"Paul White" wrote
| Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
| application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair
enough)
| but are insisting that any buildings policy we take out has "normal
| premiums" and a subsidence excess of no more than £1000.
| What I don't understand is, what difference does it make to the lender ?
So
| long as we have sufficient buildings insurance surely the premiums and
| excess are irrelevant ?

They specify the subsidence excess as something you are likely to be able to
afford, ie to make sure the house is effectively insured. Otherwise there
would be nothing to stop you taking out insurance which had a subsidence
excess of £100,000 - that would be very cheap for you in premium but would
leave the house in effect uninsured against subsidence.

Dunno about the rest though.

Owain

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Paul White" wrote
| Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
| application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair
enough)
| but are insisting that any buildings policy we take out has "normal
| premiums" and a subsidence excess of no more than £1000.
| What I don't understand is, what difference does it make to the lender ?


I know it's not what you're asking but when we bought our house, which had
been underpinned, we made a point of insuring with the previous owner's
insurers; reckoning that (a) if they'd paid for the work to be done they'd
satisfied themselves that it had been done correctly and should have no
problems with reinsuring it (b) if there were a subsequent problem it would
reduce their latitude for argument about which insurer was liable.


(* I know neither of these is necessarily true on the planet Insurance
Companies live on)


--
John Stumbles
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+
Which Tyler: leader of the pedants' revolt.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Paul White" wrote
| Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
| application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair
enough)

Remember that when you come to sell the house that your buyers will face the
same problems as you currently are. Maybe not a problem if the market's up,
but if it's depressed...

"Paul White" wrote in message ...
Apologies if this is the wrong group - if so could someone suggest an
alternative.

We are in the process of buying a house (actually, TRYING to buy would be a
more accurate descirption !). The vendor bought the house cash, had a
structural survey done and had everything put right, paid for out of his own
pocket.

Part of the work included undepinning of the gable wall. The work has been
supervised by the strucutural surveyors who originally did the report and
has been given a certificate of completion by the planning department of the
local council to prove that building regs have been complied with.

Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair enough)
but are insisting that any buildings policy we take out has "normal
premiums" and a subsidence excess of no more than £1000.

What I don't understand is, what difference does it make to the lender ? So
long as we have sufficient buildings insurance surely the premiums and
excess are irrelevant ? They also seem concerned that the underpinning was
not done under an insurance claim by the current vendor. Surely the
important factor is that the work has been done to a high enough standard
and signed off by the relevant people ?

Does anyone know of any companies who insure previosuly undepinned
properties ? Apart from Bureau Insurance Services who I have already
contacted who have advised that their normal subsidence excess is £2500.

Comments on the Nationwide's stance also appreciated !


Hi Paul.

Subsidence is a funny subject - well its not, but insurers and
mortgage cos get very funny about it. As long as you have official
paperwork that states all is fixed there shouldnt be a problem - but
there always is.

There are many cos who will insure your situation and worse ones, just
talk to the high street brokers who will be able to steer you to the
ones that do this. Mostly its smaller companies.

Really this whole area has turned into a right game nowadays. The
stories about mortgage requirements are sometimes farcical, and really
demonstrate that a lot of companies simply dont have the technical
expertise to make reasonable decisions.

Its a game of pass the buck, who cares what it costs the buyer, and
how can we wriggle out of our responsibilities.

But you shouldnt have any prob gettnig insurance, even if many
companies wont touch, it some will. Try Royal + Sun Alliance for
example, I know of them knowingly insuring properties with bigger
issues than yours.


Regards, NT

N. Thornton wrote in message
om...
"Paul White" wrote in message
...
Apologies if this is the wrong group - if so could someone suggest an
alternative.

We are in the process of buying a house (actually, TRYING to buy would
be a
more accurate descirption !). The vendor bought the house cash, had a
structural survey done and had everything put right, paid for out of his
own
pocket.

Part of the work included undepinning of the gable wall. The work has
been
supervised by the strucutural surveyors who originally did the report
and
has been given a certificate of completion by the planning department of
the
local council to prove that building regs have been complied with.

Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair
enough)
but are insisting that any buildings policy we take out has "normal
premiums" and a subsidence excess of no more than £1000.

What I don't understand is, what difference does it make to the lender ?
So
long as we have sufficient buildings insurance surely the premiums and
excess are irrelevant ? They also seem concerned that the underpinning
was
not done under an insurance claim by the current vendor. Surely the
important factor is that the work has been done to a high enough
standard
and signed off by the relevant people ?

Does anyone know of any companies who insure previosuly undepinned
properties ? Apart from Bureau Insurance Services who I have already
contacted who have advised that their normal subsidence excess is £2500.

Comments on the Nationwide's stance also appreciated !


Hi Paul.

Subsidence is a funny subject - well its not, but insurers and
mortgage cos get very funny about it. As long as you have official
paperwork that states all is fixed there shouldnt be a problem - but
there always is.

There are many cos who will insure your situation and worse ones, just
talk to the high street brokers who will be able to steer you to the
ones that do this. Mostly its smaller companies.

