house insurance - "evidence of minor structural movement"

[andy ted]

Hi all

Just waiting to speak to the surveyor who did the homebuyers report but we are looking at buying a property and getting closer to exchange. it was built around 1920 and it states in there that there was some signs of minor movement historically but no evidence of anything significant in the past or currently. Nor is there any problems in the searches done by our solicitor marking subsidence issues in the locality.

I need to provide buildings insurance from the point of exchange so have started looking for quotes and I am unsure if I need to raise this with the insurers? Having made some preliminary inquiries insurance companies say they don't want to quote when I mention this statement but I am not sure they (or I) understand it correctly? The insurance companies seem to want to know if there is any "evidence of subsidence, heaving or landslip" - but I am not sure the surveyor pointing out some minor past movement count as signs of this? its an old building and I am sure most buildings settle/move slightly over time don't they? There have certainly been no underpinning or claims ever made for this but I don't want to:

A) buy a place that is hard to insure or only at a prohibitive price and then we get stung when we want to resell
B) take out insurance cover that will be invalid in the event of a claim.

Not sure what to do next really.

Has anyone had any experience of surveys coming back saying this? I am a FTB so pretty green with all this.

I would like to complete this purchase if possible and I am certainly not looking for any underhand way to screw the vendors on the price etc. But it is a lot of money to me and I don't want to make a massive mistake! I believe what we are paying is fair and happy to pay it as long as this isn't going to come back and bite us. Has anyone had any experience of this before? Either as a surveyor or receiving a survey with these comments in if so what did you do? Can I get a further structural report to prove either way?

Thanks in advance for any advice even if it is that we should walk away from a house we want!

Andy

[silverthorn2151]

Obviously speaking in general terms as I haven't seen the property.

A house built in 1920 will inevitably have suffered movement of some sort over the years. The floors will be a little misaligned and the doors won't be square in their openings.

That is absolutely nothing to worry about. They key to the report that you have is that there is no evidence of significant movement past or present. What the surveyor is saying is essentially that there is no movement, but there has been a little bit.

It's important to bear in mind that a report on a house will be picked apart, even a homebuyers report which has less opportunity for descriptive reporting. As an aside, I'm not convinced that a homebuyers report is appropriate for anything older than about 20 years. Anyway, surveyors will be criticised by some if they didn't make any mention of historic movement. There are enough threads on here to demonstrate that surveyors are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't.

If I wrote that report and used those words I would effectively be saying that the house was fine and there was nothing to worry about. On that basis I would simply tell he insurer if asked that there is no sign of significant movement now or in the
past.

Now, please bear in mind my opening comments that my observations are given in a friendly way to a chum. It is essential that you speak with the actual surveyor who hopefully can put your mind at rest.

[andy ted]

Hi

Thanks so much for your feedback and understood that it is not actual professional advice on the property! Haven't managed to speak to surveyor so far but will update when I have.

its actually a maisonette hence why we went for a homebuyers though this might not have been the right decision it seemed to make sense at the time due to what they said they would be able to check/not check.

I am sure the surveyor would have recommended further tests if needed but the insurers seemed to say that they couldn't insure any property with any signs of historic movement however minor? Having seen some of the cracks in my brothers new build I would say that that would mean they would not be able to insure many properties at all?!

I mentioned it to my solicitor and he said the same, to talk to the surveyor but that he felt it was common to be mentioned as you said.

Anyway thanks again

Andy

[surveyor]

+1 on Silverthorn's opinion.

It's entirely normal for a property to have moved a little, and you should note that the surveyor has not mentioned subsidence, heave or landslip, although to be fair it's unlikely that any Surveyor would identify any signs of structural movement as these without further investigation.

[TA14]

All properties settle. Fl/eA= a constant. There are ways to mitigate this but generally the settlement is predicted to be about 3mm and is often thought to be around 1mm although it's very difficult to measure. By definition some proerties will settle more than the average, maybe 4 or 5mm and might cause a small crack here and there. This movement typically occurs in the first two years. It would be reasonable to describe this type of movement as "minor structural movement"

You state that there is nothing significant or ongoing so there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than normal settlement and not subsidence.

[andy ted]

Just to update the thread,

Had a chat with the surveyors and they confirmed that it was not implying any signs of subsidence etc. just that it was an old property and that it had simply moved a bit (as most do)

Thanks again for your input

Andy

[silverthorn2151]

Ah glad to hear. I can totally understand your concerns and I'm glad you were able to get some answers. There are always people around here happy to help.