Subsidence 12 years ago, House insurance confusion...

[robodelfy]

Hi, I bought my terraced house in Bristol 5 years ago. 12 years ago they had some relatively minor subsidence, due to a broken drain apparently.
I had a nightmare getting landlords insurance many years ago, but eventually got it with a broker. Now I'm moving back in and can't use them. I get some reasonable quotes coming up on comparison sites, but when I go to complete, they ask for some details about the subsidence, and I'm a bit confused...

- They ask for the cause, the only option that seems right is 'drain crash' Although I'm not certain what that means!

- They ask if the cause has been rectified or removed. I guess I can put removed, as they fixed the drain? But this was all before I lived there

- And the main thing I'm confused about...they ask if I have a structural survey report. I do have these given to me by the last owner (attached images). But it says on these reports that the
surveys are for the benefit of the named property owner only, and I would have to pay a fee to get them transferred although they may want to do another survey. So can I say I have these reports for insurance, or not? It seems ridiculous if I had to pay for another expensive survey when the problem has been sorted and is no longer an issue.

- The last owner gave me two reports, one from 2008 when the issue arose, and one from 2010, when I'm guessing they came back to check on it. In the first report (attached) they say the subsidence was caused by escaped water (the drain). In the second report 2 years later they say it has been caused by consolidation subsidence! I'm so confused
- Finally, the insurance company ask if there are any cracks above 2mm. I'm guessing they mean in the brick work, not the render?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated. My current insurance will be invalid very soon so I'm in a bit of a hurry!

thanks very much

 

[KenGMac]

robodelfy, good evening.

OK the term "Drain Crash" is a totally new one on me? can I ask whee did it come from?

The 2 "Certificates of Structural Adequacy" are on the face of it contradictory, But? the early one clearly states a causation as being an "Escape of Water" this is a clearly admissible cause for an insurance repair to rectify Subsidence.

The later dated Certificate sites " Consolidation Subsidence" ? this could??? refer to the ground drying out, following an Escape of Water, as noted as the principle cause in Certificate 1

it is worthy of note is that on the second? Certificate an insurance Company is mentioned [Aviva], this now gets interesting in that if "that insurer" was happy to accept a risk, they should be willing to accept the "risk" again.

You are correct, both "Certificates" do not apply to you, and legally you would get no benefit from them, but it is a starting point.

As for any "cracks" over 2.mm. have you seen any, if not just say none visible as an aside this answer to that question is solely dependent on how good your eyesight is????

As to where to go with getting insurance, i would send both certificates to your chosen potential Insurers and say this is the "Professional" opinion given at that time [12 YEARS AGO !!!]

Bottom line is if the property has not moved in 12 years then that is a fairly good indication that all is now stable [provided the drains do not fail again]

Ken.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why don't you go though one of the specialist brokers again, they'll know all this.

 

[HERTS P&D]

Why did you buy a house with subsidence? Was it cheap??

Andy

 

[Notch7]

Taking out insurance online is fine if you want something 100% standard.

For anything else it becomes risky, It carries the danger of not being covered due to non disclosure.

I used to have a property with a flying freehold - nightmare trying to get insurance, phoning up is hopeless, the call centre workers aren't insurance trained. I ended up finding a broker, it was much more expensive, but worth it for peace of mind.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why did you buy a house with subsidence? Was it cheap??

Andy

A house with a history of subsidence does not necessarily make it an unwise purchase, see my post in this thread: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/underpinning-update.354443/#post-2669583

 

[HERTS P&D]

Yes Freddie, but when you have 2 conflicting Certificates, that's when things look suspicious.

Andy

 

[robodelfy]

Why did you buy a house with subsidence? Was it cheap??

Andy

No it wasn't particularly cheap. But there is a big difference between minor subsidence due to a leaking drain that has been rectified, and subsidence caused by the land in the local area. Yes, for insurance it is annoying, although it's not as bad as it used to be as companies realise subsidence is not as bad as they used to think in most cases. As for selling the house, people realise that it was just a drain issue that has since been fixed and it has settled.

 

[robodelfy]

robodelfy, good evening.

OK the term "Drain Crash" is a totally new one on me? can I ask whee did it come from?

The 2 "Certificates of Structural Adequacy" are on the face of it contradictory, But? the early one clearly states a causation as being an "Escape of Water" this is a clearly admissible cause for an insurance repair to rectify Subsidence.

The later dated Certificate sites " Consolidation Subsidence" ? this could??? refer to the ground drying out, following an Escape of Water, as noted as the principle cause in Certificate 1

it is worthy of note is that on the second? Certificate an insurance Company is mentioned [Aviva], this now gets interesting in that if "that insurer" was happy to accept a risk, they should be willing to accept the "risk" again.

You are correct, both "Certificates" do not apply to you, and legally you would get no benefit from them, but it is a starting point.

As for any "cracks" over 2.mm. have you seen any, if not just say none visible as an aside this answer to that question is solely dependent on how good your eyesight is????

As to where to go with getting insurance, i would send both certificates to your chosen potential Insurers and say this is the "Professional" opinion given at that time [12 YEARS AGO !!!]

Bottom line is if the property has not moved in 12 years then that is a fairly good indication that all is now stable [provided the drains do not fail again]

Ken.

Thanks. The term drain crash was the option the insurance company gave me when adding the few details about subsidence.

Yes I believe you are right, that the first report says its escape of water as that is what they saw when they first arrived in 2008, and the second sort of confirms this but is talking about what happened after the water escaped.

I have emailed Cunningham and Lindsey to ask and see if its possible to transfer the certificate to me. I dont have the money right now to pay £600 for a survey. Also I'm reluctant to get a survey done when the house is fine, it would only be to appease the insurance companies.

I'd have to check for cracks, I'm not there right now. I know there are some cracks in the render, but this is due to a dodgy render patching job before I arrived.

 

[robodelfy]

Taking out insurance online is fine if you want something 100% standard.

For anything else it becomes risky, It carries the danger of not being covered due to non disclosure.

I used to have a property with a flying freehold - nightmare trying to get insurance, phoning up is hopeless, the call centre workers aren't insurance trained. I ended up finding a broker, it was much more expensive, but worth it for peace of mind.

Thanks, yeah I went with a broker 5 years ago and stayed with them until now. Actually after I did the comparison site, when I chose a company they just asked the few questions I mentioned in my post about subsidence, once I filled them in, I was able to get my quote and pay and it wasn't much more expensive. But of course I'm worried about the questions I answered coming back to haunt me in the event of a claim, specifically the one about having a report of structural adequacy, which I do and don't have!

 

[robodelfy]

Yes Freddie, but when you have 2 conflicting Certificates, that's when things look suspicious.

Andy

These certificates are from the same company, and they are a big company still in business. I don't think anything suspicious is going on. But I do need to look in to it

 

[robodelfy]

I just looked through the survey I had doe when I bought the house and found a short sentence :

''There was evidence of movement to the kitchen bottom RHS window (shown by the below red arrow) which would suggest that there has been a previous issue with the drains in the area as described by the “certificate of structural adequacy” supplied by Cunningham Lindsay surveying services. There was no evidence of recent cracking or movement.''

I'm not sure if that would help an insurance company. The survey also said elsewhere they couldn't comment on the work carried out after the subsidence claim as it was not visible

 

[^woody^]

Cunnigham Lindsey are insurance loss adjusters, not structural engineers, so anything from them is inherently biased. In any case they were not acting for the OP so anything they state does not apply to a third party (the OP), and likewise any proper structural report done for the previous owners will include a disclaimer stating that the report can not be used or relied upon by a third party. So bottom line, the OP does not actually have a structural engineer's report, and can state that on the insurance proposal.

 

[robodelfy]

Cunnigham Lindsey are insurance loss adjusters, not structural engineers, so anything from them is inherently biased. In any case they were not acting for the OP so anything they state does not apply to a third party (the OP), and likewise any proper structural report done for the previous owners will include a disclaimer stating that the report can not be used or relied upon by a third party. So bottom line, the OP does not actually have a structural engineer's report, and can state that on the insurance proposal.

Thanks, yes it does state that on the report from the previous owners. So what would your advice be?

I have just had a quote from Lloyds which seems very reasonable, and I remember 5 years ago they were one of the only companies who had no problem insuring me with subsidence issues in the past. But it asks this one question at the end :

• If subject to any previous subsidence damage, has had that damage fully rectified and is no longer required to be monitored.

Can I answer yes to this? As far as I know this is the case, but all I have to go by is the documents I attached to this thread, along with a document of works carried out. It certainly hasn't been monitored since I moved in.

I'm getting quite confused about it all, I appreciate the help from everyone here

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why can't you go through a specialist broker?