Insurance and Subsidence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Insurance and Subsidence

    Hi all,

    I wonder if anyone can offer any experience/knowledge on this.

    I have an opportunity to purchase a house on a good sized plot at below market value being sold by the executors of an estate. Reason for the valuation is that there is a current insurance claim going through for subsidence damage on one corner - I've seen the engineer's report and it's been caused by vegetation (tree roots) rather than land slip or anything worse. The recommendation in the report is to remove the tree. I understand the owner's estate are getting their insurance company to manage and resolve the claim, which is to request removal of the tree from the Council (which may not be approved, due to a TPO) and they are injecting the brickwork/ground with whatever substance they use. It will not require underpinning. The work will be complete before any sale goes through and I expect to receive a certificate of structural adequacy.

    I've spoken to the existing insurer who are happy to continue insuring the property with me and their premium is £270 (approx. double that I can get on a standard comparison website, assuming there was no subsidence). Those costs are acceptable to me.

    However, I understand that the insurer can and likely will jack up costs in years to come, so I spoke to a separate broker today about the implications of switching to another provider and this is where it gets potentially messy. I understand that some insurers will just flatly say no. Others will require their underwriter to assess it before quoting and they'll need all the details of what the issue was, what work was done etc.

    My plan is to demolish the existing structure and build 2 new semi's on the plot (all subject to planning, of course). These new builds will have brand new pile driven footings, so structurally they will be very sound and highly unlikely to be susceptible to subsidence, if done properly. Even if the offending tree isn't removed.

    What I don't want is for me or future buyers to run into problems with being able to insure the property(ies), so was wondering if anyone had experience of this scenario and whether, with the brand new structural footings in place, gaining insurance will be a (relative) formality in the future rather than a problem?

    Many thanks


    #2
    The offending tree may be pruned rather than removed. It's a bit of a gamble but that's why you are getting a price reduction. Speak to an insurance company or two, they are the only ones who can really answer this.

    Comment


      #3
      What is the difference between insuring for subsidence and movement are they classed as the same or would we need to be insured separately and why is the subsidence excess so high?

      Comment


        #4
        I don't see a problem. As long as the remedies are sound. There is nothing to worry about. You should insure with the current provider, until the issues have been resolved. Yes, they will have jacked up premium, but they would have sent in their surveyor, but you will be able to get another quote. For the moment stick to them....

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        • Reply to Any companies currently offering landlords insurance?
          by theartfullodger
          Ordinary AST, not HMO? Buildings, contents, public liability, rent protection - which please?
          31-05-2020, 21:29 PM
        • Any companies currently offering landlords insurance?
          by Efferneti
          Bad timing to be starting an AST I know, but I went through all the major search engines and could find absolutely no policies available. Does anyone know of any companies/brokers offering policies?
          31-05-2020, 20:12 PM
        • Reply to Any companies currently offering landlords insurance?
          by doobrey
          For buildings insurance?
          31-05-2020, 21:12 PM
        • Building Insurance
          by hexu
          The dispute has happened since the change of freehold.

          I was told by my conveyancing solicitor that building insurance is arranged by the Landlord for the common parts only and I must insure the flat myself. My lender also informed building insurance I must take out to hold as a condition...
          30-05-2020, 16:10 PM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by hexu
          Indeed, it's a Victorian converted flat, more than hundred years old. I would understand the inconvenience of holding more than one policy, but I find it hard to accept the current freeholder's behavior. Instead of a proper discussion, he enforces me to pay items that I am not entitled.

          ...
          31-05-2020, 13:51 PM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by hexu
          As ATC said, it exists....
          31-05-2020, 13:30 PM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by hexu
          Thank you for your advice. I would thought the freeholder would suggest a Deed of Variation before sending any of his bills to me, but he didn't.

          I do worry if I agree to make a variation and pay insurance to the developer, the cost of building insurance (commercial) will increase more...
          31-05-2020, 13:26 PM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by hexu
          Thank you for your suggestion. I want to sell it indeed, but any potential buyers would have to pay building insurance themselves in order to get a mortgage. I am not sure if I am in a position to sell my flat even if I give the money to the freeholder?...
          31-05-2020, 12:55 PM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by ATC
          It is not that uncommon, especially in leases originally granted from before about 1967, or granted by reference to a lease from the 50s or early 60s. Typically the lessee would be obligated to have the lessor as joint insured, and the covenant is to insure the demised flat for the full reinstatement...
          31-05-2020, 08:33 AM
        • Reply to Building Insurance
          by doobrey
          This seems unusual. Does the lease confirm this?

          Leasehold properties that I have owned have been insured by the freeholder. I presumed - rightly or wrongly - that it pretty much had to work this way (e.g. because the property ultimately belongs to the freeholder)....
          31-05-2020, 08:24 AM
        Working...
        X