Definition of Subsidence (for East Dulwich house insurance)

[EDdownunder]

Hello all,

I know there have been many emails about sudsidence, but I have not discovered a clear answer to the insurance question that asks "Has the property, to the best of your knowledge" suffered from subsidence?".

I am new to mid-terrace victorians and do not know whether the funny angles in the house relate to normal movement over the past century or so, or whether its because it has "suffered" from subsidence. If the place has not required underpinning in the past does this mean it has not suffered? How can you otherwise define "suffering".

[SteveT]

Cracks in the ceilings and walls, doors not fitting in the frames, floors not level.

[kristymac1]

you'd be hard pushed to find a Victorian terrace in the area which hasn't suffered subsidence! Having the property underpinned is usually only for the most severe cases, we had work done on the house because of subsidence caused by close proximity vegetation - it was over and above the normal plaster cracks that you get with 100 years of movement but not bad enough to be underpinned. Our front door dropped by an inch and half during the very dry summer two years ago and internal doors dropped too, we had the work done and there was no noticeable movement last summer.

My guess would be that if there is nothing stated in your purchasers pack about there having been work carried out because of subsidence then I would declare 'no' to the question posed.

[jimbo1964]

Our house is quite wonky. It hasn't moved in the 15 months we've been in it.

[EDdownunder]

Thanks for all your messages, it is all helpful in getting a picture of what to discuss with insurers.

[*Bob*]

It is a bit confusing, but unless either you know the house has been underpinned in the past, or if you've had a survey which says it needs underpinning right away, then for insurance purposes and with regards to what you tick on insurance application, your house 'hasn't subsided'.

All houses move, but movement isn't subsidence.

[Sue]

Don't make the mistake I did of telling your insurance company as soon as you get a few hairline cracks, ending up with a load of work which was probably unnecessary (but hey, made a load of dosh for a load of people and enabled said insurance company to bump up my premiums considerably), and rendering yourself uninsurable by many companies because as soon as you say "yes" to the subsidence question they don't want to know.

Sorry for ungrammatical tangle, no I haven't been on the ale, perish the thought :))

Edited to say: Bob, sorry, *Bob*, I think you can have subsidence without being underpinned. Mine hasn't been underpinned but all the correspondence from the insurance guys refers to subsidence.

[*Bob*]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Edited to say: Bob, sorry, *Bob*, I think you can

> have subsidence without being underpinned. Mine

> hasn't been underpinned but all the correspondence

> from the insurance guys refers to subsidence.

Fairy nuff. I suppose 'underpinning' is a bit specific.. any prior insurance claim relating structural movement would probably tick your subsidence box. The daft thing is that if you'd have just done the work yourself, (or rather, as it sounds just ignored it if it was mainly cosmetic) rather than claimed, the box would remain unticked. It's all about insurance really, not about your house.

In practice what this means is that your house can be leaning over at a 45 degree angle, but as long as insurance work hasn't been carried out on it as a result of a claim and the bank has surveyed and is willing to lend, then 'it hasn't subsided'.

[Sue]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Edited to say: Bob, sorry, *Bob*, I think you

> can

> > have subsidence without being underpinned. Mine

> > hasn't been underpinned but all the

> correspondence

> > from the insurance guys refers to subsidence.

>

> Fairy nuff. I suppose 'underpinning' is a bit

> specific.. any prior insurance claim relating

> structural movement would probably tick your

> subsidence box. The daft thing is that if you'd

> have just done the work yourself, (or rather, as

> it sounds just ignored it if it was mainly

> cosmetic) rather than claimed, the box would

> remain unticked. It's all about insurance really,

> not about your house.

>

> In practice what this means is that your house can

> be leaning over at a 45 degree angle, but as long

> as insurance work hasn't been carried out on it as

> a result of a claim and the bank has surveyed and

> is willing to lend, then 'it hasn't subsided'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Exactly. Be warned, peeps.

