[spidermonkey09]

Sounds a lot like the houses I lived in as a kid, a succession of them which my parents did up and sold before moving onto the next. Depends how much you like the house I guess. As you say its old so it was never going to come with a clean bill of health. I'd be tempted to see what the structural engineer has to say. If they're happy enough the house is sound then you can think about what sort of discount to negotiate. Its definitely odd nobody has any record of the work but I can't see what would be gained by this unless it was a cash job between friends?

I feel like you definitely have the right to ask whether its been rented out and if you aren't satisfied with the answers that might be another red flag. They aren't unreasonable questions. Re the knotweed, not sure how big a deal it is but if its guaranteed for another 7 years and then you might have to get it dealt with again on an ongoing basis it might be fine. Is it the sort of house you were imagining living in forever? that said theres always others out there and everyone else is saying walk away, so maybe they're right; I think a lot of old houses do have some sort of issue that would be characterised as serious in a newer house though.

[teestub]

The knotweed will depend on the extent and location of the stands. If it’s an isolated bit near a boundary or down a garden, probably not too much of a bit deal, and modern treatments are pretty decent. If it’s a large volume near buildings or hard standing then potentially more problematic.

Definite bad smell around all the structural stuff being ‘lost’. Householders one thing, but the surveyor?!

[Duma]

Run. A. Mile.

[Paul B]

Walk away, especially if you're suspicious that subsidence might still be ongoing. A recent subsidence claim I worked on involved 3 years of monitoring by structural engineers followed by a ground investigation, all of which costs £ thousands, and that's just to find out the problem.

I came here to say this. If it's moving/moved there'll be signs of distress but the reality is you won't know which it is without monitoring it, for a period of time.

Walk away (or potentially run) IMO.

[Rocksteady]

Thanks for the opinions above on this. We got the final surveyor's report back and they are of the view it is don't buy unless the sellers can prove the underpinning was lawful and effective. Which it looks like the sellers are unwilling to do. Our solicitor thinks the sellers and their solicitor are being weird and "old school" about this.

I am willing to take on an old property and take on a level of updating and ongoing monitoring, but this one feels like the scale is too much and with undetermined underpinning, an unspecified level of continuing subsidence PLUS knotweed I would be struggling to get a mortgage or insurance or sell it on in future.

Since I would rather spend more time climbing and less time arranging for ongoing structural surveys and knotweed treatment I think it's back to the drawing board on house move! Think we will try to rent in the area and suss it out a bit before diving straight back in.

[tomtom]

One alternative is that the sellers provides or pays for an insurance policy to cover any future subsidence...

I think I've had this before with window in a house I was buying (a large window) that had no guaruntee/warranty and my solicitor chased it and the vendors forked out £50 for it..

I suspect they will baulk at this but it might be a last roll of the dice for you. And bear in mind this was 18 years ago and my memory isn't what it used to be!  :D

[Tom de Gay]

One alternative is that the sellers provides or pays for an insurance policy to cover any future subsidence...

I think I've had this before with window in a house I was buying (a large window) that had no guaruntee/warranty and my solicitor chased it and the vendors forked out £50 for it..

I suspect they will baulk at this but it might be a last roll of the dice for you. And bear in mind this was 18 years ago and my memory isn't what it used to be!  :D

Are you sure that wasn't a policy for lack of Fensa documentation or Planning Permission, rather than the integrity of the window itself? Insurance policies with a one-time premium to cover gaps in building control/pp documentation are pretty common (in my limited experience), insuring you against a loss if the council were to making a retroactive claim on the work done by the previous owner. Insuring the thing itself every year is what your buildings insurance is for.

When I spoke to builders a few years ago about a potentially attractively priced underpinned property, they advised not to get involved with a house that has been underpinned on more than one side.

Good luck with the search.

[webbo]

We once had to take out an indemnity insurance on a property built on land that was purchased from British rail. Our buyers would not proceed without this. Their solicitor was incredulous that they requested this but then again he was the solicitor for the first people buying it from the builder.
I would offer 50 grand or more below the asking price and if they even consider it, you know it’s dodgy.

[Paul B]

When I spoke to builders a few years ago about a potentially attractively priced underpinned property, they advised not to get involved with a house that has been underpinned on more than one side.

I'm interested in the logic behind this if you know it? 

[SA Chris]

Since I would rather spend more time climbing and less time arranging for ongoing structural surveys and knotweed treatment I think it's back to the drawing board on house move! Think we will try to rent in the area and suss it out a bit before diving straight back in.

I know you can develop an emotional attachment to a house, but at the end of the day it's just a building, and you donlt want to end up with one that causes you stress and massive expenses. We bid on a few houses when we bought our first and were devastated when we didn't get them (Scottish system and Aberdeen house prices were silly back then), but looking back we got the place we wanted / needed in the end.

[Paul B]

Likewise, I've loved the places I've bought but at the end, I had no emotional attachment when moving to the next.

[Tom de Gay]

When I spoke to builders a few years ago about a potentially attractively priced underpinned property, they advised not to get involved with a house that has been underpinned on more than one side.

I'm interested in the logic behind this if you know it? 

Don’t know, sorry! It was in the context of a particular kind of Victorian terrace that they had a lot of experience with.

[teestub]

When I spoke to builders a few years ago about a potentially attractively priced underpinned property, they advised not to get involved with a house that has been underpinned on more than one side.

I'm interested in the logic behind this if you know it? 

You’re the engineer, so I’m sure you have a good understanding, but thought I’d read previously that part underpinning to correct differential settlement can lead to a reverse of the situation, where the non underpinned bit starts to settle faster.

[Rocksteady]

On this particular house that I've now told the estate agent I'm not buying, there was substantial underpinning due to a fire in the 1800s. Then all the detritus of the fire was apparently dumped in the cellars to shore up the foundations for a rebuild of part of the house. Apparently some time in the 80s (or 90s, the owners aren't entirely clear), the hot weather caused some sort of expansion and the house began to rotate around the chimney into the old cellar (!)

The surveyors we used said that with historic buildings underpinning has to be done very sensitively because some movement in the house because of the building materials is beneficial. i.e. firming stuff up too much can cause stresses in other parts of the house.

Reasoning by analogy same could be true of a house with underpinning on multiple sides?

[SA Chris]

I wouldn't just walk away, I would be getting a fresh pair of running shoes.

I'm changing that. Go for some shoes with built in mechanical doping. The above sounds dodgy as hell.

[mr chaz]

When I spoke to builders a few years ago about a potentially attractively priced underpinned property, they advised not to get involved with a house that has been underpinned on more than one side.

I'm interested in the logic behind this if you know it? 

You’re the engineer, so I’m sure you have a good understanding, but thought I’d read previously that part underpinning to correct differential settlement can lead to a reverse of the situation, where the non underpinned bit starts to settle faster.

Depends on a few things including geology, what's driving the movement, its extent, age of building. Consolidation settlement can take a long time (years to decades) so I can see a situation where partial underpinning of a relatively new build that had one side on a good stiff clay and the other on soft alluvial clay could lead to that scenario and an apparent reversal. [totally hypothetical example - not saying this is applicable here in any way!]

[Paul B]

I can totally see that mechanism, I just don't see why having underpinned one wall and not fixed the issue being different to having underpinned two walls and being in that same situation, hence my question (genuinely interested).

[mr chaz]

yeah - I'm equally perplexed!

[Tom de Gay]

Could be that he thought underpinning on one side was indicative of a smaller localised issue.