Would you buy a house which has had subsidence?

There is a huge difference between movement and subsidence, and if it’s been a basic survey the surveyor might just have seen signs of movement. My house moves - there is a burn running underneath the area, and the plaster cracks now and again - but it’s over 100 years old and still standing. We bought it 25 years ago and a structural engineer said it didn’t need underpinning - in fact he said that he’d put money on it still being here in another 100 years, which is more than he’d expect from the new builds up the road.

What about insurance? The mortgage may be withdrawn without it.

We found a house we loved many years ago, the initial survey didn’t mention subsidence, but a chance meeting with a previous tenant (it had been bedsits) told us there were problems. A further in depth survey suggested underpinning would be necessary.
Had we been able to get it for a reduced price we would have gone ahead, but the owner wouldn’t budge, denying any problems.
I used to pass the house everyday, and watched as the whole front of the house was taken down
Probably had a lucky escape.

We backed out under these circumstances. It turned out that the people who were selling the bungalow couldn't get insurance so were living without! They hadn't told us that.

We bought our 200yr old house for cash (a private loan) 43 years ago. We couldn't get a mortgage because the surveyor found signs of subsidence.
He put tares in the part where there had been movement and 6 years later, we were able to get a mortgage to repay our lender as the tares had not moved
It was a risk but we badly wanted the house.
Now I am seriously thinking of selling and will probably meet this problem again.

When we bought this relatively new build house, we had to have a mining survey in order to get the mortgage approved as, although built on the site of an old farm, there had been two collieries in the area, no trace of which remains. I thought it would just be a formality but was surprised at how detailed it was. We haven’t disappeared into a big black hole - yet!

I also would not touch it with a barge pole. Too much hassle and expense and when they come to sell it if they do buy, this conversation will rear its ugly head.

It depends very much why there is subsidence, and if it has been corrected or not. I would never buy without getting a proper survey done- and quotes for solving any issues- and discuss a reduction in price to reflect this.

We had subsidence at our last house, caused by too many limetrees too close to the East of the house. The whol side was underpinned properly, the whole process filmed every day- half the trees removed (not all to preven a ground heave reaction), and properly inspected by experts. All paid by our insurance (about £30.000 about 20 years ago). So when we sold, it was all declared with all the documentation- and therefore buyer was not concerned.

Greyduster

When we bought this relatively new build house, we had to have a mining survey in order to get the mortgage approved as, although built on the site of an old farm, there had been two collieries in the area, no trace of which remains. I thought it would just be a formality but was surprised at how detailed it was. We haven’t disappeared into a big black hole - yet!

Greyduster

It's amazing that there are old mines in places where you wouldn't believe possible! Having listened to a talk recently about the locality of some I was amazed but I don't think there have been any problems with properties which stood there for years.

We never know where there might suddenly be subsidence for whatever reason, eg sink holes, underground caverns of limestone rock etc.

It depends on why this property has subsidence and how severe it is.

Most definitely not, the soaring costs of underpinning, now or in the future, make this a big gamble.
I wouldn't buy on a proven flood plain either, a way which developers seem to be heading.

Good point, Freya, re flood plains, especially with the stormier weather we are encountering.

Not in a million years.

Don’t even think about it! “good price” means the sellers are desperate to walk away , I wouldn’t consider it under any circumstances

We live in a very old home -- in the fens -- it's a small worry.

It depends if the risk is real, the surveyor has covered his liability by saying that it “may” need underpinning, they use all sorts of caveats.

It’s up to the buyer to satisfy themselves wether the house is structurally sound, most buyers choose a cheap survey, a full survey is costly and much more searching than the mortgage survey.

A ‘home buyer’s report’ is relatively cheap and is no substitute for a full survey, which is much more expensive. A structural survey is even more costly. Lenders just have a basic valuation carried out, which may not flag up problems - they are only interested in getting their money back if they foreclose. I would never buy even a new home without a full survey.

We bought a house with subsidence. When we had it surveyed we found out the cause was a blocked drain as the previous owners had totally neglected to maintain the house. We had the drain sorted, there were no internal cracks etc and we have lived there happily ever after.

Your DD needs to go back to the sellers and ask for further details. If it has been successfully underpinned, I'd think that is a better bet than a house which has never been underpinned unless the underpinning hasn't been done well. Also, these days, it is possible to have a chemical underpinning which is far less disruptive than traditional underpinning and comes with guarantees that insurance companies will accept.
If the sellers were able to show that underpinning had been done with guarantees, I'd still want a structural survey so you have done everything possible to ensure that future insurance claims would be met.

Another saying don't touch it with a bargepole!

no, biggest investment in most peoples lives?!

God no, avoid. Ask an insurance company if they'll insure, premiums might be higher due to previous issues. Good luck

Yes I would, subject to costs for underpinning multiply by twice for inconvenience deducted from the actual chartered survey valuation of its true cost of the property as is and after the works carried out

There is no problem if the cause of the subsidence hàs
been removed or the property underpinned with a warranty. If the surveyor says it might need underpinning in the future I would ask why. If the cause has been removed, no problem. If not it should have been removed and or underpinned as needed. My husband was in property and has had some experience of both scenarios. I would definitely be asking about what house buildings insurance the seller has. We had one property which had to have a tree removed and the site monitored. We paid a thousand excess and the premiums went up a lot next year.

No way

Our old house needed underpinning but we had a very thorough survey and the surveyor said it could be done relatively cheaply. We left it till we were thinking of selling it so expected it would be very difficult to sell. We were honest about the problem and it sold very quickly. The buyers had their own survey done and we reduced the price of the house to cover their costs.
Depends how much subsidence there is , how much it will cost to repair and how much they love the house.