Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi I am having trouble shifting my flat because my buyer's bank are trying to prove there is subsidence. I have to pay for a survey to my own property next week to investigate a couple of cracks etc and wondered if anyone else had had any problems of this nature? I had a full survey done here when i moved in 5 years ago and the report said chances of subsidence were 'extremely remote'. My gut feeling is this is the banks being over cautious about lending (a first time buyer) money - they seem to be leaving no stone unturned with wanting second surveys, opinions etc which I have to pay for. I am worried that even if the survey comes back and says there is none at the moment but there COULD be in the future (as I also hear that surveyors are being very cautious and sitting on the fence with wording these days), that this will stop the bank lending the buyer the money. Just wondered if any one else had experienced anything similar recently as i have an agonising week to wait before the second survey.

I had a full survey done here when i moved in 5 years ago and the report said chances of subsidence were 'extremely remote'.


If you can, get the same surveyer back again - he/she would then be able to confirm 'no change' (if there hasn't been any) over the last 5 years.


As a general piece of advice, if you buy a property which does have cracks in it (most do) take a dated photograph of the cracks, preferably with a ruler next to them, when you buy the property which might then act as reassurance (assuming the cracks haven't openened further) when eventually selling.


The ED area (parts at least) is known as having subsidence potential as it is hilly and on clay. Most insurers mark much of it (too much, in my opinion) as being at risk. However, there also has certainly been some work done to repair subsidence damage throughout the area, so it isn't a complete case of crying wolf.


Cracks can occur when large trees are removed (alters the local water table) - and can certainly be caused in garden walls by heavy lorries jumping over traffic calming humps.

I think the surveyor who is acting on behalf of your prospective buyer is just being over cautious/over zealous.


Have you spoken with your estate agent to see if they can act as a go-between and help out at all?


Alternatively, you could speak to your buyer directly and reassure them that there is no subsidence and perhaps pay their related costs to go with another lender. I believe that some lenders/surveyors are more stringent than others.


If you need a good independent surveyor, I can recommend one.


Cheers.

As far as I'm aware as long as your building insurer are willing to transfer to the new buyer there shouldn't be a problem with the mortgage. We bought a flat with previous subsidence and as long as we could get insurance the mortgage company were happy.

the agent is no doubt desperately keen for it to go ahead so I'd get him/her on side.


Ditto the surveryor who did your survey - good idea to get him/her back.


lastly and not wishing toyimpugn the motives of your buyer, have you actually seen the lender's letter or is he/she just reporting it all?

new mother Wrote:

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

> the agent is no doubt desperately keen for it to

> go ahead so I'd get him/her on side.

>

> Ditto the surveryor who did your survey - good

> idea to get him/her back.

>

> lastly and not wishing toyimpugn the motives of

> your buyer, have you actually seen the lender's

> letter or is he/she just reporting it all?


Very good points 'new mother', especially the last point. We had something similar happen to us when we were trying to sell, a girl came round wanting to buy the flat, she said that the outcome of her survey was that the bank had concerns over lending the money as the property had had subsidence. We submitted all the paperwork to show everything was fine (another flat in the block sold two months prior), but then she came back with that she couldn't get the full amount & it turned out she was a time waster.


I would strongly urge you to get the agent to set up a meeting between the three of you so that you can see all the materials from the surveyor yourself....

I wouldn't pay for a survey on my own property - this is your buyer's responsibility. I would either put it back on the market and await a serious buyer, or - if desperate - offer to reimburse buyer the cost of the second survey on exchange of contracts.
Your agent (assuming you have one and aren't selling privately) should be able to advise you whether this concern is normal for your location or whether it seems strange. It may be that your buyer is looking for a large %age mortgage and the risk to the bank is thus greater if lending. This could also be part of a negotiation ploy to get you to drop the price.

The only reason the bank wouldn't loan your buyers the money would be if the surveyor had valued it at less than the price they were paying. It will be a condition of the mortgage that the buyer has taken out buildings insurance which will cover subsidence and mean there is no risk to the bank.


This sounds like a delaying or negotiating tactic and I agree you certainly shouldn't pay for your own survey.

I live near East Dulwich station and have subsidence. Claim, monitoring and site inspections going on now. When I bought my flat a few years back the surveyor picked up on some cracks but didn't say specifically it was subsidence so the mortgage went through.


My current surveyor said it is due to the rather large trees in front of and at the back of my place which I am sure we are going to have fun and games getting the council to remove.


The cracks close in winter and open up in summer by up to 4mm (not that bad apparently but looks horrible and causes doors to jam and locks to become tough).


My surveyor said there has been an increase in the number of subsidence claims he's been dealing with in East Dulwich, but they have been caused by large trees which have not been properly maintained by the council. Perhaps your buyer's bank has access to subsidence claim info hence they are being difficult (wish mine had been more difficult so I wouldn't have had to deal with this!!)

I had an insurance claim for subsidence some years ago, which apparently was due to faulty drains which have now been fixed - but I have to stay with my original insurance company (who have hoicked up the premiums) because when I try to get other quotes, they always ask has there ever been subsidence, and as soon as I say yes, end of conversation.


The fact that the cause of the subsidence has supposedly been fixed is neither here nor there for them :-S


Re the trees, I have read that removing trees can sometimes cause even more problems.

I believe that Sue is right re. removal of the trees making things worse. Some neighbours of mine had the council cut back a tree outside their property to reduce the amount of water it was consuming and therefore stop the subsidence that was threatening. Removal of the tree can mean that the ground becomes waterlogged instead.


Which ties in with FluffyGalore's problem with the council not managing the trees properly.

thanks everyone - so much food for thought - I am on Bromar Road to answer somebody's question! I feel much better equipped to deal with this now. God - thank god for the east dulwich forum - so much sense spoken here. I wish I had thought about them paying for the survey and me reiumbursing them on exchange, what a good idea. You live and learn.

I remember selling a house once and apparently there was subsidence due to a tree (that was later removed). The buyers ran a mile as the insurance company would not touch it. However, a new buyer offered on it, found an new insurer and the bank was happy :-).


I think it is really dependant on the lender to be honest.


Do NOT pay for a survey on the buyer's behalf as this is their responsibility. If this is the later stages of a deal then I agree with Penguin68 that this could be a tactic for a reduction. My advice would be stand strong, as a buyer will come along prepared to 'take a view' on it. Afterall, I think all houses/flat in the area have some historical movement to be honest!

  • 1 year later...
I am not convinced that the USA experience, as evidenced in the link, is directly applicable to the UK - the history of 'bad' mortgage loan decisions by US lenders is very different, in the main, although some UK lenders did start to copy-cat. The UK government never, unlike the US government, virtually mandated toxic loans to encourage house ownership amongst the economically disadvantaged.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...