Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.
--
Tim Lamb

On 08/11/2012 14:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

Agreed it usually a red flag.

However, in this case it sound as if the existing structure is OK, and
the underpinning/re-inforcing of foundations is only to cope with the
alterations?

Get the Structural Eng to call it re-inforcing or somesuch, ditto on all
other paperwork/quotes JUST to underline the real reason for doing it.

Phil.

On 08/11/2012 15:37, Phil wrote:
On 08/11/2012 14:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

Agreed it usually a red flag.

However, in this case it sound as if the existing structure is OK, and
the underpinning/re-inforcing of foundations is only to cope with the
alterations?

Get the Structural Eng to call it re-inforcing or somesuch, ditto on all
other paperwork/quotes JUST to underline the real reason for doing it.

Phil.
e.g.often has to be done when removing an internal loadbearing wall, as
the 'pillars' left supporting the steel (supporting everything above)
need a more substantial foundation now that it's area has been
drastically reduced.....

On 08/11/2012 15:34, Huge wrote:
On 2012-11-08, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

Badly.


In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

Spot on.

Don't understand why, provided the underpinning is competently undertaken.

We were underpinned around 25 years ago, due to subsidence. There has
been no movement since, the whole of the outside brickwork was repointed
at that time and no cracks have reappeared.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?
In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural
engineer prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.
Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading
to problems with future house sales.

Is this prior to any actual subsidence being observed?

Yes.

Exploratory digs have found what is considered to be inadequate
corbelling.


--
Tim Lamb

In message , Phil
writes
On 08/11/2012 15:37, Phil wrote:
On 08/11/2012 14:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

Agreed it usually a red flag.

However, in this case it sound as if the existing structure is OK, and
the underpinning/re-inforcing of foundations is only to cope with the
alterations?

Get the Structural Eng to call it re-inforcing or somesuch, ditto on all
other paperwork/quotes JUST to underline the real reason for doing it.

Phil.
e.g.often has to be done when removing an internal loadbearing wall, as
the 'pillars' left supporting the steel (supporting everything above)
need a more substantial foundation now that it's area has been
drastically reduced.....

I think this is probably the issue.

London row housing. Basement, two further floors and a pitched slate
roof.

At some later stage, the rear wall was opened and a two storey flat
roofed extension added across about half the width.

Most of the neighbours have created a fourth floor by bringing the roof
out in a rectangular full width dormer (is that Mansard?)

--
Tim Lamb

On 08/11/12 17:03, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Phil
writes
On 08/11/2012 15:37, Phil wrote:
On 08/11/2012 14:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural
engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

Agreed it usually a red flag.

However, in this case it sound as if the existing structure is OK, and
the underpinning/re-inforcing of foundations is only to cope with the
alterations?

Get the Structural Eng to call it re-inforcing or somesuch, ditto on all
other paperwork/quotes JUST to underline the real reason for doing it.

Phil.
e.g.often has to be done when removing an internal loadbearing wall,
as the 'pillars' left supporting the steel (supporting everything
above) need a more substantial foundation now that it's area has been
drastically reduced.....

I think this is probably the issue.

London row housing. Basement, two further floors and a pitched slate roof.

At some later stage, the rear wall was opened and a two storey flat
roofed extension added across about half the width.

Most of the neighbours have created a fourth floor by bringing the roof
out in a rectangular full width dormer (is that Mansard?)

Mansard is the usual pattern here in central London, though I would not
describe it as 'rectangular'. Mansard is double pitched: a steep (almost
vertical) bit at the bottom and and shallower pitch at the top, with a
dormer window in the steep bit.





--
djc

On 08/11/12 14:51, Tim Lamb wrote:

Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

I don't think so: Its more likely that a job well done would improve
saleability.

It may be an issue with insurance - although it shouldn't be



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[Default] On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:51:34 +0000, a certain chimpanzee, Tim
Lamb , randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:


Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

My experience of 15 years ago:

Victorian terraced house with some slight cracks in wall. Nothing to
worry me, but to prove to future buyers, I called in the insurance co
to make a 'claim' (i.e., have them monitor the wall). After a year
they duly reported that there was no movement, and that any claim for
patching the plaster, etc., was within the excess.

Come time to sell, one of the potential buyers wasn't able to get
buildings insurance, as "we don't insure buildings with a history of
claims for subsidence"!
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have I strayed"?

In message , Hugo Nebula
writes
[Default] On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:51:34 +0000, a certain chimpanzee, Tim
Lamb , randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:


Does anyone have experience of how insurers view underpinning?

In this particular case it is being recommended by a structural engineer
prior to a loft conversion and other internal alterations.

Somewhere my mind has latched on to this being bad news and leading to
problems with future house sales.

My experience of 15 years ago:

Victorian terraced house with some slight cracks in wall. Nothing to
worry me, but to prove to future buyers, I called in the insurance co
to make a 'claim' (i.e., have them monitor the wall). After a year
they duly reported that there was no movement, and that any claim for
patching the plaster, etc., was within the excess.

Come time to sell, one of the potential buyers wasn't able to get
buildings insurance, as "we don't insure buildings with a history of
claims for subsidence"!

Yes. Exactly my concern.

I have passed on the suggestion to avoid *underpinning* terminology and
to emphasise *work necessitated by additional structural load*:-)

Currently, a further expert is considering the need/advisability.
Foundation corbelling has been found but not considered adequate where a
soil pipe has been fitted after the original construction.

--
Tim Lamb