|
|
|
Buying an underpinned house? |
|---|
| message from Lobster on 18 May 2004 |
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.)
Any thoughts appreciated.
David
|
| John Stumbles replied to Lobster on 18 May 2004 |
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.
|
| Toby replied to John Stumbles on 18 May 2004 |
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.
|
| Stuart replied to Lobster on 19 May 2004 |
? 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!
|
| troubleinstore replied to Stuart on 19 May 2004 |
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?
|
| romic replied to troubleinstore on 19 May 2004 |
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.
Roger
|
| John Laird replied to romic on 19 May 2004 |
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.
|
| Lobster replied to Stuart on 19 May 2004 |
The estate agent coughed, surprisingly enough before we shelled out on
a survey
Agreed.
Thanks for all the advice everyone. On balance, I'm still not sure
I'm any the wiser though!
David
|
| Peter Crosland replied to Lobster on 18 May 2004 |
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!
|
|
