Home insurance and subsidence
Discussion
I'm looking at home insurance as my renewal came through today.
The house was originally early 20th century, but due to subsidence was rebuilt in 1993 by the previous owner. It was done to a high standard with extremely deep foundations and on a concrete raft. I also found the concrete beams over the windows when I got through about 4 drill bits when I tried to put some curtains up.
But anyway, my question - I need to declare if the property has ever shown signs of heave, landslip or subsidence. This actual house is rock solid and there are no signs of movement or cracks anywhere. I would be inclined to answer 'no' as I'm confident that no signs of subsidence will appear due to the solid nature of the rebuild.
Unless I actually try to make a claim for subsidence (which I won't (touch wood)) surely I'll be fine by answering 'no' and enjoying a renewal quote of a third of what I'm currently paying?
The house was originally early 20th century, but due to subsidence was rebuilt in 1993 by the previous owner. It was done to a high standard with extremely deep foundations and on a concrete raft. I also found the concrete beams over the windows when I got through about 4 drill bits when I tried to put some curtains up.
But anyway, my question - I need to declare if the property has ever shown signs of heave, landslip or subsidence. This actual house is rock solid and there are no signs of movement or cracks anywhere. I would be inclined to answer 'no' as I'm confident that no signs of subsidence will appear due to the solid nature of the rebuild.
Unless I actually try to make a claim for subsidence (which I won't (touch wood)) surely I'll be fine by answering 'no' and enjoying a renewal quote of a third of what I'm currently paying?
It's not worth the risk.
If you omit to tell them and suffer a major loss then the adjuster may find out and insurance company can void the policy from inception which will leave you high and dry.
Might be worth getting a surveyor report to show not significant movement which may reduce your premiums slightly if the insurance company can see they wont be paying a hefty subsidence claim.
Or possibly ask them to exclude Subsidence on the policy.
If you omit to tell them and suffer a major loss then the adjuster may find out and insurance company can void the policy from inception which will leave you high and dry.
Might be worth getting a surveyor report to show not significant movement which may reduce your premiums slightly if the insurance company can see they wont be paying a hefty subsidence claim.
Or possibly ask them to exclude Subsidence on the policy.
Ledaig said:
JR said:
Give over. This property has not shown any signs of subsidence so that is what you declare.
Keep in mind that a lot of companies ask if there has been subsidence in the area - not necessarily a property specific question. There are specialist insurers for subsidence areas and will understand the work thats been carried out and quote accordingly.
grumbas said:
Ledaig said:
JR said:
Give over. This property has not shown any signs of subsidence so that is what you declare.
Keep in mind that a lot of companies ask if there has been subsidence in the area - not necessarily a property specific question. There are specialist insurers for subsidence areas and will understand the work thats been carried out and quote accordingly.
How do you know the property has been repaired?
I wouldn't know just from looking at it, any homeowner shouldn't be expected to know.
Bear in mind if any subsidence-related issues arise (although rising is unlikely - it will usually be sinking...) you'll have more than a couple of years to re-insure and rethink your answers to certain questions.
Any subsidence repairs will most likely have been insurance-underwritten anyway, so will automatically be covered should they fail - usually for 25 years.
I wouldn't know just from looking at it, any homeowner shouldn't be expected to know.
Bear in mind if any subsidence-related issues arise (although rising is unlikely - it will usually be sinking...) you'll have more than a couple of years to re-insure and rethink your answers to certain questions.
Any subsidence repairs will most likely have been insurance-underwritten anyway, so will automatically be covered should they fail - usually for 25 years.
Insurance companies have lists of areas where subsidence is known.
If the house was so badly damaged that it needed to be rebuilt, rather than repaired, they'll likely know of this already. I would suggest looking up some online quotes, speaking to the insurers concerned, and if needed, providing them with a copy of the plans from when the house was rebuilt.
Not disclosing the fact that there was subsidence that meant the house was rebuilt won't just invalidate the policy for subsidence claims, but could invalidate the policy for non-disclosure of relevant facts.
I was freeholder of a building which had been underpinned in the early 90s. This meant I was effectively stuck with the same insurers who'd paid for the work a few year previously as no-one else would touch it. That said, t'internet weren't around then to look stuff up easily.
I do hope you manage to find cheaper insurance cover.
If the house was so badly damaged that it needed to be rebuilt, rather than repaired, they'll likely know of this already. I would suggest looking up some online quotes, speaking to the insurers concerned, and if needed, providing them with a copy of the plans from when the house was rebuilt.
Not disclosing the fact that there was subsidence that meant the house was rebuilt won't just invalidate the policy for subsidence claims, but could invalidate the policy for non-disclosure of relevant facts.
I was freeholder of a building which had been underpinned in the early 90s. This meant I was effectively stuck with the same insurers who'd paid for the work a few year previously as no-one else would touch it. That said, t'internet weren't around then to look stuff up easily.
I do hope you manage to find cheaper insurance cover.
How was it rebuilt? Was the old place completely demolished, or was it retained in part (unlikely when it's on a concrete raft but there are engineering solutions to most things).
If it was demolished and rebuilt to the original design, using some of the original materials, I'd say it's still a new property and that's the property which they're asking about. I'd have no idea if a previous building on the site of my house had been demolished due to subsidence.
If it was demolished and rebuilt to the original design, using some of the original materials, I'd say it's still a new property and that's the property which they're asking about. I'd have no idea if a previous building on the site of my house had been demolished due to subsidence.
