Subsidence changes the conversation immediately. Mention it and insurers stop working on assumptions and start looking for evidence. Fair enough, really.
That does not mean cover is unavailable. It does mean the history matters, the paperwork matters, and shortcuts tend to backfire.
What insurers mean by subsidence
Subsidence is ground movement causing part of a building to sink. Insurers usually group it with heave and landslip, even though the causes differ.
Cracking alone is not subsidence. Insurers focus on movement linked to ground conditions, drainage failure, tree roots or historic construction issues.
Historic subsidence versus active movement
This distinction matters more than anything else.
Historic subsidence that was investigated, repaired and monitored is viewed very differently from ongoing or unexplained movement.
Insurers usually want confirmation that movement has stabilised, not simply that repairs were carried out.
Underpinning and structural repairs
Underpinning does not automatically make a property uninsurable.
What insurers care about is why it was needed, how it was designed, and whether it resolved the underlying cause. Proper certification and completion documents are important.
Poorly documented underpinning raises more questions than no underpinning at all.
What evidence insurers normally ask for
Verbal explanations rarely go far.
- Structural engineer reports
- Details of the original cause
- Repair specifications and dates
- Monitoring results, if available
- Confirmation that movement has ceased
The clearer the paper trail, the fewer assumptions are made.
How policy terms usually change
Subsidence rarely leads to standard terms.
More often, insurers adjust the policy rather than decline it outright. This is normal.
- Higher excesses for subsidence-related claims
- Exclusions for further movement
- Restrictions tied to specific areas of the property
- Ongoing monitoring requirements
These conditions reflect risk, not judgement.
Buying a house with known subsidence
New owners inherit the insurance history.
If the property has had subsidence before, future insurers will treat it as such, even if repairs were decades ago. This can affect both price and availability.
Continuity of cover sometimes matters more than shopping around aggressively.
Non-disclosure is the biggest mistake
People worry that mentioning subsidence will stop cover being offered.
Failing to disclose it creates a bigger problem. Subsidence claims are scrutinised closely, and undisclosed history tends to surface at exactly the wrong moment.
Claims declined for non-disclosure are far harder to fix than higher premiums.
Trees, drains and ongoing risk factors
Insurers look beyond the original event.
Large trees, clay soil, leaking drains and changes to ground conditions can all increase the chance of repeat movement. Insurers often ask what has changed since the original issue.
Managing those risks matters as much as the original repair.
How insurers really assess risk
Subsidence is not treated as a single event.
It is assessed as a pattern: cause, response, outcome and future exposure. Properties with clear answers at each stage tend to be insurable. Properties with gaps in the story tend to attract conditions.
That difference usually comes down to documentation, not optimism.