Advice from builder types please? Underpinned in 1989?
Discussion
We have seen a house that we really like (our offer is pending) and have an offer on our house which we have accepted.
Some information has surfaced on the potential house we would move to, which I would like some sensible thoughts on
The house was constructed c.1971, semi detached with a double garage to the side. The area is historically sandstone based. The house is near to a railway cutting - as a train driver this really doesn't bother me especially as I sign the route, the trains do a maximum of 20mph at that point. We cant see them, only hear them.
In c.1974 a large extension was put over the double garage creating a bedroom, lounge and kitchen(!? - its all bedroom now)
In 1987 a structural engineers report said that the extension had undergone 'differential foundational settlement' and this was then underpinned in 1989. A conservatory was also added to the property but the date of build is unknown.
When we saw the house there was zero indication of any cracks, movement, or subsidence although in hindsight, we had 30 minutes to view the house and we focused on the rooms and space. I did inspect the outside walls, gutters etc. There wasn't any red flags and I thought the outside was in good condition. Interior wise, no cracks, unevenness, or anything else to suggest the house had subsidence.
Would you run a mile? Other than this news its the perfect house, I'm remaining hopeful but have no knowledge of the subject. Would underpinning done in 1989 hold up today?
Some information has surfaced on the potential house we would move to, which I would like some sensible thoughts on
The house was constructed c.1971, semi detached with a double garage to the side. The area is historically sandstone based. The house is near to a railway cutting - as a train driver this really doesn't bother me especially as I sign the route, the trains do a maximum of 20mph at that point. We cant see them, only hear them.
In c.1974 a large extension was put over the double garage creating a bedroom, lounge and kitchen(!? - its all bedroom now)
In 1987 a structural engineers report said that the extension had undergone 'differential foundational settlement' and this was then underpinned in 1989. A conservatory was also added to the property but the date of build is unknown.
When we saw the house there was zero indication of any cracks, movement, or subsidence although in hindsight, we had 30 minutes to view the house and we focused on the rooms and space. I did inspect the outside walls, gutters etc. There wasn't any red flags and I thought the outside was in good condition. Interior wise, no cracks, unevenness, or anything else to suggest the house had subsidence.
Would you run a mile? Other than this news its the perfect house, I'm remaining hopeful but have no knowledge of the subject. Would underpinning done in 1989 hold up today?
Edited by seany87 on Saturday 1st November 12:58
The key thing here is was the work signed off and certificated (COSA) ?
Or maybe back then it was called something different. If it's done correctly, it's probably stronger than the original foundations.
No sign off or proof will make it very hard to mortgage and very hard to sell on later so bare that in mind.
Or maybe back then it was called something different. If it's done correctly, it's probably stronger than the original foundations.
No sign off or proof will make it very hard to mortgage and very hard to sell on later so bare that in mind.
Thank you.
From what we can gather, the double garage foundations weren't up for the task of the extension so that area was the only part that required underpinning.
I agree that if no official certificate can be produced then we will pull out. But if a certificate can be produced, would I have any other issues other than house insurance or potential buyers in the future turning their noses up at the house? How long does underpinning last? Its from 35 years ago.
From what we can gather, the double garage foundations weren't up for the task of the extension so that area was the only part that required underpinning.
I agree that if no official certificate can be produced then we will pull out. But if a certificate can be produced, would I have any other issues other than house insurance or potential buyers in the future turning their noses up at the house? How long does underpinning last? Its from 35 years ago.
seany87 said:
Thank you.
From what we can gather, the double garage foundations weren't up for the task of the extension so that area was the only part that required underpinning.
I agree that if no official certificate can be produced then we will pull out. But if a certificate can be produced, would I have any other issues other than house insurance or potential buyers in the future turning their noses up at the house? How long does underpinning last? Its from 35 years ago.
I'm talk as a Branch Manager of an estate agents, so can only base on issues encountered. Firstly I would have thought it lasts longer or at least as long as the foundations if done correctly. You will find some lenders will refuse to lend, even with a cert., same with insurances in particular, although NFU mutual I believe are one that do. From what we can gather, the double garage foundations weren't up for the task of the extension so that area was the only part that required underpinning.
I agree that if no official certificate can be produced then we will pull out. But if a certificate can be produced, would I have any other issues other than house insurance or potential buyers in the future turning their noses up at the house? How long does underpinning last? Its from 35 years ago.
It's all about transparancy re future buyers, so if upfront and all certificated etc should be fine. If this has come up now undisclosed then I'd be renegotiating....
As long as it was done correctly and signed off it will be fine probably better than it needs to be.
My concern would be insurance, check this out because previous subsidence always used to be killer with insurance.
Also bare in mind any concerns you have, when you come to sell the new buyers will have the same concerns and most will just walk away rather than put up with the potential issues.
My concern would be insurance, check this out because previous subsidence always used to be killer with insurance.
Also bare in mind any concerns you have, when you come to sell the new buyers will have the same concerns and most will just walk away rather than put up with the potential issues.
ARH said:
As long as it was done correctly and signed off it will be fine probably better than it needs to be.
My concern would be insurance, check this out because previous subsidence always used to be killer with insurance.
Also bare in mind any concerns you have, when you come to sell the new buyers will have the same concerns and most will just walk away rather than put up with the potential issues.