Hi,
We lived in our house for 2+ years, then when we put it on the market our buyer's survey picked up that the whole back wall had been re-built & underpinned. Our original survey did not find this!
The buyer pulled out, but we got an engineer in who said it was due to subsidence at some point.
At renewal time we had the same thoughts as you, I phoned them up and 2 minutes later it was all sorted. They were not bothered as it was classed as normal settlement/subsidence. They did not even want to see the engineers report.
This was on a 3 storey mid-terrace house (buit early 1900's), the whole back half has subsided with the full height back wall re-built with new lintles, but on a concrete plinth ontop of the original stone foundations. Looks to have been done in the past 20 years to me.
Now I just wonder why the hell they did not level the floor joists at the same time!!
HTH,
Sandy.
We lived in our house for 2+ years, then when we put it on the market our buyer's survey picked up that the whole back wall had been re-built & underpinned. Our original survey did not find this!
The buyer pulled out, but we got an engineer in who said it was due to subsidence at some point.
At renewal time we had the same thoughts as you, I phoned them up and 2 minutes later it was all sorted. They were not bothered as it was classed as normal settlement/subsidence. They did not even want to see the engineers report.
This was on a 3 storey mid-terrace house (buit early 1900's), the whole back half has subsided with the full height back wall re-built with new lintles, but on a concrete plinth ontop of the original stone foundations. Looks to have been done in the past 20 years to me.
Now I just wonder why the hell they did not level the floor joists at the same time!!
HTH,
Sandy.
We're in the process of buying a property and this week it comes to light that the detatched garage has suffered from subsidence 
and has been partially underpinned. According to the guy at the planning office (who oversaw at least part of the underpinning works), there is no subsidence in the area (!!!
!!!), and that the only reason the garage sufferred was because it was built in the 1950s before any proper building regs and as it is a light roofed structure, didnt have the same depth of foundations as the main house so the soil has moved a bit. He also said that they had recommended full underpinning as the part not underpinned will still move, so god only knows why they only partially underpinned especially if the insurers were paying (maybe it was the insurers decision) The garage is a few feet from the main house, but he is certain the house is as solid as a rock.
Anyway he said that we could knock down the garage, and remove the underpinning (very important apparently) and then rebuild the garage on proper foundations. We would then not be tied to the insurer that paid for the underpinning and the council records would show that there was a new building with new foundations all signed off to building regs. Although it would still show the original underpinning had taken place but had now been removed.
We are still umming and erring on whether to just bail out now and find another house or go ahead and try and get some ££ knocked off the price. Why can't people be up front about these things, saves a lot of aggro. It's not as if we weren't going to find out eventually Grrr!
Anyway, The reason for our doubts is the stigma attached with subsidence and the effect it will have when we come to re-sell. I just do not know which way to go. We are considering getting a proper structural engineer in to confirm the house is ok at the vendor's expense, but at the end of the day the property still has a subsidence history.
Sorry for piggy backing on this thread, but I might have helped a bit with the rebuild issue? I have to say the guys at the council planning office are really helpful and may be worth a call. I know they are not an insurance company who seem to have their own set of rules, but may know the answer or how to get the answer.
If anyone has experience or opinions I would be interested.
and has been partially underpinned. According to the guy at the planning office (who oversaw at least part of the underpinning works), there is no subsidence in the area (!!!!!!), and that the only reason the garage sufferred was because it was built in the 1950s before any proper building regs and as it is a light roofed structure, didnt have the same depth of foundations as the main house so the soil has moved a bit. He also said that they had recommended full underpinning as the part not underpinned will still move, so god only knows why they only partially underpinned especially if the insurers were paying (maybe it was the insurers decision) The garage is a few feet from the main house, but he is certain the house is as solid as a rock. Anyway he said that we could knock down the garage, and remove the underpinning (very important apparently) and then rebuild the garage on proper foundations. We would then not be tied to the insurer that paid for the underpinning and the council records would show that there was a new building with new foundations all signed off to building regs. Although it would still show the original underpinning had taken place but had now been removed.
We are still umming and erring on whether to just bail out now and find another house or go ahead and try and get some ££ knocked off the price. Why can't people be up front about these things, saves a lot of aggro. It's not as if we weren't going to find out eventually Grrr!
Anyway, The reason for our doubts is the stigma attached with subsidence and the effect it will have when we come to re-sell. I just do not know which way to go. We are considering getting a proper structural engineer in to confirm the house is ok at the vendor's expense, but at the end of the day the property still has a subsidence history.
Sorry for piggy backing on this thread, but I might have helped a bit with the rebuild issue? I have to say the guys at the council planning office are really helpful and may be worth a call. I know they are not an insurance company who seem to have their own set of rules, but may know the answer or how to get the answer.
If anyone has experience or opinions I would be interested.
Cod_man I had subsidence affecting my garage. It's a 60s build and had no foundations at all - built on a concrete raft. After some persuasion the insurance co removed the trees they tought were causing it and knocked down one wall and rebuilt it with footings. No problems since. I've had no problems getting insurance and the house has a few minor cracks but nothing - that's normal here as we're built on clay and ponds. Nothing came up on the usual searches when we bought the house but I found since the house opposite had been under-pinned. You can never tell.
OP, best put your question to a good indy broker I'd have thought. That;s why I still use one, offers good advice and back-up.
OP, best put your question to a good indy broker I'd have thought. That;s why I still use one, offers good advice and back-up.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff