Thank you. hat ou aresaying is that it would be pssible to insure for - say - loss by fire, and accidental damage, but not loss or damage due to subsidence?
That is a possible and very attractive option, since we know that extension has been up for years, and isn't falling down...its just caused some noticeable cracking - up to 6mm in places.
So you DO need to pull up internal floors yes? That adds to the cost quite a bit...
The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:
That is the way I remember it but I have been unable to unearth the correspondence. This was quite some time ago, maybe as long as 15 years. Perhaps I should try firing up my Sinclair Sprectrum and see if any of the microdrives still work. :-)
snip
That is how I understand it but I have been unable to find the leaflet I had on the subject. I believe I got that from some government dept after the leaflet had been mentioned on this ng but that too was a considerable time ago, but by no means as long as 15 years.
I had a quick google and found 2 threads on underpinning (1998 and 1999) and the 2nd mentioned that piling both sides was optional but that it produced a more stable structure. No reference to any lealet though.
The natural philospoher:
I dont see how that would make any difference. In fact it might possibly cause extra problems.
yes :)
Any property in sound structural condition can be insured if you take insurance that specifically excludes subsidence. There are specialist insurers that take on these kind of risks.
Any property suffering from undiagnosed untreated subsidence will not get insurance, at least not without deception, which would render the policy invalid anyway. So its pointless phoning around. The only company to ask if the existing insurer, who might be prepared to continue insuring - although at several times the price, and, be aware of this, any fault that existed when you bought woulod be automatically exlcuded from insurance. Of course they might not mention that to you.
Do realise that house insurance is optional. Of course its desirable, but I would not assume that it was automatically essential.
If you get the present owner to make an insurance claim, they would hopefully fix it all up for you, minus the excess. Unfortunately this will seriously blight the property value, insurability and sale value.
This isnt at all realistic imho. There are loads of uninsurable properties that function as houses just fine. Mortgage cos will absolutely not lend on such houses, dramatically cutting the field of potential buyers. Sale value may be a few tens of k less.
I really doubt it would make any difference. Understand the problem: trees cause changes in water levels, which cause shrink or expansion in clay soils. It is this that cracks houses.
6mm is not large. If its not currently moving you could probably just glue it together at the cracks and leave it at that, although of course it is your surveyors advice you should follow, I'm certainly not trying to supplant that. If it is moving, things would be different, and probably a lot more expensive.NT
In my experience underpinning is about having enough balls to dig the dirt out in the first place, it is a DIY job - but it gave me some sleeples nights.
I would get a strutrial engineer in, to design the underpinning, and even dig an exploritry hole at the house before you purchase. This way you know the costs. If you tell the engineer you want to DIY the job, he should be able to design a DIYable answer.
Rick
It's only optional if you're a cash buyer - for most of us mere mortals who need a mortgage, you can bet your life it will be a precondition of the loan that buildings insurance is taken out. Your solicitors has to confirm to the lender that they have seen evidence of insurance before the funds are released...
...and a policy which excludes subsidence is never going to cut the mustard as far as a lender is concerned.
David
Roots are pretty persistant and can get through concrete so I wouldn't leap into doing this without more research. Maybe a plastic board would stop the roots better
Anna
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____|
Yes, if the OP is getting a mortgage, he's probably stuffed.
A business partner might be the other option if finance is lacking. NT
Well, accordng to teh guys who did soil tests and advised on foundatns or here, what happens is that teh tree roots permeate teh soil, and lower the local water content, causing long term shrinkage.
If youi remove the tree, or cut the roots, the water content returns to normal.
In order to satbilise my house, they isnisted teh foiundations go below teh level at which they ad found root hairs, and also insisetd that teh foundations be lined with polystyrene to abosrb any heave, and that tehfloors be suspended conctere for the same reason,. the raionale being that as the cut roots died, the soil would expand again slowly.
It would seem to me that a concrete underground wall going down below tree root level, would essentially place the tree in a 'pot' that would stop its roots drying out that part of the soil under the house, and immediately adjacent to it.
Of course teh attendant heave would result thereafter...
Good. In the end, we may simply do nothing, other than cosmetic patching, and pay extra insurance...and use that to get a price reduction..
Thanks. I take that point well.
It is when you borow money against...the property. Its a condition of lending.
We shall see.
This is not a cash buty - its part of a business plan doen on all borrowed money. The option to have a total loss of the structure is not something the bank would contenmplate.
Yes, but they don't e.g lower the water table in outer mongolia when growing in milton keynes.
The important thing is to prevent localised lowering in the vicinity of the structure. Keeping the roots from appraching closer than about 6 feet is probably good enough.
Its obviously useless on new builds - why no make the foundations that deep anyway? - but may have merit as a remedial action. I'll see what structural engineers have to say.
Yes. The question is how far and how fast.
The more I think about it the more I keep comong back to those trees.
Maybe they will have to go and thats that.
Roots cannot get through uncracked concrete. But I take your point.
I think they can. A growing tree applies absolutely enormous forces to anything that gets in its way. How on earth trees muster such forces I dont know, but they can push retaining walls over, break them in two, crack them etc. Having seen huge underground roots, I would assume they can do exactly the same below ground.
NT
Right. So building a shallow wall round the house isnt going to change how much water comes into and out of the soil - I wouldnt think anyway.
I guess we made different assumptions, maybe if it went well below root level it might work. But a surveyor will advise.
reduction..
I dont see how that will run. Banks dont finance buildings without knowing the slightest thing about them. And whatever you do, those cracks are uninsured when you buy.
desirable,
Yup, which is why I mentioned a sleeping business partner. But that might not suit you.
Then I see the present owner making a claim before exchange as being your only option, unless youre going to go the wealthy partner route, or take the dodgy risk of pretending the cracks dont exist.
I doubt that, but I lack the expertise to actually know.
NT
Entirely agree - settlement of the building so that under pinning is required is relatively uncommon.
I am assuming that the current owner has kept the property insured if it needs under pinning due to ground movement they'll have to pay. Buildings insurance is one of the few insurances I believe in. However I was delighted to find that I could halve the premium if I took a £2.5 excess. Since I don't want to pay for other peoples minor trouble and will likely find it quicker and easier to fix minor stuff myself I was happy. £250 quid /year saved every year. Probability of a major claim I reckon is less than 1%.
If the current owner did not insure his house against the really big trouble then he will have lost tens of thousands off the value for under-pinning.
Oh, yes, they can...BUT the actual growing part fa root is the root hair. Those extend into fissures and cracks,or inderneath, and expand. Then the damege is done to solids.
HOWEVER if they can't get past the obstacle, they stop. Roots won't go that deep if there are no nutrients there or there are easier ways around.
Think plant pots and concrete planters. Think concrete swers etc. The danger is not that the pipe is broken by roots growig into it - its that the roots grow around it, heave at it, crack it and THEN teh roots migrate inwards.
But a foot of poured concrete will not crack in my lifetime...
Oh yes. That is mandatory. Otherwise its totally useless - roots will just go under. This was the philosphy teh soil people passed to me - get your foundations below root hair level or else.
Willows travel far, but not deep IIRC. Beech likewise.
Ash and maple go deeper. Particualrly I think Ash.
The bank doesn't care any more than the property is worth X in good condition, and there is insurance to cover any potential reduction of its value below X.
Not sure what that has to do with anything?
Its importamnt to evaluate the risk and get insurance. That is true I think. It may be better cost/benefit to get the place cheaper and pay higher insurance though.
I think there is alot of paranoia and myth about subsidence. Apart from the few houses that fall into mineshafts or off the edge of cliffs, most houses just warp, twist, settle and lean. Like the tower of Pisa. Took several hundred years to et to a dangerous state...:-)
Current owner is a property management company who has let it in the past. I suspect its condition is one reason its about to be up for sale..its insured, and we beliecve a claim may be made, pending results of vendors structural survey.
>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.