I'm sort-of half-seriously considering buying a house which has been underpinned. The property needs general 'doing up', but clearly the underpinning is the reason for it going to auction; and all other things being equal it would be an extremely des res at a very reasonable price, which is what attracted me in the first place.
I've had a look through the uk.d-i-y archives for previous threads on this subject, and most advice seems to be 'don't do it!' primarily because of likely hassle with selling in the future, and difficulties with obtaining insurance cover.
I had rejected the idea completely, but I've just been sent a copy of a "certificate of structural adequacy" signed by the structural engineers who supervised the underpinning in 1994 (and yes, they are still in business!)
What I'm now mulling over is, if I was to commission a structural survey now which would hopefully confirm that 10 years on, the building is perfectly sound; together with the above certificate which presumably guarantees the underpinning work carried out; wouldn't this serve to convince any prospective buyers that there wasn't a problem? Or am I nuts even to be considering this?
(I do appreciate there could be problems with obtaining insurance; I'm looking into that issue separately.)
If you're buying it to do up, forget it: a lot of buyers seem to be almost irrationally deterred by the house having been underpinned (according to a friend of mine who recently sold his). The upside is that if you're looking for a good property at below-market value for yourself, and you're satisfied that the underpinning has been done satisfactorily, then go for it! Our own house was previously underpinned (in fact it now sits on a concrete raft) and if I'd had the choice I'd have chosen it rather than a neighbouring house that hadn't been underpinned.
We kept the buildings insurance with the previous owners' insurers, and when I asked our brokers to look around for a competitive quote they said no other insurers wanted to touch the place. So FUD seems to extend beyond the unwashed buying public :-( Fortunately the existing insurers aren't exorbitant.
I live in a bungalow that was underpinned before I bought it. The work was done under the supervision of a firm that are still in business and who were most helpful in providing details. The sole problem I have encountered has been the reluctance of many insurers to take the business. If you can get that sorted out then fine. Otherwise walk away!
It's like considering a house that now has a foundation adequate for the ground conditions, vs. a neighbouring property with an undiscovered potential future problem.
I attempted to buy a house with a bloody great crack, where the cause was obvious and the repair would have been under my control, many others could also see the appeal so the bids went over market value + repair cost.
I would seriously consider it, especially as it sounds like you have the opportunity to add value elsewhere.
? How did you discover that the house had been underpinned?
If it is posable to remove the stigma of being underpinned then you could do very well, if you can't, the house will always be marked down because it has a history of a serious problem!
Just as a matter of interest, what sort of figures roughly are we talking about for underpinning say a 3 bed semi. It is hunderds or thousands? I suppose in reality, it depends on just how far down the works have to be done and quantity of materials required does it?
I had mine done about five years ago, the total cost came to around £23,000 and this included redecorating and the replacement of the down and upstairs bay window which were old metal frames and the openers had jammed beyond repair. The bill was paid by the insurance company, other than the first £1,000 which I had to pay myself. I think the actual underpinning side of it came to around £19,000. The house is a standard 1930s terrace, and this was for the front to be underpinned. It was decided that there was no problem with the back and indeed, since the work was done, I have had no more problems.
Because the area where I live in is clay soil, it is a known subsidence area and many, if not most, of the houses on my road have been underpinned. Given the history of the area, I would have thought that the fact the house had been underpinned was an advantage over a nearby house that hadn't and therefore the buyer would not know what problems lie ahead or what had been hidden by decorating by the previous owner.
This was the first time that I had had dealings with any contractors. The insurance company gave the job to an overseer (don't know what his title would be) who was basically responsible for getting everything done and paying the contractor. He made a detailed list of all the work that was to be done and detailed the materials to be used - down to what make of paint (Crown or Dulux). He put the contract out to bid and it was left to me to decide from the four bidders - as if I had a choice!. There was about seven thousand pounds difference in the quotes. I could have who I wanted, but the insurance company would only pay the lowest amount. I would have to make up the rest if I wanted another contractor.
The work was done, but I had to keep chasing up about things. I got the impression from the way that the work was carried out that, because it was being paid for by insurance, the workers decided that they didn't have to be that fussy in what they did. Several times I had to chase up through the overseer to get work corrected. One item was that the 18" concrete strip in front of the house was not laid level, with ponding causing water to remain in a puddle against the house wall - it took them three return trips to get that right. The decorating was very slipshod with wallpaper being patched in a very obvious way rather than using a fresh roll and almost a ½" gap left unpainted at the bottom of the skirting board - "the carpet will cover that". This is just two of many examples that I had to chase up on. It was certainly done in a very unprofessional way. The decorator gave me his card in case I wanted any decorating done in the future, but if that was his standard of work, then it wasn't a good advert. Perhaps in my naive way, I was expecting something better from people who do this for a living. I certainly do a better job than they did and I'm not an expert or a perfectionist.
You might think this, I might think this, any reasonable person might think this, but you will get a contrary view from surveyors and insurance companies. They would far rather you bought a property which might still fall down than one which had had serious amounts of remedial work and ought to stand until doomsday.
Loss adjuster.
You didn't have a very happy time with yours, by the sound of it. Ours, on the other hand, was excellent. He showed a deal of flexibility about what was and wasn't covered (in the end, we got much patchwork done after historical movement completely re-done), and was quite happy to take their preferred quote for redecoration and effectively contract it to me. This was close to a grand, so we ended up paying very little other than the cost of decorating materials.
As so called professionals were doing the work, you like everyone else would have expected a 1st class job to be done on your property regardless of who was paying the bill in the end. I have seen many instances of the so called proffessional brigades work and a 5 year old todler could probably do better in many instances. That's the trouble with insurance companies, love to take your money and promise you the earth, but when it comes to paying for repairs that you are insured against, they don't like parting with the dosh and so you finish up with the cowboys.
Just thought I'd follow this up in case anyone's interested (as if!)
Having been 'reassured' by the estate agent that the current owner had never had any problems with insurance, I chased up the present insurers (on the basis that with underpinned houses continuity of insurers is pretty important, if not vital) and found that under no circumstances would they be willing to reinsure it for me, or to transfer the existing policy to me etc. Most other insurers gave me a straight 'no'; only one indicated they would 'probably' take it on, but at a premium about 10 times normal.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.