Advise for property purchase (subsidence in ED)

[Andyng]

Hi All,

I am looking to buy a victorian property in ED.I was told that the property was underpinned in 2006

by the agents.Is subsidence pretty normal such a property in east dulwich?

Finally is it easy to insure a property with subsidence history ? How much does underpinning cost?

Look forward to your views,opinions comments.

[dulwichgirl2]

Hmmm. Has a previous possible purchaser done a survey and if so can you get the gist of it? Can you speak to the current insurers? How much are they taking off the asking price in light of this "perceived flaw". I would be asking these sort of queries and making a lot of my own inquiries too. I would not accept anything the agent told me unless it was in writing and part of the ultimate contract.

[Andyng]

Thanks for the response

If I enquired who insurer was would they be able to disclose information on someone elses

property ?

Not sure agent would disclose survey details worth a try though?

[benmorg]

Subsidence is very common in East Dulwich. The Victorian properties have poor foundations and are built on clay, which is prone to shrinkage. Underpinning can reduce this. Additionally, in the streets around Dawson's heights, there is a historic problem with landslip subsidence, which underpinning cannot prevent. You need to find out the cause of subsidence as well as ensuring both that it's covered by buildings insurance and that the underpinning has reduced movement.

[dulwichgirl2]

If they want to sell the house they need to set your mind at rest on what is a major issue.

Don't be fobbed off. You are spending a vast amount of money and they need to give proper information or you will walk away. Be prepared to do this even if you have fallen in love with the house (as I do frequently!). You must be calm and sensible.

[reren]

Absolutely get all the information - but also don't be too worried by it. As a previous poster said it is common and the fact is old properties move around. The chances are if it's stood for 130 - 140 years which is possibly the age of this property it will stand for another good while. Biggest thing to think about is whether the problems are in any way on going and whether it could cause you difficulty when you go to sell. My understanding was that once a property was underpinned it was much less likely to have problems in future - but the issue of land slip subsidence raised by benmorg in the above post obviously suggests its more complex than that. I assume you are having a full building survey done? You should get good advice from your surveyor on how to proceed. You may find you can pick up the existing insurance on the house - we did this when buying our property. I think it's likely your monthly insurance premium will be higher when you do tis though?

[Jeremy]

I was recently considering buying a property which had been underpinned, but decided against it. Mainly because I thought it would be a pain to sell again. Turns out the house stayed on the market for ages (despite the huge size and decent location), with several offers falling through because of mortgage issues. Glad I didn't go for it.

[trizza]

Definately check the property insurance premiums as well. They can be very high after subsidence and you are often locked in with the insurer who paid out on the subsidence loss as no other insurer will cover subsidence moving forward.

[nunhead_man]

You may not want to do this, but being more specific about the street might elecit coment from someone who actually knows the house

[Penguin68]

As a general comment that I have made before, it does seem entirely lunatic that insurance companies won't insure, or will charge very high premiums on, properties where subsidence has actually been corrected and repaired. Actually very many houses suffer (technically) from subsidence, very few actually collapse because of it - most houses are built to 'flex' slightly anyway. Structural problems are far more likely to be caused by poor quality work inside the house (removing structural walls without installing RSJs); loft or basement extensions carried out without structural engineering advice; extensions not properly tied into the main property and so on.

The issue of land-slip (rather than classical subsidence) is different - a previous thread discussed the detailed engineering that had to be undertaken when the 'liner' development on Dawson Hights was constructed to mitigate against slip.

[benmorg]

edit: wrong thread

[Monkey]

Can't offer advice on insurance. However would advise getting advice from a structural engineer rather than a chartered surveyor (who in my experience merely point out the pretty obvious!)

[edhistory]

Have a poke around http://www.subsidenceforum.org.uk/subsidence_what_is_it.php and check out the risk map for East Dulwich.

I am still not aware of a single case of subsidence in East Dulwich, but woould be happy to be corrected.

