The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

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.

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


I am intersted in the piling type methods - that was given to me as a
potentially cheaper way in my case, but that would have consisted of
building a sort of viaduct of vertical concrete posts, with beams laid
across othe top, to form the foundations.


I cannot see how it cold be done as a remedial method.


If anyone knows, please share.


ISTR reading somewhere that piles are inserted both sides of the walls
and linked at the base of the existing foundation. However that was a
long time ago and memory fades ....


So you DO need to pull up internal floors yes? That adds to the cost
quite a bit...

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.

--
Roger