Does underpinning of a house matter?

[thescamper]

After some advice please,

Due to our local planning office moving into the 20th century (historical records are on-line), I have had it confirmed that my house has been underpinned, after we moved in our elderly next door neighbour said that he thought the house had been.

When we bought it we had a full structural survey which stated there were signs of historical settlement, the searches by the rottwieller (our solicitor) apparently didn't highlight this little gem of information, I am obviously now concerned that it may have a bearing on the value/saleability of the house and had I been made aware of it at purchase would probably not have proceeded with the purchase (we had to toss a coin to decide on one of two houses when we bought it) we would have just bought the other house.

I suppose the question is do I have anything to worry about, should I do anything about it if I do and how do I go about doing something about it.

Thanks for any assistance

[Swervin_Mervin]

Doubt it will affect saleability as long as the work was done as it should be (if anything it means it's probably in better shape than surrounding properties that haven't been.) We bought ours in the knowledge it had been underpinned when an extensions had been built, and I couldn't see any reason why that should cause concern.

It will, however, affect your ability to get insurance. Home Protect are particularly good when it comes to such matters.

[dirkgently]

Look on the bright side, you don`t have to worry about whether it needs to be underpinned.

[ging84]

There is a set of questions which get asked to a buyer, this is usually where you get made aware of something like this.

[Jonsv8]

I think its more a case of "why?" that would interest me. I live in a barn conversion and that was underpinned as part of the conversion, no big deal and I much prefer to have foundations than not even though the barn has stood here for over 100 years.

If the house was built near a mine shaft, and that's why it was needed, I might have reservations.

Underpinning in itself is not a worry to me personally.

[Billsnemesis]

The issue with underpinning is deciding whether it has been done properly and if not can anyone be sued.

If the work was done more than 12 years ago then the answer to the second question is "no" so then it gets treated the same as any other structural issue - what is the current position?

In that way it is no different from viewing a house with normal foundations. All that underpinning does is flag up past problems but that can be true of any house.

It may put off a small proportion of buyers but if you want reassurance you could pay for your own assessment by a structural engineer to confirm whether there is any ongoing movement.

[Collectingbrass]

Your buildings insurer might want to know

[anonymous-user]

We moved around this time last year and it was only a week after putting the offer in and prior to searches starting, that the estate agent mentioned the house had been significantly underpinned.

We immediately dropped our offer based on this fact, when it reality - and as mentioned above - it's probably now one of the more secure houses on the road and shouldn't be an issue. I think a few other have been done over the years (they were all built around 1850).

The haggling shaved £20K from our original offer, but we are limited to insurers who'll touch it. We're currenly with RSA but I will give the company above a call as it's due for renewal.

I'm sure any propsective buyers would want to negotiate if we were selling, but as we've no plans to move again it's not much of an issue.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Phil303 said:

I'm sure any propsective buyers would want to negotiate if we were selling, but as we've no plans to move again it's not much of an issue.

If any prospective buyers were specifically keen on that area it would also be relatively easy to play hardball back!

[Jonsv8]

Interesting that people say it limits the choice of insurer. I can recall being asking about subsidence but not underpinning. I guess for most you'd not do the latter unless the former was occurring. Maybe I'm missing something?

[TooMany2cvs]

thescamper said:

the searches by the rottwieller (our solicitor) apparently didn't highlight this little gem of information

So the vendor lied on the property information form - or the person they bought off lied, or somewhere back down the chain.

Did your surveyor not say anything other than "signs of historic settlement"?

[dacouch]

dirkgently said:

Look on the bright side, you don`t have to worry about whether it needs to be underpinned.

Providing the entire house was underpinned, it's not unusual especially in the past for only part of the house to be underpinned. This can mean one part of the house is stronger than the other which can mean an aggravating cause such as a long hot summer, tree roots or leaking drain can cause the part of the house that is not underpinned to move.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Jonsv8 said:

Interesting that people say it limits the choice of insurer. I can recall being asking about subsidence but not underpinning. I guess for most you'd not do the latter unless the former was occurring. Maybe I'm missing something?