John K

[fazer71]

Plenty of houses out there without subsidence why buy a problem?

I'd avoid it like the plague.

[benmorg]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Have a poke around

> http://www.subsidenceforum.org.uk/subsidence_what_

> is_it.php and check out the risk map for East

> Dulwich.

>

> I am still not aware of a single case of

> subsidence in East Dulwich, but woould be happy to

> be corrected.

>

> John K

See attached image from the website in your link.

[benmorg]

The subsidence risk is reflected in buildings insurance premiums:

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/MediaCentre/RateAlerts/RA286.html?Source=CUR6&Pla=article&Cre=4

[Lynne]

We were underpinned years ago and were tied to the same insurer. Their prices rose from high to astronomical over the years. Then I found that other insurers will now take you on. We had to get a structural survey done, costing about ?400, but have now more than saved this off our new insurance bill

There are some areas of ED that are more at risk than others- our surveyor said that Wood Vale is tricky. I wish we'd never had ours done anyway, it was just a small crack on an internal wall

Lynne

[edhistory]

benmorg:

Trees (or their removal) can damage buildings, but that is not subsidence.

It is well known that insurance companies assess subsidence risk incorrectly.

This is not helped by posters on the EDF writing about "subsidence" in East Dulwich.

John K

[Tanday]

Seems to be very common in East Dulwich but insurance is available for underpinned properties and plenty of them seem to be selling in the area.

[Penguin68]

Trees, particularly growing on clay subsoils can cause cracks to appear, as indeed can the removal of such trees - these cracks may be unsightly but they are rarely evidence of significant (house might fall down) structural damage. Different types of trees can cause different damage, so that ones with deep tap roots will be unlikely to cause root impact damage with e.g. drains etc. although they may dry out the soil a bit.

If you have a (small) crack in a wall it is worthwhile photographing it (with something to 'prove' a date) - when you come to sell and if the crack hasn't extended/ widened you can demonstrate that movement hasn't been active.

Many Georgian terraces sit on entirely laughable (sometimes non-existant) foundations and those that are still with us will probably be with us for some time. Later Victorian and Edwardian (by which I mean, pace an earlier prodnose those built between about 1902 and 1914 - which is normally known as the Edwardian era even though the last years had George V as king) - often have much better foundations. Either which way, land-slip locally is far more or a worry than 'subsidence' per se, and most houses, even those on the hills, won't be susceptible to it.

But the recommendation to use a structural engineer (rather than a general surveyor) is a good one - I had a survey done once where the surveyor tut-tutted through because the house (an old one) didn't have walls at complete right-angles - not because of movement but because of the way it was built. He just liked modern set-square houses.

[benmorg]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> benmorg:

>

> Trees (or their removal) can damage buildings, but

> that is not subsidence.

>

> John K

I don't agree with this. The movement caused by clay shrinkage due to transpiration by large trees is a recognised form of subsidence.

[edhistory]

benmortg:

It doesn't matter whether you disagree, or I agree, with the technical definition.

But I would be interested to know who has "recognised"...

John K

[benmorg]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> benmortg:

>

> It doesn't matter whether you disagree, or I

> agree, with the technical definition.

>

> But I would be interested to know who has

> "recognised"...

>

> John K

What source are you using for the "technical definition"? Not Wikipedia I hope. Try RICS or insurance industry sources for a more thorough explanation.

Subsidence is simply severe movement. Where you draw the line between moderate and severe is a matter for lawyers and underwriters. Trees can cause severe movement, so they can cause subsidence.

[rbrtdngl]

Our previous flat had subsistence in the past, but when we bought it it was deemed to be non progressive. As such it was not a problem to obtain buildings insurance for the property. We did not have to pay an excessive amount either (from memory ?250 - ?300 per year). If the subsidence is progressive then it is a different matter entirely. At the time our insurance was with Liverpool Victoria.

[edhistory]

benmorg:

I note you have not provided evidence to support your assertion(s).

John K