Really this whole area has turned into a right game nowadays. The
stories about mortgage requirements are sometimes farcical, and really
demonstrate that a lot of companies simply dont have the technical
expertise to make reasonable decisions.

Its a game of pass the buck, who cares what it costs the buyer, and
how can we wriggle out of our responsibilities.

But you shouldnt have any prob gettnig insurance, even if many
companies wont touch, it some will. Try Royal + Sun Alliance for
example, I know of them knowingly insuring properties with bigger
issues than yours.


Regards, NT

Nationwide are being naturally cagey 'cos of the potential money recovery
problems involved in any further structural work being needed. Yes, all the
paperwork ect is in order, yes, there will be a defined liability route if
problems occur. But ... say they lend all their money to you and the house
falls down. The line of financial liability or blame, via the insurance
coverers, could eventually lead to the lone individual who had the original
work done. This is bad news from a morgage lender or insurers point of view
as for various reasons it may be impossible to recover costs from this
individual or the structural people he employed if he/they are at fault.
Nationwide have then lost all the money they lent you.
Dealing on a claim with an insurance company doesn't carry this risk as the
money will *always* be available after liabilities have been argued over.

Unsatisfactory underpinning work does get done as I found out myself.
My original underpinning work had been done under the insurance, signed off
by the structural surveyors and the local council standards people, 30 year
guarantees placed with the deeds. 3 years later I got that sinking feeling
again but it was again handled seamlessly by the insurance companies with
absolutely no problems as they had traceable liabilities to other insurance
companies. They've now shelled out £25k on my house and I'm pleased to be
still living here. The story could have been a lot different if the insurers
were still chasing the original builder or surveyors.
regards
john

"Paul White" wrote in message
...
Our lenders (the Nationwide) are being very difficuly with the mortgage
application. They are refusing to provide their own insurance (fair
enough)
but are insisting that any buildings policy we take out has "normal
premiums" and a subsidence excess of no more than £1000.

Comments on the Nationwide's stance also appreciated !

I had some friends who had exactly the same problem with
the Nationwide. They decided to walk away in the end on
the premise that they would have the same hassles when they
decided to sell. If you really want the house, then I would
switch lender to one which takes a more personal/reasonable
approach.

Al

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, parish
parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote on Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:06:04 +0000:

I'll bet that the Council weren't liable for a single penny, even though
their "standards people" signed of the original work?

If we're talking about Building Control, then they only inspect to
ensure that the work complies with the requirements for health, safety
and welfare, not for financial losses. I pay my Council Tax. I don't
want those taxes to pay for failures in work which was not
underwritten by an insurance company or a structural engineer's
liability insurance.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson

parish wrote:
Hugo Nebula wrote:
If we're talking about Building Control, then they only
inspect to ensure that the work complies with the
requirements for health, safety and welfare, not for
financial losses.

Bull****. They have the final say on whether it's built
correctly or not. The people with the ultimate authority
take the ultimate responsibility.

Damned pen-pushing jumped-up pontifical clerks.


Read http://www.wronglybuilthouses.co.uk/ and convince me
that the Local Authority's Building Control Dept. are
neither incompetent nor corrupt. The builder may have been
a cowboy but the BC people should have prevented this.

Sloppy bunch of herberts with cushy jobs.


I pay my Council Tax. I don't

So do I, but I then have to pay on top of that for Planning
Permission, Building Control Approval, and the BC inspections.
When my extension is built I shall be watching the BCO like
a hawk to make damn sure I get my monies worth.

want those taxes to pay for failures in work which was not
underwritten by an insurance company or a structural engineer's
liability insurance.

If the laughable "BCO" is going to pass something, he should be
personally liable. That'd sort 'em out. Good riddance.



__________________________________________________ ______________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com

From the chaotic regions of the Cryptosphere, parish
parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:30:03 +0000:

Hugo Nebula wrote:

If we're talking about Building Control, then they only inspect to
ensure that the work complies with the requirements for health, safety
and welfare, not for financial losses.

Bull****. They have the final say on whether it's built correctly or
not. The people with the ultimate authority take the ultimate
responsibility.

Not at all. There are many ways of complying with the Building
Regulations, and it is down to the designer (architect/ engineer) to
make sure that it does. Checking by the BCO does not abrogate the
designers of that responsibility, and when it comes to matters which
do not adversely affect health, safety or welfare (i.e., finishes,
decoration, landscaping, etc), the BCO has no say at all.

Read http://www.wronglybuilthouses.co.uk/ and convince me that the Local
Authority's Building Control Dept. are neither incompetent nor corrupt.
The builder may have been a cowboy but the BC people should have
prevented this.

Was the site mentioned inspected by the Local Authority or an Approved
Inspector (the NHBC)? I don't see any mention of the Council's
Building Control in there.

When my extension is
built I shall be watching the BCO like a hawk to make damn sure I get my
monies worth.

Yes, certainly make sure that your Local Authority Building Control
Surveyor inspects the work to make sure it complies with the
requirements for health & safety, but they are not liable for
consequential financial loss.
--
Hugo Nebula
"You know, I'd rather see this on TV,
Tones it down" - Laurie Anderson