Underpinning - UPDATE

[greenie]

Original post below, and feedback from you guys was very useful.
Update:
I have today seen sight of the building work documents for the detached garage underpinning. Documents include the engineers inspection report and details of work required, the builders detailed quote and work carried out and the local building regs sign-off certificate.
A section of garage wall had dropped below the damp course and twisted outwards, the foundations were underpinned to 1.5m along with lots of other work relating to the laying of concrete and securing beams in the concrete etc. The section of garage wall was also re-built.
Basically, the reason for the underpinning is almost inconclusive stating that it is either poor workmanship by David Wilson Homes or an underlying issue with the ground condition - trial holes indicate that the ground material is not susceptible to volume change but movement is progressive.
I guess its a phone call to the current vendors insurance company to see if this will affect insurance on the house itself and then its time for a sit down to decide if this house is for us based on the above. end.

Hi All, Just after a bit of advise please;

We viewed a house at the weekend, built 12 Years ago by David Wilson Homes.
It has a separate detached double garage.

The estate agent advised me that one of the garage walls was recently underpinned due to the footings not being deep enough for that specific type of garage on that type of earth. It is a brick garage, slate roof, concrete floor. It has only had the one wall underpinned.
I was also advised that the house which is separate from the garage was inspected and that is fine, no issues what so ever and all relevant paperwork to evidence the inspections etc.

I briefly viewed the garage wall and could see no signs of any cracks anywhere and no signs of re-pointing or new brickwork etc. If the agent didn't tell us we would never know.

Is this something of concern and would this have implications on house insurance?

Thanks in advance

 

[kbdiy]

I would say if you want to buy then get a full structural survey of the whole property and tell the sureveyor what the agent has said. Sounds a little odd to me that only one wall needed underpinning when you would assume that the earth surrounding the entire property would be the same.

And ... just being picky ... you ask for advice and people advise

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Ask the owners via the agent and they should have all of the documentation that went with it, so there will be a structural engineers assessment, a structural engineers design, a receipt/warranty from the contractor who undertook the work, confirmation that the works were undertaken in accordance with the design from Building Control. You also need to ask to see proof of current house insurance and proof that the current homeowners have disclosed the subsidence. Expect to pay more than normal for house insurance and that changing to another insurer may be problematic/not cheap though there are specialist brokers who deal with subsidence. If you get all that you are laughing, then as mentioned you need to get an up to date structural survey probably including some bore hole tests, this can be from the original engineers. Expect the sellers to pay for this.

If, upon request the homeowners are unwilling to get the big fat file out for you to look through when you ask then walk away. I would suspect they will be willing and should have all this stuff, that seems to be my experience when there is known subsidence from the outset.

You may find the price has been set a little lower for all this hassle too, in anycase you need to factor all this hassle in when you stick your offer in and bear in mind that future buyers who buy the property off you in the future will also factor all this in too and some buyers will not even entertain the prospect, some people will just walk away when they even just hear the word subsidence but there is more to it than that and if you are savvy you can take a measured view on it.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Damn double post!

 

[pinenot]

The normality here, is that the building inspector who's site this was, would view any foundation digs as to the suitability of the building being built. This only applies to the house never, or seldom to a stand alone garage, which is not regarded as being habitable.
If all previous digs for other properties in the immediate vicinity and the site manager is trusted, have been fine, then there is a tenancy to forgo formal inspection, but the inspector is there often enough to satisfy himself, things are as expected...sometimes things like yours slip through...pinenot

 

[joe-90]

Damn double post!

Why worry - it was a good one with loads of good info.

 

[greenie]

updated in first post.

 

[Hugh Jaleak]

I remember a Building Control Officer of many years experience commenting on the width of the footings that same Developer was digging on a large development. IIRC they were 18" wide, whereas the BCO's professional opinion was they should have been 24", but for some reason his hands were tied and he couldn't insist that they were widened...

His parting comment was "Well, I wouldnt buy one"...