Seasonal movement or subsidence?

[bubbachumps]

We are looking to buy a property locally and the surveyor's report has detected "seasonal movement" which has resulted in cracks at the front of the property. The surveyor says that it's not true subsidence but we can't get anyone to insure us for subsidence as any sort of movement seems to fall into the "subsidence" category with insurers. The surveyor feels that these cracks aren't that big a deal but the house seems untouchable to insurers. Has anyone else had this situation? We have asked a structural engineer to visit so hopefully that will provide some clarification.

[Sue]

In my experience some insurance companies lump every type of movement together under subsidence.

Others don't.

You may need to go through a broker?

[ed_pete]

If the buildings current owners have it insured then you should be able to take over the policy. However having purchased a house over 20 years ago that had "movement", I'd avoid it if you can.

[jimbo1964]

I'm no surveyor, but I think cracks on the outside are bad. I doubt there are any old houses in the area that don't have 'seasonal movement'. Our house is quite wonky and we get hairline cracks in the plaster. I called our building insurers once and the advice was if the cracks are vertical and inside it's probably ok. Horizontal and outside more likely to be more serious.

[bubbachumps]

Thanks for your advice and comments, unfortunately the vendor let his insurance lapse so we can't use his old insurers and nobody else will touch us! Hopefully the engineer may have some better news.

[Blackcurrant]

I'd get a second opinion from another surveyor. You need a full structural survey done by someone with experience of subsidence.

If there's no insurance you should find out whether a subsidence claim has been made in the past.

If the building has subsidence but is uninsured, you might need to factor the cost of underpinning etc. into your offer.

[eastdulwichproperty]

You need to negotiate serious money off your original offer if you really love the house, most people would run scared of any movement and will impact your price should you ever want to sell. It is possible to insure (At a cost) but that house will always be worth less than an identical house without any signs of movement. It is a buyers market, use that to your advantage

[Penguin68]

I had (still have) a hairline crack on the outside of my house (running about 6ft), which I decided 30 years ago wasn't an issue, after advice. In that time it has, if anything, got even more hair line (i.e. smaller). When I bought the house it had a concrete drive and pathways (round a scrubby lawn). I replaced all this with porous brick pavours over compacted sand. This may have led to more rainfall getting through to the undersoil hence helping to close the (tiny) gap. The surveyor's estimate was that the cracking was most likely caused by the removal of a tree from the front garden - I would guess exacerbated by the later (pre war) addition of a tied-in brick garage to the side of the house. Subsidence can, of course, be a real issue but it is not nearly as common as people believe, nor do signs of movement predicate immediate collapse.

A friend near ED station had work done on his house which disclosed a wall 6 inches out of true, caused, we discovered, by bomb damage. The house continued to stand, and still does, 65 years later.

Insurance companies look for any reason to refuse (or hike up) premiums. It's easy money for them or a good way of refusing risk. Ideally (for them) Insurance Companies would only insure properties over which there would never be a claim. 'Subsidence' offers them a great get out of Jail Free Card.

[Soylent Green]

Our house has suffered with cracks from the moment we bought it. We are insured with RSA through a broker called Lansdown Insurance in Cheltenham, and had to have a full drains survey to prove seasonal movement. Hope this helps.

[Sue]

To cheer you all up - I currently have severe (class 4) subsidence in my bay.

They took soil samples and aren't even bothering monitoring it before doing whatever is necessary to sort it.

Huge cracks outside and inside the house.

Due to the underlying soil (bizarrely, not clay until a very long way down) and not to the street tree right outside as originally thought.

:((

[DulwichFox]

I think Sue, that when houses were built 1900 ? the Bays (like outside toilets) were 'Add-Ons'

I had this problem on my flat on Dunstan's Rd. The O/S loo just fell away from the main building and I

demolished it after gaining permission from the free-holder. The house was unaffected.

The Bays (Single Storey)probably do not have the same depth of foundation as the main building.

Which may mean that although the bay will need to be rebuilt, the house hopefully will be unaffected.

Foxy

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

>

> The Bays (Single Storey)probably do not have the

> same depth of foundation as the main building.

> Which may mean that although the bay will need to

> be rebuilt, the house hopefully will be

> unaffected.

>

Yes, that's the case, however I'm pretty sure it is not the differential depths of foundation which is the problem in this case, although I'm sure it doesn't help, otherwise the whole street would probably be affected.

It is the fact that the bay was unexpectedly found not to have clay beneath it, but made ground plus silty sand, and then silty clay at three metres.

The report says that their opinion is that damage has occurred due to consolidation subsidence. This has been caused by "consolidation of the weak underlying subsoil, which in turn has affected the foundations."

More people are coming to look at it next week with a view to deciding what to do about it.

Oh happy days.