On the forms we completed for Home Protect it asks separately as to settlement/subsidence and underpinning.

The two can be mutually exclusive - they were happy that ours was underpinned as part of the groundworks for the extension.

[thescamper]

The problem I have is I wouldn't know if it was done properly, Its impossible to tell. I dont know why it was done or how much of the house was done. I could have a guess at both how much and why but I could never be sure.

We moved in nearly 15 years ago and there have been 4 other owners before that.

Do I have right to go to the planning office to see what they have got in writing?

[TA14]

thescamper said:

The problem I have is I wouldn't know if it was done properly, Its impossible to tell. I dont know why it was done or how much of the house was done. I could have a guess at both how much and why but I could never be sure.

We moved in nearly 15 years ago and there have been 4 other owners before that.

Do I have right to go to the planning office to see what they have got in writing?

I think that you need to have a chat with a solicitor but I don't know whether much can be done after 15 years.

All of the issues seem to have been covered above. If it's mass concrete underpinning then trial pits can confirm whether it was done correctly; if it was mini piles I don't know how to check - acoustics? Underpinning can stop movement but not reverse the movement that has happened. If only a part of the property was underpinned then it can exacerbate the differential settlement of the property. There have been many cowboy outfits in underpinning. A property that has been underpinned is more likely to need underpinning than one that has not been underpinned (either because it was partially done or done badly) hence insurance premiums are higher. House buyers will either not be interested in your house or offer a lower amount.

A simple survey by a structural engineer won't be much help now but a full investigation would be - bore holes, trial pits etc. If you call in at Building Control (the building regs people) they should have most if the information on how the work should have been done, i.e. what was agreed to be done.

Good luck.

[mikal83]

Being pistonheads....I'll put it to you car wise. If there were 2 identical cars. One had a bad car smack but had been rejiged etc, all str8'd out, proper parts replaced.....and an original unmolested/crashed car.....side by side for sale....which one would you buy?

[motco]

mikal83 said:

Being pistonheads....I'll put it to you car wise. If there were 2 identical cars. One had a bad car smack but had been rejiged etc, all str8'd out, proper parts replaced.....and an original unmolested/crashed car.....side by side for sale....which one would you buy?

Sometimes I think that a refurbished appliance is preferable to a new one because the new one is churned out on a line where unknowing semi-robots are building them to within factory tolerances, but a refurbished product has been rebuilt by a higher quality operative and individually set-up to probably tighter lab tolerances. So the analogy can cut both ways.

[mikal83]

motco said:

Sometimes I think that a refurbished appliance is preferable to a new one because the new one is churned out on a line where unknowing semi-robots are building them to within factory tolerances, but a refurbished product has been rebuilt by a higher quality operative and individually set-up to probably tighter lab tolerances. So the analogy can cut both ways.

Are you a politician? Answer the question.

[Swervin_Mervin]

mikal83 said:

Being pistonheads....I'll put it to you car wise. If there were 2 identical cars. One had a bad car smack but had been rejiged etc, all str8'd out, proper parts replaced.....and an original unmolested/crashed car.....side by side for sale....which one would you buy?

That's not the right analogy though is it?

A better analogy might be that you choose between two of the same car, with a known fault on the engine of that model that could occur at any time and be extremely costly to repair. Only one of the cars has suffered said fault and been repaired, whereas the other would appear not to have had the fault occur yet, and therefore not have been repaired.

[Swervin_Mervin]

thescamper said:

The problem I have is I wouldn't know if it was done properly, Its impossible to tell. I dont know why it was done or how much of the house was done. I could have a guess at both how much and why but I could never be sure.

We moved in nearly 15 years ago and there have been 4 other owners before that.

Do I have right to go to the planning office to see what they have got in writing?

Why the sudden concern if you've been there 15 years?