to choose from.

Did you go ahead with this? We have a house with a history of subsidence, had no issues with insurance, the premium was probably around £80 more than a house without the historical issues. The drain repairs and certificate of structural adequacy were presented to us before completion and there was never any issue with our mortgage company.

No. Our offer was rejected. It has sold though as far as I’m aware.

Ah fair enough!