Responsibility for neighbouring property subsidence

[porterpainter]

This is theoretical rather than a real life situation.

Went to view a house yesterday which seemed to be very cheap for the area, so an opportunity as a fixer upper. The deal was, of course too good to be true, as the house was noticeably subsiding…you could visibly see it in some rooms.

I guess the drains must have collapsed down the left hand side of the property as that where all the sewerage pipes/manholes ran.

The neighbouring house is very close, circa 2m from the subsiding part of the house I viewed….which got me thinking:

If you bought the house with subsidence, would you potentially open yourself up to a liability /claim from the neighbour if ‘your’ collapsed drain had damaged their house?

Specifically if the damage had occurred prior to acquiring the house, are you also acquire potential liability for incident(s) that occurred before your ownership?

House in question with arrow showing the sinking side and the proximity of the neighbour

[SistersofPercy]

I assume the bank wouldn't lend on it and it would have to be a cash purchase. I think you'd struggle to insure it as well.

I don't know the answer unfortunately, but I would guess practically thats a lot of work and risk for a pretty average semi (albeit cheap). By the time you've paid for the work you could probably have bought something without problems.
Plenty of houses out there.

[porterpainter]

SistersofPercy said:

I assume the bank wouldn't lend on it and it would have to be a cash purchase. I think you'd struggle to insure it as well.

I don't know the answer unfortunately, but I would guess practically thats a lot of work and risk for a pretty average semi (albeit cheap). By the time you've paid for the work you could probably have bought something without problems.
Plenty of houses out there.

Thanks, yeah it’s an auction house so know what it entails. Not planning to buy it to be honest as too much work for me.

Really my mate and I were just discussing the situation with the neighbour and if any potential purchaser would be on the hook for repairs to the other house.

[SistersofPercy]

porterpainter said:

Thanks, yeah it’s an auction house so know what it entails. Not planning to buy it to be honest as too much work for me.

Really my mate and I were just discussing the situation with the neighbour and if any potential purchaser would be on the hook for repairs to the other house.

You've got me curious now too, I'd guess yes, but I'd like to know definitively.

[Chris32345]

For a start that looks too close together for separate house's if the drain 4un down that narrow but it looks a recipe for trouble that close to both houses foundations

[porterpainter]

Chris32345 said:

For a start that looks too close together for separate house's if the drain 4un down that narrow but it looks a recipe for trouble that close to both houses foundations

Don’t really follow what you mean for too close? There’s a 1.5 to 2m gap. Soil pipe is only for the bungalow, services for the neighbour house on the other side of their property so it would be a private drain for the subsiding bungalow.

[trashbat]

What should have happened is the original owner gets it fixed on their buildings insurance, gets a certificate of structural adequacy from the people who fixed it, and then both they and later purchasers can get insurance either from the original insurer or from insurers who have a more relaxed view about historical subsidence - of which there are several.

[Chris32345]

porterpainter said:

Don’t really follow what you mean for too close? There’s a 1.5 to 2m gap. Soil pipe is only for the bungalow, services for the neighbour house on the other side of their property so it would be a private drain for the subsiding bungalow.

Perhaps it's the photo but looks far less then 1m to me

Probably a lot less in person

[porterpainter]

trashbat said:

What should have happened is the original owner gets it fixed on their buildings insurance, gets a certificate of structural adequacy from the people who fixed it, and then both they and later purchasers can get insurance either from the original insurer or from insurers who have a more relaxed view about historical subsidence - of which there are several.

Not really the question I was asking…

I assume if the current owners had insurance then they wouldn’t be selling it at a knock down price (pardon the pun).

[porterpainter]

Chris32345 said:

Perhaps it's the photo but looks far less then 1m to me

Probably a lot less in person

Yeah could the the angle, could be my misjudgement and it was a 1m or less. Either way the manholes were all on the bungalow side of the boundary and the sewers aren’t shared…so not sure what difference it makes?

[trashbat]

porterpainter said:

Not really the question I was asking…

Not exactly, no, but it means that it can be rectified and insured - restored to an almost normal property.

What I described happened to our house some time before we bought it. It limits our insurance choices a little but is otherwise not an issue.

I can't answer your original question because I'm not a lawyer, but generally liability is for negligence rather than simple outcome. This is distinct from what insurance covers. If you bought a house with obvious subsidence, and it continued to cause your neighbour issues, not resolving it would be negligent and so yes you could be sued. It wouldn't matter whether the issue itself began some time ago. You in turn might be able to sue the vendor but that doesn't really help.

You probably couldn't be sued for damage that occurred before your ownership but I wouldn't like to bet on it being that clear cut.

[OutInTheShed]

I suspect the house was there before the bungalow.
Quite possible the groundworks/drains for the bungalow are the root cause of issues with the house?

But going forwards, rectifying the issues with the house will likely impact the bungalow.
Not being a detached house, serious work on the foundations could impact next door too.

I'd suggest not going near it unless you have experts on side to tell you exactly what's wrong and how to fix it, and you will make a lot of cash out of it.

With more extreme dry and wet spells, these issues are likely to get worse IMHO.

[Sir Bagalot]

A lot has been said already and I've seen a few auction properties like this.

I can only assume they aren't insured otherwise the owner would simply call them, which leads to the question why would you own a property and not insure it?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

porterpainter said:

If you bought the house with subsidence, would you potentially open yourself up to a liability /claim from the neighbour if ‘your’ collapsed drain had damaged their house?

In order to be held liable for anything (with a few named exceptions in law that don't apply here), you have to be held negligent. Just because your property damages someone else's property, that doesn't make you liable. You have to have done something wrong, been careless, made an error of judgement, etc, so the injured party can demonstrate negligence.

This applies to car accidents, housing claims, sports injuries, virtually everything.

[surveyor]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

porterpainter said:

If you bought the house with subsidence, would you potentially open yourself up to a liability /claim from the neighbour if ‘your’ collapsed drain had damaged their house?

In order to be held liable for anything (with a few named exceptions in law that don't apply here), you have to be held negligent. Just because your property damages someone else's property, that doesn't make you liable. You have to have done something wrong, been careless, made an error of judgement, etc, so the injured party can demonstrate negligence.

This applies to car accidents, housing claims, sports injuries, virtually everything.

This is where I started. Then I wondered what if I bought it cash, knowing that the damage was occuring and did not repair it.. I think that would be negligent...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

surveyor said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

porterpainter said:

If you bought the house with subsidence, would you potentially open yourself up to a liability /claim from the neighbour if ‘your’ collapsed drain had damaged their house?

In order to be held liable for anything (with a few named exceptions in law that don't apply here), you have to be held negligent. Just because your property damages someone else's property, that doesn't make you liable. You have to have done something wrong, been careless, made an error of judgement, etc, so the injured party can demonstrate negligence.

This applies to car accidents, housing claims, sports injuries, virtually everything.

This is where I started. Then I wondered what if I bought it cash, knowing that the damage was occuring and did not repair it.. I think that would be negligent...

Very possibly.