Yep. The problem is: how do you know that it's been done correctly? No movement after 36 years is a pretty good indicator.My concern would be insurance, check this out because previous subsidence always used to be killer with insurance.
Also bare in mind any concerns you have, when you come to sell the new buyers will have the same concerns and most will just walk away rather than put up with the potential issues.
Quags said:
Countdown said:
Worth getting an opinion from a structural surveyor?
Would cost a lot to do that and still offer no guarantees that would satisfy lenders etcIt's 36 years ago!
Personally, if I liked the house, I would get a suitable surveyor and my semi-tame builder to look over it , then get some insurance quotes.
Fundamentally, it's probably not built on the best ground, hence the problems last century.
This century we're getting more extreme dry/wet and all that, more houses may have been built nearby affecting the ground, who knows?
I think a great many houses have some future subsidence risk.
The one in question may be less at risk than many or not.
Can you afford to either carry the risk or insure against it?
If insurers want a high premium and a whacking excess, are you OK with that?
A lot will depend on the incidence of problems in other houses nearby.
Personally, if I liked the house, I would get a suitable surveyor and my semi-tame builder to look over it , then get some insurance quotes.
Fundamentally, it's probably not built on the best ground, hence the problems last century.
This century we're getting more extreme dry/wet and all that, more houses may have been built nearby affecting the ground, who knows?
I think a great many houses have some future subsidence risk.
The one in question may be less at risk than many or not.
Can you afford to either carry the risk or insure against it?
If insurers want a high premium and a whacking excess, are you OK with that?
A lot will depend on the incidence of problems in other houses nearby.
Quags said:
Countdown said:
Worth getting an opinion from a structural surveyor?
Would cost a lot to do that and still offer no guarantees that would satisfy lenders etcBear in mind that underpinning is a simple process.
You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
Bear in mind that underpinning is a simple process.
You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
Sometimes. More likely to be mini piles.You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
Bear in mind that underpinning is a simple process.
You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
Er, I would worry about lending too. Big time.You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
TA14 said:
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
Bear in mind that underpinning is a simple process.
You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
Sometimes. More likely to be mini piles.You dig a hole. You fill it with concrete. Move on to the next hole. It is just a retrospective foundation.
I would only worry about insurance. Plug it to go compare and see what it comes up with. You need it to be insurable at normal cost.
My house had subsidence more recently (2018) when i purchased it, tho didn't have underpinning. I found getting a mortgage was no problem at all - I think i got asked about a certificate of structural adequacy (which I have).
Insurance was and is a pain in the arse.
I went with a specialist to start with but they've jacked up their high cost by an unreasonable amount (despite no new subsidence, the trees that caused it etc removed ages ago) - thankfully I then discovered that Loylds bank will insure it - they are remarkable chill about old subsidence (tho the premium is still a bit high, so there must be a flag on the property) - they just state "Any previous subsidence damage has been fixed and no longer needs to be monitored. Subsidence is when a building moves downwards due to a change in the ground conditions beneath the foundations. This can typically cause cracks to appear in the walls of the building."
Insurance was and is a pain in the arse.
I went with a specialist to start with but they've jacked up their high cost by an unreasonable amount (despite no new subsidence, the trees that caused it etc removed ages ago) - thankfully I then discovered that Loylds bank will insure it - they are remarkable chill about old subsidence (tho the premium is still a bit high, so there must be a flag on the property) - they just state "Any previous subsidence damage has been fixed and no longer needs to be monitored. Subsidence is when a building moves downwards due to a change in the ground conditions beneath the foundations. This can typically cause cracks to appear in the walls of the building."
I bought a house that had been underpinned. The previous owner had had it all sorted above board and had retained all the paperwork.
I ended up using the same surveyor who'd been involved in the underpinning work when I needed a party wall agreement and he pointed out that it hadn't moved in 20-odd years and was very unlikely to do so as (i) the underpinnings were far stronger that the original foundations and that (b) the offending tree had been removed.
I did it up and sold it on for a nice fat profit. Next owner wasn't bothered as it had been so long ago.
I don't get the hysterics that this topic creates. The only downside was rather expensive buildings insurance.
I ended up using the same surveyor who'd been involved in the underpinning work when I needed a party wall agreement and he pointed out that it hadn't moved in 20-odd years and was very unlikely to do so as (i) the underpinnings were far stronger that the original foundations and that (b) the offending tree had been removed.
I did it up and sold it on for a nice fat profit. Next owner wasn't bothered as it had been so long ago.
I don't get the hysterics that this topic creates. The only downside was rather expensive buildings insurance.
This was reported as 'settlement' up the thread - there is a distinction in insurance between the terms settlement and subsidence which might be relevant to the OP. Settlement in simple terms is overloading, usually initially/transitory whilst subsidence describes, again in simple terms, the supporting ground moving away from the founds (which worries insurers) - clay shrinkage, mine workings, soil wash out etc.
Was it the case that the added storey caused the garage founds to be overloaded due to undersizing?
Anyhoo as others have said it's stood the test of time and it certainly wouldn't concern me.
Was it the case that the added storey caused the garage founds to be overloaded due to undersizing?
Anyhoo as others have said it's stood the test of time and it certainly wouldn't concern me.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff