Subsidence

[Welshwoodsman]

Only you can know how much you love the house. Put it this way- at least its obvious now- and plain to see. Think how you would feel if shortly after buying, cracks started appearing everywhere. All that looks quite repairable, and its a lovely looking house. IF you feel that you can work out the problems, and live through the remedial building work- go for it. A LOT of people would steer clear= plenty of scope to get the house at a huge discount. Looks like classic fixer upper territory to me. I would buy it, fix it, enjoy it-then sell it on later for a lot more money. Houses that have documented evidence of subsidence repairs sell well, and if the builders do a good job, and supply the necessary certificates, you should have no problem selling on. Look how many grade II listed houses get subsidence and are repaired, they are still worth millions!

[Welshwoodsman]

Looking at the picture- that window next to the 'new' garage- where the bricks underneath are all a different colour- I would suggest that that used to be an integral garage!

Just a thought!

[Jon Heuch]

Yes shrinkable clays only account for 1% of uk soils so chances are slim. Subsidence itself is relatively rare but trees are still the most likely cause.

 

Not sure where your figure comes from but here is an insurance industry estimate:

 

17 million house insurance policies (there are over 20 million households but collectively owned houses won't have their own insurance)

40k subsidence insurance claims per year (varies per year)

4.7 million private houses located on soils with a PI > 20%

 

Add all the claims since mid 1970s comes to close to 1 million affected properties........so you can work out the stats yourself......if your house isn't located on clay the chance of tree related subsidence is very very low; if it is located on clay over 1 million of the 4.7 million have been affected by it.......perhaps not as low as you might think.

[Chris at eden]

Not sure where your figure comes from but here is an insurance industry estimate:

 

17 million house insurance policies (there are over 20 million households but collectively owned houses won't have their own insurance)

40k subsidence insurance claims per year (varies per year)

4.7 million private houses located on soils with a PI > 20%

 

Add all the claims since mid 1970s comes to close to 1 million affected properties........so you can work out the stats yourself......if your house isn't located on clay the chance of tree related subsidence is very very low; if it is located on clay over 1 million of the 4.7 million have been affected by it.......perhaps not as low as you might think.

 

 

Oh right. If the insurance industry say it, it must be right.

 

The 1% figure I quoted was from a paper I read a while ago but I forget the title. I will have a look to see if I can find it.

 

So to look at it another way, 17m policies and 40k claims per year.

 

40,000 / 17,000,000 x 100 = 0.23%.

 

So ultimately, if you have an insurance policy (which may cover several houses as you say) the risk of you putting a claim in for tree related subsidence is 0.23% annually. Sounds pretty low to me.

 

Also, how many of those 4.7m houses have trees within the ZOI and insufficient foundations? The older ones most likely. You are looking at buildings damaged over a 40 year period. Realistically that is 25k per year which is 0.53% of the 4.7m per year, and this is dependent on you being on a shrinkable clay. If you look at it across all policies then its 0.14%. Again that sounds pretty low to me but as you say its significantly increased if you are in the shrinkable soils.

[Kveldssanger]

Also, how many of those 4.7m houses have trees within the ZOI and insufficient foundations? The older ones most likely.

 

That's expecting developers to build properly! And porches. Please ban porches with a foundation depth of 30cm.

[Chris at eden]

That's expecting developers to build properly! And porches. Please ban porches with a foundation depth of 30cm.

 

If they don't build properly then how would they get a building control certificate? If they don't get the building control certificate then how would they sell the houses?

 

I agree with your point about non-permanent structures and rubbish foundations though. A chap said to me a while ago that he really wanted an orangery but wouldn't get one as they don't comply with building regs in terms of foundations. My advice was, have it built by a competent builder and ask him to install the foundations to a building regs spec. Other than the cost I cant see the problem.

[Kveldssanger]

I was referring specifically to foundation depths on new builds, which are, at times, lacking (for the situation).

[Jon Heuch]

Oh right. If the insurance industry say it, it must be right. The 1% figure I quoted was from a paper I read a while ago but I forget the title. I will have a look to see if I can find it.

 

I would just look at a soil map and consider geological history. South of the Tees-Exe line the soils are dominated by clay, especially South-East England - much from glacial outwash. A 1% figure is clearly and obviously wrong.

 

Whilst your comment on the insurance industry was cynical and it's right to be skeptical on any data source it's the only source of information we have on subsidence claims, other than from a few figures on tree claims from large land owners/managers such as local authorities.....although they rarely tell the whole story.

[Jon Heuch]

If they don't build properly then how would they get a building control certificate? If they don't get the building control certificate then how would they sell the houses?

 

Building regs do not apply to all structures particularly conservatorys

[Jon Heuch]

So to look at it another way, 17m policies and 40k claims per year. 40,000 / 17,000,000 x 100 = 0.23%. Sounds pretty low to me. Also, how many of those 4.7m houses have trees within the ZOI and insufficient foundations? The older ones most likely. Again that sounds pretty low to me but as you say its significantly increased if you are in the shrinkable soils.

 

1) Yes on an annual basis but this assumes a number of things: independence of data (not true) trees, old buildings and clay soil lead to claims being focused on particularly areas; if you are on non clay soils the chances of tree related subs is close to zero.

 

2) A claim is likely to go on for several years so perhaps 1% of buildings may be experiencing a subsidence claim at any one time.

 

3) Once your house has had subsidence, even though fixed, the owner has to declare this to the insurer and the insurer may alter their premium......so possibly 1 million houses out of the 4.7 million on clay should be ticking that box. There are a variety of insurance implications from this some of which leads to tree surveys, tree pruning and the like.

 

Depending on what you are trying to do subsidence is an issue that possibly blights far more properties than the 0.23% per year figure implies.