Would you buy a house which has had subsidence?

I have livd in two houses with subsidence. One was Georgian and my current one is Victorian. I had a few small cracks in my last house which didn't change for the 30+ years I was there and currently I have a small crack in one wall that has changed ever so slightly in 12 years. I imagine that is to be expected and normal with older properties . If the house is old the ground should have settled by now. If it's a younger property that may be a concern.

Also this surveyor may be covering his back in stating a worst case senario. Better to get a further structural survey from someone who specialises in subsidence with the relevant age of this property and the ground upon which it is built and the surrounding area, in mind.

Our bungalow had some underpinning done. was last moment we found out and went ahead after being reassured it was ok. But we’ve been here 17 years and it’s our last home hope it doesn’t prove costly when it needs No issues as yet.

In London, many houses built on clay based soil. Lots of subsidence in certain areas. Good warranted underpinning makes them viable.

Bugbabe2019

Depends really!
I live in the South Wales Valleys and we have to have mining searches done - puts a lot of people off when it comes back that the house are built on old mines. It’s our secret weapon to stop the wealthy English buying up our homes 😃

That's very true - my DM's house was built over some old mine workings and tunnels from an old railway station 150 years ago. We never even knew until we saw some old maps of the area.

NotSpaghetti

I've been reading this thread with interest.

It really shows huge differences between the way we each approach buying a home.

I find the "Never!" responses curious given that we have so little information. I also wonder if those of us who just say now might have thought differently when younger. Would you have been more open to having work done in those days?

We just don’t know enough for me to know whether I'd buy or not.
I'd like to know what's decided and why in this case.

Interesting thread.

Coupled with the fact that the surveyor only did a quick survey, it seems that even the buyers don't know the full facts! I'd sooner buy a house which has had the work done rather than buy one and the same street which doesn't have any signs of subsidence but has not been underpinned. My Mum had a house which I rented off her many years ago which started showing problems. One night as we lay in bed there was a mighty crack which sounded like a bomb going off. When I went to investigate, you could see daylight where a crack had opened up. The insurance company did the work and 40 years later the house is still standing.

I've been reading this thread with interest.

It really shows huge differences between the way we each approach buying a home.

I find the "Never!" responses curious given that we have so little information. I also wonder if those of us who just say now might have thought differently when younger. Would you have been more open to having work done in those days?

We just don’t know enough for me to know whether I'd buy or not.
I'd like to know what's decided and why in this case.

Interesting thread.

One word - NO!

How would you know that this house would be a load of trouble unless you had a structural survey? As has been said, some houses have subsidence that would indeed be a load of trouble, but others just need to have a drain unblocked or a tree cut down and they'd be fine. It would be a real shame to miss out on a dream home because of an unsubstantiated fear of something that might not happen.

I'd only buy this house if I wanted to take on a load of trouble which could rumble on for years and cost a lot of money to fix.

I had to look up what that meant! Not a term you hear much in Canada. Here is what Google says about subsidence under a house: “What is subsidence? Subsidence is when the ground beneath a property sinks, pulling the property's foundations down with it. This process can cause the walls and floors to shift, leading to cracks and potentially destabilising the construction of the property”. Based on that I would not purchase it. Most young people stretch to buy a home and don’t want to buy a money pit. IMHO

I agree, ICHTB. As I said upthread, 'might need underpinning in the future' could mean anything.

I would get a full structural survey and see what the problem was. Expecting to get a 50% discount is ridiculous, unless the house was in a state of collapse. Any house can subside, or there would be no need to insure against it happening, and any house 'might need underpinning in the future'.

Much depends on what 'has had subsidence in the past' means, too - as has been said, drains, trees, all sorts of things can cause houses to move, but without knowing the cause and any remedial action, it would be bonkers to make a decision if the house is otherwise ideal.

I am amazed at the number of people who would make a decision without knowing the facts. Does this mean that anybody who has had their house successfully underpinned won't be able to sell them? In this day and age, with the change in weather there might be foundation changes, especially if, like us, you have clay soil. Lots of people have tree roots which cause damage but after tree removal and remedial works, the properties are perfectly safe.

Absolutely not.

Depends really!
I live in the South Wales Valleys and we have to have mining searches done - puts a lot of people off when it comes back that the house are built on old mines. It’s our secret weapon to stop the wealthy English buying up our homes 😃

Not a sound investment. Unless you get the price reduced by 50% at least!

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.

No way

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.

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

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

no, biggest investment in most peoples lives?!

Another saying don't touch it with a bargepole!

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.

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.

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.