house trouble

[veritysims]

hi, We moved into our (1927) house two years ago. The 'indepth' survey stated there were signs of subsidence although they were long standing and appeared not to be a problem. We have had an ongoing problem with blocked drains which was a concern in itself but now we have noticed that the existing cracks on the ceilings of the left side of the house have got deeper and wider.I have been told that the problems with the drains could have triggered subsidence. My neighbour told me that the house had been underpinned 15 yrs ago. However this was not mentioned on the survey and we were unaware of it. Our insurance policy states that any claims for subsidence would be denied if any previous work had been carried out. We were unaware that any work had been carried out when we bought the house so signed the policy. What can we do?

[Buenchico]

(2-part post):

You might have a claim against the surveyor but, to be honest, I rather doubt it.

The first question to be asked is 'What type of survey did you have done?'. If it was a full building survey then it might be arguable that the surveyor should have found evidence of the underpinning. Most home-buyers, however, don't have a full building survey carried out. More often than not, they will have an 'HSV'. This is a Homebuyer Survey & Valuation report. This is not as comprehensive as the full survey. To see what each includes, check here:
http://www.rics.org/Property/Residentialproperty/Residen tialpropertyvaluationandappraisal/understanding_surveys. htm

When you look at that link, you'll see that the description of both types of survey refers to "accessible parts" of the building. So, irrespective of the type of survey selected, if the only evidence of possible subsidence (or of the associated underpinning) was not "accessible", then the surveyor cannot be held to account.

[Buenchico]

If you're thinking of suing the surveyor then you need to see a solicitor but, before you do so, you really need to work out exactly what he should have spotted and, just as importantly, how he was meant to spot it. (If you can't prove that the surveyor missed 'accessible' facts, then you'll just be wasting money on employing a solicitor). The only way to do this will be to engage the services of another surveyor. (You're almost certainly going to have to do this anyway, since you'll need an assessment of the remedial work required - together with an estimate of the costs involved).

If you can't sue the surveyor, it's even less likely that you'll be able to sue the person who sold you the house (or their estate agent). Unless they were foolish enough to put into wrting (or unless you've got independent witnesses to verbal statements) that there were no subsidence problems, you won't have a case against them. (All statements made by the vendor and his/her agent should have been truthful but, unless you asked specific questions, there was no obligation upon them to mention the underpinning).

If you can't sue anyone then, regrettably, you'll have no choice but to get out the begging bowl and ask your bank for a loan to cover the costs of remedial work.

Chris

[spaced]

verity, i think chico's answers deserve a 3 star rating, dont you?

[woofgang]

This is a bit of a long shot and it is a while since we have moved but I remember that we had to answer a list of questions about the house relating to things like neighbour problems, flooding, insurance claims, loads of stuff.

I think that our seller had to do the same for the house we are bought. I can't remember whether there was a q about subsidence but it might be worth checking if you have a copy or asking your conveying solicitor if they have kept one.

If they did and subsidence or underpinning is mentioned and the answers indicate that the seller lied, you may have a shot but at them, not at the surveyor. The surveyor may well have been right in what he/she stated at the time of the survey, but the drain seepage may have changed circs.

[pignpog]

woofgang is right about the questions & answers.I sold my house 3 years ago. When I bought it, '96 it was apparent that there had been movement ie: cracks in brickwork etc. It was down to us to ask questions & solicitors acting for us to ask the same. The drain had collapsed many years before. They didn't class it as 'subsidence' they skirted this term. Someone somewhere WILL know, and really should take responsibility. I had to search to get all the proof of works done to the drain etc before I could sell, although I got told by my estate agents..... 'say nothing unless they ask' It has to be worth a shot, because you may not be lucky when you try to sell.

[pignpog]

I forgot to mention.. I remember letting in a buyers surveyor, and I remember he asked me about any building movement, and at that point I had shown him documents etc of works carried out. I dont know if this is normal? I wish you luck, dont give up just yet

[stanleyman]

Something significant like this should have been declared to you so you may have a claim for false representation against the previous owners, however you cannot take your neighbours word for that it has been underpinned. Contact the previous owners and record what they say to you.

Did they have building reg approval for the under pinning? You can check at the council, if so why did it not show up on a search? This needs to be sorted out otherwise it can cause you problems when you sell.