Advice Needed - Subsidence claim missed on Structural Survey
Discussion
HI everyone,
I'm after some advice on where to go next with a problem that's just come up when my Mum has put her house on the market.
A little over 3 years ago, she bought the house (2 bed semi, common design for the area), downsizing from a flat in a more expensive area down south so no mortgage - it was marketed as cash buyers only due to historic subsidence, but as it looked perfect for her needs she got a full structural survey done by a recommended local structural Engineer (Chartered member of the Institution of Structural Engineers). This report stated that this was the second time the SE had inspected the house (first being in the early 1990s) and that the majority of the movement was from shortly after it was built in the 1900s and there was no evidence of onoing issues, but with a caveat to get the wall ties investigated/replaced (and recommended a contractor), and investigate the drains to check there was no issue with leakinig drains, and that it might be suitable for mortgage lending if the issues are addressed. The Property information form she got from the sellers specified there has not been any subsidence insurance claim, so she proceeded with the purchase on the basis that it needed some works doing but there were no major issues.
My mum bought the place expecting to do these works and get the place easier to insure etc. - she got it insured without majore issue, however no covered for subsidence, but said they would cover subsidence once the wall ties were fixed and the SE issued a 'Certificate of Adequacy'.
My mum had them both done, drains were all checked and OK and the wall ties replaced as per the SE's recommendation using the contractor they recommended and all went OK, but when she sent the report over to the SE and asked about getting the 'Certificate of Adequacy' the SE said they couldn't as they hadn't witnessed the works (this was not stated before, and my Mum had told him she was getting the works done). Mum just chalked this up to experience and moved on, told the insurance company on renewal and they had no problem insuring, just not covereing subsidence (as before).
3 years later she's decided to move and get in touch with a couple of local Estate Agents, and picked the one she preferred. The estate agent asked if there had been any subsidence claim, my Mum said no, she had a structural survey done and told the agent who the SE was - the Agent knows them and called them to ask, at which point the SE tells the Agent there was a subsidence claim in the past.
My mum then emails the SE to check (pointing out that the survey didn't mention the claim) and asking what were the details of the claim, to get a very short reply from the SE saying: "your house had a claim for subsidence and that's why you paid less than other properties in the Area, and it's only suitable for cash buyers as once claimed it generally exempts it from being suitable for a mortgage"
Now I'm expecting that this unknown subsidence claim is going to scupper any potential sale, so I'm after some adive on where to go to try and resolve this, or at least find out what the insurance claim was for. Mum tried asking the Estate agents she bought it through (different to the one she is selling through) to see if they could tell her who had insured it - wasn't included on the property information form (didn't worry about this at the time as we'd already got a quote based on the Structural survey before Mum bought it) but the estate agent didn't know.
Mum also emailed the solicitor who did the conveyancing to see if they had any advice, and they recommended a litigation firm (said they don't do property litigation), and oddly said if they'd known there were historical subsidence issues they'd have made additional enquiries, but I'm sure Mum sent them the survey.
My mum spoke to and emailed Citizens Advice who suggested she should raise this with the RICS (the Structural engineer is not a member of RICS, or at least don't list it on their letterhead or website), but I'm wondering if she should do anything else yet (including asking her insurance company's legal advice line, she's got legal expenses on her home insurance). Any advice welcome!
I'm after some advice on where to go next with a problem that's just come up when my Mum has put her house on the market.
A little over 3 years ago, she bought the house (2 bed semi, common design for the area), downsizing from a flat in a more expensive area down south so no mortgage - it was marketed as cash buyers only due to historic subsidence, but as it looked perfect for her needs she got a full structural survey done by a recommended local structural Engineer (Chartered member of the Institution of Structural Engineers). This report stated that this was the second time the SE had inspected the house (first being in the early 1990s) and that the majority of the movement was from shortly after it was built in the 1900s and there was no evidence of onoing issues, but with a caveat to get the wall ties investigated/replaced (and recommended a contractor), and investigate the drains to check there was no issue with leakinig drains, and that it might be suitable for mortgage lending if the issues are addressed. The Property information form she got from the sellers specified there has not been any subsidence insurance claim, so she proceeded with the purchase on the basis that it needed some works doing but there were no major issues.
My mum bought the place expecting to do these works and get the place easier to insure etc. - she got it insured without majore issue, however no covered for subsidence, but said they would cover subsidence once the wall ties were fixed and the SE issued a 'Certificate of Adequacy'.
My mum had them both done, drains were all checked and OK and the wall ties replaced as per the SE's recommendation using the contractor they recommended and all went OK, but when she sent the report over to the SE and asked about getting the 'Certificate of Adequacy' the SE said they couldn't as they hadn't witnessed the works (this was not stated before, and my Mum had told him she was getting the works done). Mum just chalked this up to experience and moved on, told the insurance company on renewal and they had no problem insuring, just not covereing subsidence (as before).
3 years later she's decided to move and get in touch with a couple of local Estate Agents, and picked the one she preferred. The estate agent asked if there had been any subsidence claim, my Mum said no, she had a structural survey done and told the agent who the SE was - the Agent knows them and called them to ask, at which point the SE tells the Agent there was a subsidence claim in the past.
My mum then emails the SE to check (pointing out that the survey didn't mention the claim) and asking what were the details of the claim, to get a very short reply from the SE saying: "your house had a claim for subsidence and that's why you paid less than other properties in the Area, and it's only suitable for cash buyers as once claimed it generally exempts it from being suitable for a mortgage"
Now I'm expecting that this unknown subsidence claim is going to scupper any potential sale, so I'm after some adive on where to go to try and resolve this, or at least find out what the insurance claim was for. Mum tried asking the Estate agents she bought it through (different to the one she is selling through) to see if they could tell her who had insured it - wasn't included on the property information form (didn't worry about this at the time as we'd already got a quote based on the Structural survey before Mum bought it) but the estate agent didn't know.
Mum also emailed the solicitor who did the conveyancing to see if they had any advice, and they recommended a litigation firm (said they don't do property litigation), and oddly said if they'd known there were historical subsidence issues they'd have made additional enquiries, but I'm sure Mum sent them the survey.
My mum spoke to and emailed Citizens Advice who suggested she should raise this with the RICS (the Structural engineer is not a member of RICS, or at least don't list it on their letterhead or website), but I'm wondering if she should do anything else yet (including asking her insurance company's legal advice line, she's got legal expenses on her home insurance). Any advice welcome!
Hi Fatboy,
What’s the other half of the semi like? How distorted is the house?
‘Most of the settlement is historic’ sounds like there is some recent settlement; this is a little worrying. (Could be the drains hence the check but you say that they are OK so what is it? Soft clay? Trees? Mining?) The SE should have given an opinion in his report.
Ask the SE what the insurance claim was for and whether the claim was successful; also whether any works were done and if so what were they.
The wall ties is a bit of a red herring here. If they were old and rusty (likely) then yes, they needed to be replaced but that has no effect on preventing settlement.
Try asking the Association of British Insurers if there is a central register of settlement claims.
I don’t know about the legal side but if you bought knowing that there had been subsidence and that it was advertised as a cash only sale because of that then you may find it difficult to show a loss.
What’s the other half of the semi like? How distorted is the house?
‘Most of the settlement is historic’ sounds like there is some recent settlement; this is a little worrying. (Could be the drains hence the check but you say that they are OK so what is it? Soft clay? Trees? Mining?) The SE should have given an opinion in his report.
Ask the SE what the insurance claim was for and whether the claim was successful; also whether any works were done and if so what were they.
The wall ties is a bit of a red herring here. If they were old and rusty (likely) then yes, they needed to be replaced but that has no effect on preventing settlement.
Try asking the Association of British Insurers if there is a central register of settlement claims.
I don’t know about the legal side but if you bought knowing that there had been subsidence and that it was advertised as a cash only sale because of that then you may find it difficult to show a loss.
Thanks - other half of the semi is fine, I didn't include more details as it was already a long post!
The survey says the ground is of suitable load bearing capacity - don't think it's clay, but will check later, and there are no mine workings etc.
When the street was built there was a ditch next to my mum's house, long since filled in and under the service road that runs down the side, se said that settlement into the ditch was the cause of the movement.
There is also a sewer pipe (owned by united utilities) that was replaced a few years ago which is what the SE was referring to as a check to make sure. There are no signs of any recent movement inside or out, from talking to the neighbours one of them remembers the ground floor bay window being rebuilt as it was knackered, we think this might have been the claim, but don't know as there's no paperwork and the vendors didn't mention it...
I'll try the abi, cheers for the tip.
The survey says the ground is of suitable load bearing capacity - don't think it's clay, but will check later, and there are no mine workings etc.
When the street was built there was a ditch next to my mum's house, long since filled in and under the service road that runs down the side, se said that settlement into the ditch was the cause of the movement.
There is also a sewer pipe (owned by united utilities) that was replaced a few years ago which is what the SE was referring to as a check to make sure. There are no signs of any recent movement inside or out, from talking to the neighbours one of them remembers the ground floor bay window being rebuilt as it was knackered, we think this might have been the claim, but don't know as there's no paperwork and the vendors didn't mention it...
I'll try the abi, cheers for the tip.
What was the exact wording of the question in pre contract enquires about subsidence claims and what was the exact wording of the answer.
As a supplementary question when was the claim and how long did the previous owners own it for?
Finally was it cheaper than other similar properties when bought?
As a supplementary question when was the claim and how long did the previous owners own it for?
Finally was it cheaper than other similar properties when bought?
Depending on where you live, the difference between a “subsidence insurance claim” and a “subsidence claim” may be significant?
Some parts of the country with mining subsidence can make claims for subsidence directly to certain authorities rather than their insurers.
Read the historical docs carefully to see what was said by the former owners.
Some parts of the country with mining subsidence can make claims for subsidence directly to certain authorities rather than their insurers.
Read the historical docs carefully to see what was said by the former owners.
You are conflating two different things:
1. It was the engineers job to tell you if there had been subsidence and comment on the risks.
2. It was the sellers job to tell you if there had been a claim.
I am not sure what you are going to achieve with legal action against the engineer as they did their part. They told you that there had been subsidence, and that this was likely to have mostly occurred a long time ago. That was their job. They have since said that they believe there was a subsidence claim, but they may not actually know this. They could simply be assuming that because there was subsidence there was probably also a claim. I would at this point advise that you treat their view as anecdotal.
Turning to the seller, it is possible that they knew of a claim and lied. That they answered genuinely and were wrong, or even that they are correct and the engineers subsequent comment is a mistake. You don’t know,
You could try to find out more about the alleged claim, but all you would achieve in the process is to increase the body of evidence surrounding the historic subsidence and make it into a bigger issue for future sale. In a way, the less you know at this point the better,
My advice would be to forget the engineer and ignore their anecdotal comment. When it comes to the sale and the declaration your mum can report what the previous owners declared and confirm that she has not made a claim or experienced subsidence during her ownership. She can also say that she has not seen any details of a historic claim.
It may be worth getting another engineer to sign off on the remedial works, to provide the Certificate the insurers requested. That way she will get some value for having carried them out. It will also create someone else the buyer can talk to about future surveys.
In the end, your mum knew the property had a history, and was happy to buy it without definitely having insurance cover for the issue. There will be other buyers that are willing to do the same.
Let the new buyer figure out the risks for themselves.
1. It was the engineers job to tell you if there had been subsidence and comment on the risks.
2. It was the sellers job to tell you if there had been a claim.
I am not sure what you are going to achieve with legal action against the engineer as they did their part. They told you that there had been subsidence, and that this was likely to have mostly occurred a long time ago. That was their job. They have since said that they believe there was a subsidence claim, but they may not actually know this. They could simply be assuming that because there was subsidence there was probably also a claim. I would at this point advise that you treat their view as anecdotal.
Turning to the seller, it is possible that they knew of a claim and lied. That they answered genuinely and were wrong, or even that they are correct and the engineers subsequent comment is a mistake. You don’t know,
You could try to find out more about the alleged claim, but all you would achieve in the process is to increase the body of evidence surrounding the historic subsidence and make it into a bigger issue for future sale. In a way, the less you know at this point the better,
My advice would be to forget the engineer and ignore their anecdotal comment. When it comes to the sale and the declaration your mum can report what the previous owners declared and confirm that she has not made a claim or experienced subsidence during her ownership. She can also say that she has not seen any details of a historic claim.
It may be worth getting another engineer to sign off on the remedial works, to provide the Certificate the insurers requested. That way she will get some value for having carried them out. It will also create someone else the buyer can talk to about future surveys.
In the end, your mum knew the property had a history, and was happy to buy it without definitely having insurance cover for the issue. There will be other buyers that are willing to do the same.
Let the new buyer figure out the risks for themselves.
Edited by Elysium on Monday 4th November 07:34
Fatboy said:
When the street was built there was a ditch next to my mum's house, long since filled in and under the service road that runs down the side, se said that settlement into the ditch was the cause of the movement.
That would make sense. Check historicsl maps. It's difficult to fill a ditch so that it won't settle since you get consolitdation of the sub-soil over time and it's a long term process that a house builder wouldn't do, esp. 100 years ago. (these days we'd just use mini piles.) This would also marry up with the SE conclusion that the majority of the settlement was in the early years.Fatboy said:
talking to the neighbours one of them remembers the ground floor bay window being rebuilt as it was knackered, we think this might have been the claim, but don't know as there's no paperwork and the vendors didn't mention it...
If that's all that you're talking about then that's frustrating for you. Bays often have shallower foundations to the rest of the house and settle; fairly straight forward to rebuild with a deeper foundation. (Although I guess that the SE has seen other itmes throughout the house.)Chrisgr31 said:
What was the exact wording of the question in pre contract enquires about subsidence claims and what was the exact wording of the answer.
It was on the property information form, standard wording 'Has the seller made any buildings insurance claims', the vendor just ticked the 'No' boxChrisgr31 said:
As a supplementary question when was the claim and how long did the previous owners own it for?
I'll find out, but over 10 years from memory Chrisgr31 said:
Finally was it cheaper than other similar properties when bought?
Yes it was, it was bought fully understanding there was historic subsidence and that it needed work, but on the impression that there was nothing recent in terms of subsidence and no insurance claims made, which is a different position...TA14 said:
If that's all that you're talking about then that's frustrating for you. Bays often have shallower foundations to the rest of the house and settle; fairly straight forward to rebuild with a deeper foundation. (Although I guess that the SE has seen other itmes throughout the house.)
Cheers,There is plenty of evidence of the historic movement, you can see it from the floor levels (since levelled when the kitchen and lounge were re-done), but no sign of anything recent - the bay window is ground floor only as well, so if that's all the claim was then it's different to they underpinned the whole house without any paperwork!
LooneyTunes said:
Depending on where you live, the difference between a “subsidence insurance claim” and a “subsidence claim” may be significant?
Some parts of the country with mining subsidence can make claims for subsidence directly to certain authorities rather than their insurers.
Read the historical docs carefully to see what was said by the former owners.
It definitely wasn't mining etc., no history of mining in the area, the problem is that there's nothing in The information mum got that talks about it, so very much in the dark at the moment...Some parts of the country with mining subsidence can make claims for subsidence directly to certain authorities rather than their insurers.
Read the historical docs carefully to see what was said by the former owners.
Fatboy said:
Chrisgr31 said:
What was the exact wording of the question in pre contract enquires about subsidence claims and what was the exact wording of the answer.
It was on the property information form, standard wording 'Has the seller made any buildings insurance claims', the vendor just ticked the 'No' boxChrisgr31 said:
Fatboy said:
Chrisgr31 said:
What was the exact wording of the question in pre contract enquires about subsidence claims and what was the exact wording of the answer.
It was on the property information form, standard wording 'Has the seller made any buildings insurance claims', the vendor just ticked the 'No' boxFatboy said:
Chrisgr31 said:
Fatboy said:
Chrisgr31 said:
What was the exact wording of the question in pre contract enquires about subsidence claims and what was the exact wording of the answer.
It was on the property information form, standard wording 'Has the seller made any buildings insurance claims', the vendor just ticked the 'No' box1. There was some subsidence around 100 years ago
2. It was obviously dealt with as the house is still standing
3. There is no evidence of a current issue.
4. Your mum has not made an insurance claim for subsidence and the previous owner stated that they had not done so either.
5. You have not seen any evidence of historic claims.
Finding out more details of the historic subsidence isn’t going to help you. There is nothing you can do about it and it’s not going to reassure a buyer. They are going to make their own enquiries, procure their own surveys and make their own decisions.
If you are selling the house anything you find out needs to be disclosed. No one is going to be able to tell you everything is OK. The best case is that it makes no difference, but the worst case is that it opens a nasty can of worms.
Just sell the house as is.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff