Pellatt Road- Subsidence

[motorbird83]

Has anyone on Pellatt Rd had their home underpinned or had to deal with any subsidence issues?

Thanks for your help!

[Chase Dulwit]

I think most people in East Dulwich have at some stage, it's always been a problem here. I'm worrying about when the clay dries after the months of damp we've had. That's when the movement really starts happening.

[crackingup]

Hi

I'm not on Pellatt but Copleston and we've had it. Trees were the culprit - council failing to pollard them.

[Too Good To Be True]

Out of interest, when you have a subjective technical problem like subsidence, how do you ensure the insurance company does their job properly? What's to stop them doing a superficial touch up job and then tripling your premium so you don't renew?

Can you appoint a neutral structural engineer and add that to the claim?

[Mrjacko]

Once an insurance company arranges for repairs and underpinning they have a duty to ensure the work is carried out correctly. They have to continue to offer you insurance including further subsidence cover. If you try to change insurer after subsidence you will probably find that a new insurer will not cover you for subsidence.

The fact is the original insurer might up the insurance premium, but if they commissioned a shoddy job and cracking reappears they are still liable to fix it (again), it was their work in the first place. It is not in an insurers interests to do a bad job repairing subsidence as they have to continue insuring you..

It's like health insurance if you have problem the insurer has to cover you for all ongoing costs related to that condition. Change insurers and it becomes a known problem and the new company can exclude the known problem..

You will most probably find you now HAVE to renew with the original insurer. In fact they will now look for any reason to Get out of it, they have to offer you to renew, don't be late in paying that renewal premium in time!

If you wan to check this advice out try ringing round for better quotes and include the information about suspected or even actual subsidence!

[Penguin68]

It is ridiculous that a property which has been repaired (and the cause of the subsidence identified and sorted) has its premiums raised. Punishing drivers who have accidents by raising their premiums has some actuarial sense (not much) on the basis that he/ she might be a bad driver if they've had an accident, but a property which has had its problems fixed is a better risk now than before.

And, it is worth noting, in general most properties are still built to flex, somewhat, over time. Of course there are some subsidence issues which do require real work, but in many cases once superficial cracking is repaired the house is quite sound. Often that cracking is caused (even in 'subsidence areas - i.e. with clay sub-soils) by the existence (or removal) of trees - something which post-code risk allocation cannot forecast.

My house had an 'oh dear, this might be subsidence' crack in it 25 years ago, when we bought it. Over time that crack has tended to narrow - and this during both drought and flood - it certainly is no worse now than it has ever been.

Worries about subsidence started in the 70s (if I remember) - insurance companies like a reason to raise premiums but many structural engineers are now less concerned about it, except in some very clear cases where there is substantial sub-soil movement.

In London (and around here) some 'subsidence' evidence is actually cracking caused by bomb-damage - a friend found an entire wall had moved in his house which was traced to bomb pressure and was nothing to do with subsidence. His house still stands happily - as will any other with bomb-damage which has lasted through till now.

[crackingup]

It's unfair that property owners have their premiums hiked or their property value diminished by a subsidence claim if fixed properly, but as 'too good to be true' questions, how do you ensure your insurer does a sufficient job to remedy the damage etc.

In our particular case, the threat of trees causing tree root exacerbated subsidence was flagged in my neighbour's survey back in 2002 which she subsequently flagged to Southwark Council on numerous occasions, Southwark being both the freeholder and the local authority to a street property. Southwark did nothing but ignore correspondence including mine saying in 2008 that there was damage to the boundary wall, please investage. 2009 cracking spread to the building; doors dropping, windows jamming, bay window structure moving and water ingress.

At present we have our insurers saying they will only pay to rectify the damage (drains, brickwork, plasterwork, painting, glass repairs) and Southwark as freeholder wanting to underpin and recharge to us via their service charge as the insurance co won't pay for it.

FYI it transpires if Southwark is your freeholder they only 'self-insure' meaning that if repairs are required to the structure i.e freehold of your building, and it is an insured peril, they have to arrange the repairs and suffer the cost of repairs for any flats they own out of their own pocket (excess of ?750k). Leaseholders are insured for their contribution towards said repairs, but again it depends on what the insurer is prepared to pay towards and what Southwark want to do. Over the past four years they have tried to charge us through the annual service charge for subsidence related repairs and ignore emails to have these charges removed and forwarded onto the insurer.

Southwark have no interest in repairing damage to freehold properties given their ?750k excess, interstingly no mention of this in the leases or their summary insurance booklet made available to leaseholders; in our case they only got interested after my neighbour filed a complaint with the local government ombudsman.

Massive flaw in Southwark's right to buy scheme and properties being bought by original tenants/second/third purchasers.

In summary, don't buy a property near a big tree...