[Jeremy]

I had a couple of cracks in my old place, due to tree roots growing under the building... I believe technically it was "subsidence", but the remedial work just consisted of removing trees and filling the cracks, so I thought it wise to tick the aforementioned "No" box on the relevant section of any subsequent documentation.

[tropica]

If you look on the RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) website there are a number of consumer guides relating to subsidence - not enormously helpful (they're mostly trying to encourage you to hire a surveyor) except for this list of four indicators that you 'have' subsidence.

New or expanding cracks in plasterwork

New or expanding cracks in outside brickwork

Doors or windows sticking for no particular reason

Rippling wallpaper that isn't caused by damp

Of course, some cracks are seasonal (open/close in winter/summer) and if they are hardly measurable i.e. less that a mm wide then not worth thinking about, and don't count as subsidence. All of South East London is on clay, so minor seasonal movement is normal

The only way to tell that you have 'had' subsidence is evidence of repair - for the non building professional this will be a record of underpinning or similar structural repair work, although if there are very obvious cracks up the side of the house that have clearly been repointed, then that might be a little difficult to ignore.

If you have just bought this house, didn't you have a survey done? That would say if there was any evidence of subsidence.

If your house merely has funny angles but the windows and doors all open and close OK and there are no cracks in the external brickwork (usually diagonal cracks), and as long as you haven't just bought it from a developer who might have covered any evidence up, then it's reasonable to assume that the wonkiness was settlement at the time it was built which is not subsidence.

[Otto]

Many insurers will not insure anything with any box ticked with subsidence. our surveyor got around this issue by calling it "historic" subsidence due to wwII bombing damage....;)

otto

[pinocchio]

I sent my survey to my insurers and got them to decide whether the property is insurable and what needs to be done. In that way you're in safe hands i terms of what you need to and not need to report.

[sophiesofa]

pinocchio Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I sent my survey to my insurers and got them to

> decide whether the property is insurable and what

> needs to be done. In that way you're in safe

> hands i terms of what you need to and not need to

> report.

and what did they say? We've just had a survey done and it says something along the lines of there is evidence of subsidence in he past as expected with a property of this age but we do not believe this to be a problem but you should check you can get insurance. I don't want to tick the subsidence box but i think i'm going to have to.

[skidmarks]

Underpinning is bad news for Victorian terraces. I?ve seen an example where a particular property was substantially underpinned and the two adjoining property were not. As the foundations are usually just spread foot on to the underlying clay in London they would naturally move throughout the year with the moisture content of the clay. As the middle property was underpinned and rigid the two adjoining properties suffered as they moved relative to the clay and the middle property did not. So the moral of the story is be careful buying a terrace which is next to a house that has been underpinned.

[ClareC]

Makes sense! My house has never suffered subsidence, however, when the side return was extended, the insurers excluded it from subsidence cover simply due to the SE22 postcode!

It was before I bought the property but apparantly the side return has very deep footings!

[ruffers]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cracks in the ceilings and walls, doors not

> fitting in the frames, floors not level.

Not that simple, there can be other reasons for these things rather than subsidence eg new build not put together properly.

[SteveT]

OP wrote:-

I am new to mid-terrace victorians and do not know whether the funny angles in the house relate to normal movement over the past century or so.

ruffers it doesn't sound like a new build gone wrong, it being a Victorian terrace 'n all.

[Penguin68]

The answer to 'has the propery, to the best of your knowedge, suffered from subsidence' requires you either to have evidence that it has, i.e. from previous surveys, evidence of remedial work to cure subsidence etc., or to be sufficiently adept as a trained surveyor that you can assess a property for active subsidence. Finding evidence of former house movement is not evidence of subsidence - many houses were 'moved' locally by the effect of bombs exploding near to them, for instance, 65-70 years ago. I would not personally rely on hearsay ('the neighbour said they were told there was a subsidence problem'). Of course, if you are buying a property, you need to get good information from your own surveyor, for your own peace of mind, but if that informaation does not confirm active subsidence, but only talks about past evidence of movement (without actually confirming subsidence as a cause) you can reasonably answer 'no' to the question. In my view.

[James Barber]

the structural surveyor i've had visit told us to not remove the dead tree stumps as leaving a void or loose soil near the fondations can cause problems. Told us to never get ride of the front garden with car parking as loosing that moisture near ot foundations a problem. Make sure that rainwater soaks away from the gutters into the gardens.

clearly trees can suck up moisture but make sure you're not unnecessarily losing it already.

Most streets in East Dulwich were tree lined when created. No front gardens were built over. No extensions increasing roof areas at the rears. In the last two decades the driest 10 years since records began. Our gardens and the context of our foundations are now much dryer and unsurprisingly subsiding for some.

[Penguin68]

While James may well be right about the dryness of the summers (not something I particulary noticed in 2009, I must say) he does not mention that the water table in London has been rising, as industry (particularly but not exclusively the brewing industry) has ceased to be major water users. In some area this has caused problems of damp and flooding.

It also depends, if you use your front garden for parking, how you do this. Concrete and tarmac will cause run-off, for instance, gravel over membrane, or brick paving over sand are porous and much less likely to cause problems of drying off, indeed where vegitation has been removed more water rather than less may be percolating towards the foundations and their supporting soil structures.

Over time, tree stumps and their supporting roots will rot away, which will leave eventual voids - I would much rather have the stump properly removed and the resultant hole properly re-filled. However what looks like 'subsidence' (i.e. evidence of wall movement) can be caused by the removal of trees close to the property. This will almost certainly have stabilised quickly, and if you have past evidence of trees having been removed may well re-assure a surveyor that he/ she is not looking at a more deep seated problem of underlying land movement.

Most houses locally were built to allow for some elements of movement, cracks may be unsightly but, if they are neither extending or opening now, should not be worrying.

[BQC]

We've had movement in the past - so pretty much 90% of insurers wouldnt touch us.

We have been with Halifax for the past 8years paying quite alot (?800) for buildings and contents - can anyone reccomend an insurer?

[Penguin68]

Insurer's worries aren't actually about past movement (unless this has already so destablalised the building that collapse is immminent) but about future movement. Movement 'in the past' doesn't necessarily imply either (a) that this was caused by subsidence or (b) that subsidence, if it did occur, is still active. If the movement your building has suffered hasn't occured in the recent past then you can not know if there is still a problem, or (probably) if the past problem was subsidence, i.e. a collapse of subsoil under your foundations not associated with a direct cause (such as German bombs) which is not now actively affecting your property.

Insurers (who are lazy gits) are happy to avoid risk by assuming that all past movement is still-active subsidence, but this ain't so - some insurers draw huge boundaries around known areas of subsidence (such as clay substrates) and then claim all properties within this boundary are suspect.

As I have said, unless you have certain knowledge that any movement in your house is definitely and certainly associated with subsidence you don't have to declare such (lack) of knowledge. Any building (particulary but not only with timber framing) will have moved if it's been standing for more than 50 years or so, without that necessarily being in any way worrying. I have a badly cracked front garden wall whose cracking is directly associated with heavy lorries using road-humps as take-off points, but if I didn't know better I might guess at 'structural' sob-soil movement underneath the wall.

If you have worries, call in your own surveyor or structural engineer - don't let the insurers scare you with their post-code lotteries.

[tomk]

A really good sensible post.

[trentk69]

Just to echo BQC - can anyone please recommend an insurer or good broker who will cover these properties?

Our property has had historical subsidence - but this was remidied in 2000 with underpinning, and has been given a 12 year guarantee, however - no insurers I have tried will touch the place - and the existing premiums are extremely high.

Can anyone recommend a better deal or company?

Thanks!