Underpinning costs...?
Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of
it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. In fact any information on mild subsidence and its remedy would be welcome. |
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. Four years ago it cost a neighbour £4k to drill and fill sixteen piles of 25 feet deep. As I assume this situation isn't so bad (this was on an ex-marsh) you should be able to interpolate down. |
Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure
the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly escalate way beyond your estimate. Peter Crosland |
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. In fact any information on mild subsidence and its remedy would be welcome. I seem to recall a test case (?? in Wimbeldon??) where if the work was done on the extension when it was built under normal planning and building regs control the local authority picked up liability as they had charged for inspections. It was following that case that local authoities increased the required depths of foundations markedly. AWEM |
Mike wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. Four years ago it cost a neighbour £4k to drill and fill sixteen piles of 25 feet deep. As I assume this situation isn't so bad (this was on an ex-marsh) you should be able to interpolate down. Thank you muchly sir! |
Peter Crosland wrote:
Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly escalate way beyond your estimate. Can you actually prvide evidence for that? I have seen underpinnig done roun here and it was certaily not a total ecsalation such as you describe. Lbour intensive, messy, and a right royal pain, but it took only about 6 weeks of three blokes to do a similar section. At a garnd a weekm thats 18 grand... ...walking away is not an option here, unless it truly is 'cheaper to demolish and start over'...which would be about 100k estimated. Peter Crosland |
Andrew Mawson wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. In fact any information on mild subsidence and its remedy would be welcome. I seem to recall a test case (?? in Wimbeldon??) where if the work was done on the extension when it was built under normal planning and building regs control the local authority picked up liability as they had charged for inspections. It was following that case that local authoities increased the required depths of foundations markedly. I would not be surprised. When I pulled down my old house, which had foundations of a massive 6 inches, and was showing mild signs of subsidence due to trees and clay, in one corner they made me go down 2.2 meters...for the new ones.. But these days, with a digger and simply pouring concrete,the opportunity cost on a new property is not that great, to add massive foundations. I often wondered what 'Time Team 3000' woild have to say about it in due course.. .. AWEM |
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message t... Peter Crosland wrote: Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly escalate way beyond your estimate. Can you actually prvide evidence for that? I have seen underpinnig done roun here and it was certaily not a total ecsalation such as you describe. Lbour intensive, messy, and a right royal pain, but it took only about 6 weeks of three blokes to do a similar section. At a garnd a weekm thats 18 grand... ..walking away is not an option here, "Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend" What's there not to walk away from? Is it the only house for sale in the world? tim |
Huge wrote:
The Natural Philosopher writes: Peter Crosland wrote: Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly escalate way beyond your estimate. Can you actually prvide evidence for that? I have seen underpinnig done roun here and it was certaily not a total ecsalation such as you describe. Lbour intensive, messy, and a right royal pain, but it took only about 6 weeks of three blokes to do a similar section. At a garnd a weekm thats 18 grand... ...walking away is not an option here, unless it truly is 'cheaper to demolish and start over'...which would be about 100k estimated. You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it, you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless. Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners. Its not for residential purposes BTW. That's why its had to walk away. Its required for business purposes and has the requisite planning for that type of activity, and is in a perfect location for it - with no suitable alternatives anywhere remotely near. I totally agree that an uninsurable property is worth only plot value less clearance costs. Its not as bad as you think - there are signs of cracks and maybe up to an inch of sink in the worst place. Since estimated 1970. I don't think its dangerous, or will fall down, but fit for purpose means stopping the process and making good the existing damage. Costs of fixing it to a level that satisfies BCO and insurance companies is the issue. One assumes contacting the correct type of structural engineers, and getting a report and recommendation and implementing it is what will have that effect. BTW, and this is from personal, current, experience, underpinning is no longer flavour of the month. We have a problem due to adjacent trees (mainly a mature oak about 20 feet from the house) and the insurers want all of them cut down. When I mentioned underpinning, both my structural engineer and the insurer's structural engineer said "it doesn't work". Well it does, and it doesn't. As I said before my house had tree problems. I being reluctant to remove them, the engineers simply said 'well we well go down soil sample wise to a level at which the tree roots are not present in any form, and then some, and build a concrete wall that will stop fresh roots dead in their tracks' essentially. They also insisted on a raised concrete floor to allow the already shrunk earth to expand without upsetting the floor levels, which is a serious problem if you simply cut the tree down - soil moisture returns, expansion happens and the building gets pushed up again. The essence of underpoinning or piling - as I understand it - is to get the solid base of the fondations down to a level with stable charcteristics, and let the soil above move as it will, without that affecting the structural integrity of the house. 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. We await the men with chainsaws. :o( Indeed.That is an option as well in the current case, for a couple of nasty conifers. But the main protagonist is a rather nice weeping willow some 10 meters from the worst corner. I am fond of willows, though they have a reputation for this kind of thuggery. What might be very simple and totally possible is to trench down a couple of meters about a foot from the footings, and fill that with concrete. That would cut the roots there, and stop any further penetration to the footings area. I believe willow roots are pretty shallow. Of course doing that UNDER the footings and backfilling with concrete and mortar would be ideal.. |
RIBA recommend a minimum of forty metres for willows!
Peter Crosland |
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Huge wrote: The Natural Philosopher writes: You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it, you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless. Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners. I would add that you should contact the current insurers and check whether they are willing to insure any future buyer of the property to ensure continuity of cover by the same insurer. I always thought there was an 'unwritten rule' amongst insurance companies that they would always do this; however when I recently looked into buying a property which had been underpinned (properly, with all necesary guarantees etc) the current insurers said 'no'. Which rang alarm bells. A few enquiries via brokers produced either responses of 'not-with-a-bargepole' or 4-figure annual premiums (where about 150GBP would be the norm). We walked away! David |
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: snip You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it, you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless. Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners. Would the current insurer have an obligation to continue to offer insurance on the property? Its not for residential purposes BTW. That's why its had to walk away. Its required for business purposes and has the requisite planning for that type of activity, and is in a perfect location for it - with no suitable alternatives anywhere remotely near. I totally agree that an uninsurable property is worth only plot value less clearance costs. That seems a bit extreme. If the property doesn't get any worse then not insuring might be financially beneficial. Total loss claims are very rare and those from subsidence even rarer. I once tried to shift my house insurance but putative new insurer wouldn't cover it for subsidence on the grounds that it was too old and decrepit with shallow to nonexistent foundations and, to add insult to injury, refused to reduce the premium to take account of the lack of cover for subsidence. 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 .... -- Roger |
tim wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message t... Peter Crosland wrote: Walking away is the only rational option. It will be impossible to insure the property and the costs of a properly designed scheme would certainly escalate way beyond your estimate. Can you actually prvide evidence for that? I have seen underpinnig done roun here and it was certaily not a total ecsalation such as you describe. Lbour intensive, messy, and a right royal pain, but it took only about 6 weeks of three blokes to do a similar section. At a garnd a weekm thats 18 grand... ..walking away is not an option here, "Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend" What's there not to walk away from? Is it the only house for sale in the world? Its the ideal place to run a specialised business from, has planning permission for it, and is in every other way totally ideal for the job. There is nothing or 15 miles - the catchment area of that business - remotely as good. tim |
Huge wrote:
The Natural Philosopher writes: [90 lines snipped] But the main protagonist is a rather nice weeping willow some 10 meters from the worst corner. I am fond of willows, though they have a reputation for this kind of thuggery. The arborist who came to look at our situation said that the rule of thumb is 1.5 times the diameter of the drip line for oaks and twice for willows, although the rule I've heard for willows is that if you can see them from an upstairs windows, they're too close. Pity, 'cos I like willows. Ten that is probably the actual real live issue, and cutting its roots will stabilize that corner. I am leaning (haha) towards it being less of a problem than I thought. I think the next thing is to await the sellers structural report. My gut instinct is to go deep alongside, and pour some concrete to prevent the roots getting back in. |
Peter Crosland wrote:
RIBA recommend a minimum of forty metres for willows! Peter Crosland And RIBA gave an award to the ghastly monstrosity up the road here, that frankly was a candidate for demolition before it was even up. |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip Isn't this what building insurance is for? guesstimates. In fact any information on mild subsidence and its remedy would be welcome. -- Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter. The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html |
Ed Sirett wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip Isn't this what building insurance is for? [cynic] No. Building (in fact, all) insurance is there to make money for the share holders. They REALLY don't like paying out. Give them 1/2 an excuse and you're on your own!! [/cynic] |
Lobster wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Huge wrote: The Natural Philosopher writes: You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it, you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless. Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners. I would add that you should contact the current insurers and check whether they are willing to insure any future buyer of the property to ensure continuity of cover by the same insurer. I always thought there was an 'unwritten rule' amongst insurance companies that they would always do this; however when I recently looked into buying a property which had been underpinned (properly, with all necesary guarantees etc) the current insurers said 'no'. Which rang alarm bells. A few enquiries via brokers produced either responses of 'not-with-a-bargepole' or 4-figure annual premiums (where about 150GBP would be the norm). We walked away! Good advice. I will relay that to the prospective purchaser. However in terms of 4 figure insurance, well 1000 quid a year more is - at say 5%, £20,000 equivalent on purchase price. So since this is a commercial buy, simply another factor in the cost benefit equation. Knock 20 grand off the asking, and it comes to the same in the end. I reckon the site alone is worth about 150k, and the current 'guide price' is 300, but we suspect that it might be worth offering 265... My 'demolish and rebuild' costs show that it could be reproduced in good order as a 4-5 bedroom house for around 450k including purchase, so in the final analysis, if the property is cheap enough its not a losing proposition. David |
Roger wrote:
The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: snip You really, really, *really* should make sure you can get buildings insurance on this property. If you can't, even should you be foolish enough to buy it, you won't be able to sell it, so it will be valueless. Its insured right now, and there may be a claim on it by the current owners. Would the current insurer have an obligation to continue to offer insurance on the property? Its not for residential purposes BTW. That's why its had to walk away. Its required for business purposes and has the requisite planning for that type of activity, and is in a perfect location for it - with no suitable alternatives anywhere remotely near. I totally agree that an uninsurable property is worth only plot value less clearance costs. That seems a bit extreme. If the property doesn't get any worse then not insuring might be financially beneficial. Total loss claims are very rare and those from subsidence even rarer. I once tried to shift my house insurance but putative new insurer wouldn't cover it for subsidence on the grounds that it was too old and decrepit with shallow to nonexistent foundations and, to add insult to injury, refused to reduce the premium to take account of the lack of cover for subsidence. 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. 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... |
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 |
The natural philospoher:
What might be very simple and totally possible is to trench down a couple of meters about a foot from the footings, and fill that with concrete. That would cut the roots there, and stop any further penetration to the footings area. I believe willow roots are pretty shallow. I dont see how that would make any difference. In fact it might possibly cause extra problems. Of course doing that UNDER the footings and backfilling with concrete and mortar would be ideal.. yes :) Any property in sound structural condition can be insured if you take insurance that specifically excludes subsidence. There are specialist insurers that take on these kind of risks. Any property suffering from undiagnosed untreated subsidence will not get insurance, at least not without deception, which would render the policy invalid anyway. So its pointless phoning around. The only company to ask if the existing insurer, who might be prepared to continue insuring - although at several times the price, and, be aware of this, any fault that existed when you bought woulod be automatically exlcuded from insurance. Of course they might not mention that to you. Do realise that house insurance is optional. Of course its desirable, but I would not assume that it was automatically essential. If you get the present owner to make an insurance claim, they would hopefully fix it all up for you, minus the excess. Unfortunately this will seriously blight the property value, insurability and sale value. I totally agree that an uninsurable property is worth only plot value less clearance costs. This isnt at all realistic imho. There are loads of uninsurable properties that function as houses just fine. Mortgage cos will absolutely not lend on such houses, dramatically cutting the field of potential buyers. Sale value may be a few tens of k less. My gut instinct is to go deep alongside, and pour some concrete to prevent the roots getting back in. I really doubt it would make any difference. Understand the problem: trees cause changes in water levels, which cause shrink or expansion in clay soils. It is this that cracks houses. 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. 6mm is not large. If its not currently moving you could probably just glue it together at the cracks and leave it at that, although of course it is your surveyors advice you should follow, I'm certainly not trying to supplant that. If it is moving, things would be different, and probably a lot more expensive. NT |
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: Been looking at a poetntial buy for a friend, and it looks like part of it - a rather shoddy 70's extension - has a bit of a subsidence problem. Possibly due to a couple of trees nearby - one a willow. IF - and pending investigation - it needs underpinning, has anyone any ball park estimates for costs? Walking away from the buy is not in the frame really - its more about price adjustment to reflect the condition. Relevant information is :- - access for machinery is no problem - it's on clay soil, and wettish clay (quite low lying) - about 20 meters of wall might need treatment. - my guess is there are minimal foundations - one or two feet at the very most. My wet finger guesstimate was a grand a meter absolute tops, thinking that it could hardly take more than a week for a bloke with a shovel and a cement mixer to dig out a bit and fill it with concrete. At 10 quid a day max. It could be possible to take up the internal floors as well if this is desirable, but that would be far more of a job. I am after any information anyone has on techniques that are employed to do this job, and any real world data that is better than my wet finger guesstimates. In fact any information on mild subsidence and its remedy would be welcome. In my experience underpinning is about having enough balls to dig the dirt out in the first place, it is a DIY job - but it gave me some sleeples nights. I would get a strutrial engineer in, to design the underpinning, and even dig an exploritry hole at the house before you purchase. This way you know the costs. If you tell the engineer you want to DIY the job, he should be able to design a DIYable answer. Rick |
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:13:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: What might be very simple and totally possible is to trench down a couple of meters about a foot from the footings, and fill that with concrete. That would cut the roots there, and stop any further penetration to the footings area. I believe willow roots are pretty shallow. Roots are pretty persistant and can get through concrete so I wouldn't leap into doing this without more research. Maybe a plastic board would stop the roots better Anna ~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642 |
Yes, if the OP is getting a mortgage, he's probably stuffed.
A business partner might be the other option if finance is lacking. NT |
|
Anna Kettle wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:13:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: What might be very simple and totally possible is to trench down a couple of meters about a foot from the footings, and fill that with concrete. That would cut the roots there, and stop any further penetration to the footings area. I believe willow roots are pretty shallow. Roots are pretty persistant and can get through concrete so I wouldn't leap into doing this without more research. Maybe a plastic board would stop the roots better Roots cannot get through uncracked concrete. But I take your point. Anna ~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England |""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs / ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc |____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642 |
Roots cannot get through uncracked concrete. But I take your point.
I think they can. A growing tree applies absolutely enormous forces to anything that gets in its way. How on earth trees muster such forces I dont know, but they can push retaining walls over, break them in two, crack them etc. Having seen huge underground roots, I would assume they can do exactly the same below ground. NT |
Well, accordng to teh guys who did soil tests and advised on foundatns
or here, what happens is that teh tree roots permeate teh soil, and lower the local water content, causing long term shrinkage. Right. So building a shallow wall round the house isnt going to change how much water comes into and out of the soil - I wouldnt think anyway. It would seem to me that a concrete underground wall going down below tree root level, would essentially place the tree in a 'pot' that would stop its roots drying out that part of the soil under the house, and immediately adjacent to it. I guess we made different assumptions, maybe if it went well below root level it might work. But a surveyor will advise. Good. In the end, we may simply do nothing, other than cosmetic patching, and pay extra insurance...and use that to get a price reduction.. I dont see how that will run. Banks dont finance buildings without knowing the slightest thing about them. And whatever you do, those cracks are uninsured when you buy. Do realise that house insurance is optional. Of course its desirable, but I would not assume that it was automatically essential. It is when you borow money against...the property. Its a condition of lending. Yup, which is why I mentioned a sleeping business partner. But that might not suit you. This is not a cash buty - its part of a business plan doen on all borrowed money. The option to have a total loss of the structure is not something the bank would contenmplate. Then I see the present owner making a claim before exchange as being your only option, unless youre going to go the wealthy partner route, or take the dodgy risk of pretending the cracks dont exist. The important thing is to prevent localised lowering in the vicinity of the structure. Keeping the roots from appraching closer than about 6 feet is probably good enough. I doubt that, but I lack the expertise to actually know. NT |
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:37:20 +0000, Andrew Chesters wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote: On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip Isn't this what building insurance is for? [cynic] No. Building (in fact, all) insurance is there to make money for the share holders. They REALLY don't like paying out. Give them 1/2 an excuse and you're on your own!! Entirely agree - settlement of the building so that under pinning is required is relatively uncommon. I am assuming that the current owner has kept the property insured if it needs under pinning due to ground movement they'll have to pay. Buildings insurance is one of the few insurances I believe in. However I was delighted to find that I could halve the premium if I took a £2.5 excess. Since I don't want to pay for other peoples minor trouble and will likely find it quicker and easier to fix minor stuff myself I was happy. £250 quid /year saved every year. Probability of a major claim I reckon is less than 1%. If the current owner did not insure his house against the really big trouble then he will have lost tens of thousands off the value for under-pinning. -- Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter. The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html |
|
|
Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:37:20 +0000, Andrew Chesters wrote: Ed Sirett wrote: On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: snip Isn't this what building insurance is for? [cynic] No. Building (in fact, all) insurance is there to make money for the share holders. They REALLY don't like paying out. Give them 1/2 an excuse and you're on your own!! Entirely agree - settlement of the building so that under pinning is required is relatively uncommon. I am assuming that the current owner has kept the property insured if it needs under pinning due to ground movement they'll have to pay. Buildings insurance is one of the few insurances I believe in. However I was delighted to find that I could halve the premium if I took a £2.5 excess. Since I don't want to pay for other peoples minor trouble and will likely find it quicker and easier to fix minor stuff myself I was happy. £250 quid /year saved every year. Probability of a major claim I reckon is less than 1%. If the current owner did not insure his house against the really big trouble then he will have lost tens of thousands off the value for under-pinning. Current owner is a property management company who has let it in the past. I suspect its condition is one reason its about to be up for sale..its insured, and we beliecve a claim may be made, pending results of vendors structural survey. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter