u/JoeBurke97

We're buying a share-of-freehold flat in a conversion in London. There are eight flats in the building, so the freeholders collectively have responsibility for major building decisions.

During the purchase, a damp survey came back with significant findings. We didn't immediately walk away — we took it into account, renegotiated the price, and ultimately agreed in principle to meet the seller halfway. At this point, we had no idea subsidence was even a factor.

However, our acceptance of the revised price was explicitly conditional on six outstanding points being resolved before we proceeded. These weren't new attempts to renegotiate — they were enquiries intended to establish the full picture of the property's condition. Several of the requests were simply for existing correspondence to be forwarded to us. Then we heard essentially nothing for over a month.

Out of nowhere, the estate agent called and said we "had everything we need", and that unless we moved towards exchange by the end of that week the seller might pull out. We checked with our solicitor, who confirmed we didn't have everything requested. Most importantly, we still hadn't received the structural documentation relating to a subsidence claim we'd only just become aware of through the conveyancing process.

After we pushed back, a structural engineer's report was finally provided. This is where our view of the situation changed. Until then, we understood we were dealing with a historic subsidence issue for which remedial works were being undertaken. The report appears to show something rather different: movement is still ongoing, the suspected cause remains in place, and further structural intervention may ultimately be required.

What the structural report says:

\- The building sits on London clay, and movement is described explicitly as ongoing
\- The external steps have moved approximately 20mm relative to the main body of the house over the last four and a half years, with the most recent readings suggesting movement is continuing
\- The main body of the building shows around 2mm of movement between monitored points over the same period
\- Part of the front garden wall became sufficiently unsafe due to ground movement that it has already been demolished
\- A council-owned tree has been identified as the likely cause and its removal was recommended, but the council refused
\- If the trees cannot be controlled, the engineer discusses underpinning or geopolymer resin injection, and says that surface repairs alone will not prevent cracking recurring

What we still don't know:

We don't have a final invoice for the remedial works or a complete breakdown of what has actually been done. We've been told the council will cover the cost, but the only evidence we've seen is an email from the seller rather than any formal documentation confirming liability or payment.

We were also sent photos by the estate agent showing work that has been carried out. From what we can see, cracks appear to have been filled. There is no visible evidence of any underpinning or more substantial structural intervention.

The biggest issue for us is the tree. We've been told an application was made to have the council-owned tree removed and that the council refused — but despite repeatedly asking, we've seen no correspondence showing when removal was requested, what exactly was requested, why the council refused, whether the decision was challenged, or what the proposed long-term solution is now that the tree remains. When we asked about this, we were simply told it "was dealt with by the loss adjusters." That doesn't tell us what actually happened.

The share-of-freehold structure also worries us. If movement continues and the building later needs underpinning, resin injection, another insurance claim, or legal action regarding the tree, we're potentially dependent on cooperation from seven other flat owners. We have no idea whether the freeholders are aligned on how the issue should be handled.

Our solicitor has also warned us that we shouldn't rely on informal assurances from the seller, because if those representations later prove inaccurate our practical legal recourse could be very limited.

So we're being pressured to exchange while structural movement is apparently still occurring, the suspected cause hasn't been removed, we don't have the underlying correspondence about the tree, we don't have complete documentation for the remedial works, and the only evidence of work done is photos showing crack-filling.

We appreciate that subsidence isn't automatically catastrophic, particularly in London, and we're not looking for reasons to panic. We were prepared to buy knowing there had been a subsidence claim. What has spooked us is discovering the issue may still be active, combined with the reluctance to provide documentation and the sudden pressure to exchange.

Our questions:

1. For anyone who has bought or sold a property with subsidence, how concerning would you find this situation?
2. Is ongoing movement with the causative tree still in place fundamentally different from a historic, resolved subsidence claim?
3. Would you insist on seeing the council correspondence and full documentation for the remedial works before exchange?
4. Does having eight share-of-freehold owners materially increase the risk if expensive structural work is required later?
5. Given the whole picture, would you continue with the purchase or walk away?

We're buying a share-of-freehold flat in a conversion in London. There are eight flats in the building, so the freeholders collectively have responsibility for major building decisions.

During the purchase, a damp survey came back with significant findings. We didn't immediately walk away — we took it into account, renegotiated the price, and ultimately agreed in principle to meet the seller halfway. At this point, we had no idea subsidence was even a factor.

However, our acceptance of the revised price was explicitly conditional on six outstanding points being resolved before we proceeded. These weren't new attempts to renegotiate — they were enquiries intended to establish the full picture of the property's condition. Several of the requests were simply for existing correspondence to be forwarded to us. Then we heard essentially nothing for over a month.

Out of nowhere, the estate agent called and said we "had everything we need", and that unless we moved towards exchange by the end of that week the seller might pull out. We checked with our solicitor, who confirmed we didn't have everything requested. Most importantly, we still hadn't received the structural documentation relating to a subsidence claim we'd only just become aware of through the conveyancing process.

After we pushed back, a structural engineer's report was finally provided. This is where our view of the situation changed. Until then, we understood we were dealing with a historic subsidence issue for which remedial works were being undertaken. The report appears to show something rather different: movement is still ongoing, the suspected cause remains in place, and further structural intervention may ultimately be required.

What the structural report says:

- The building sits on London clay, and movement is described explicitly as ongoing
- The external steps have moved approximately 20mm relative to the main body of the house over the last four and a half years, with the most recent readings suggesting movement is continuing
- The main body of the building shows around 2mm of movement between monitored points over the same period
- Part of the front garden wall became sufficiently unsafe due to ground movement that it has already been demolished
- A council-owned tree has been identified as the likely cause and its removal was recommended, but the council refused
- If the trees cannot be controlled, the engineer discusses underpinning or geopolymer resin injection, and says that surface repairs alone will not prevent cracking recurring

What we still don't know:

We don't have a final invoice for the remedial works or a complete breakdown of what has actually been done. We've been told the council will cover the cost, but the only evidence we've seen is an email from the seller rather than any formal documentation confirming liability or payment.

We were also sent photos by the estate agent showing work that has been carried out. From what we can see, cracks appear to have been filled. There is no visible evidence of any underpinning or more substantial structural intervention.

The biggest issue for us is the tree. We've been told an application was made to have the council-owned tree removed and that the council refused — but despite repeatedly asking, we've seen no correspondence showing when removal was requested, what exactly was requested, why the council refused, whether the decision was challenged, or what the proposed long-term solution is now that the tree remains. When we asked about this, we were simply told it "was dealt with by the loss adjusters." That doesn't tell us what actually happened.

The share-of-freehold structure also worries us. If movement continues and the building later needs underpinning, resin injection, another insurance claim, or legal action regarding the tree, we're potentially dependent on cooperation from seven other flat owners. We have no idea whether the freeholders are aligned on how the issue should be handled.

Our solicitor has also warned us that we shouldn't rely on informal assurances from the seller, because if those representations later prove inaccurate our practical legal recourse could be very limited.

So we're being pressured to exchange while structural movement is apparently still occurring, the suspected cause hasn't been removed, we don't have the underlying correspondence about the tree, we don't have complete documentation for the remedial works, and the only evidence of work done is photos showing crack-filling.

We appreciate that subsidence isn't automatically catastrophic, particularly in London, and we're not looking for reasons to panic. We were prepared to buy knowing there had been a subsidence claim. What has spooked us is discovering the issue may still be active, combined with the reluctance to provide documentation and the sudden pressure to exchange.

Our questions:

1. For anyone who has bought or sold a property with subsidence, how concerning would you find this situation?
2. Is ongoing movement with the causative tree still in place fundamentally different from a historic, resolved subsidence claim?
3. Would you insist on seeing the council correspondence and full documentation for the remedial works before exchange?
4. Does having eight share-of-freehold owners materially increase the risk if expensive structural work is required later?
5. Given the whole picture, would you continue with the purchase or walk away?

We're buying a share-of-freehold flat in a conversion in London. There are eight flats in the building, so the freeholders collectively have responsibility for major building decisions.

During the purchase, a damp survey came back with significant findings. We didn't immediately walk away — we took it into account, renegotiated the price, and ultimately agreed in principle to meet the seller halfway. At this point, we had no idea subsidence was even a factor.

However, our acceptance of the revised price was explicitly conditional on six outstanding points being resolved before we proceeded. These weren't new attempts to renegotiate — they were enquiries intended to establish the full picture of the property's condition. Several of the requests were simply for existing correspondence to be forwarded to us. Then we heard essentially nothing for over a month.

Out of nowhere, the estate agent called and said we "had everything we need", and that unless we moved towards exchange by the end of that week the seller might pull out. We checked with our solicitor, who confirmed we didn't have everything requested. Most importantly, we still hadn't received the structural documentation relating to a subsidence claim we'd only just become aware of through the conveyancing process.

After we pushed back, a structural engineer's report was finally provided. This is where our view of the situation changed. Until then, we understood we were dealing with a historic subsidence issue for which remedial works were being undertaken. The report appears to show something rather different: movement is still ongoing, the suspected cause remains in place, and further structural intervention may ultimately be required.

What the structural report says:

- The building sits on London clay, and movement is described explicitly as ongoing
- The external steps have moved approximately 20mm relative to the main body of the house over the last four and a half years, with the most recent readings suggesting movement is continuing
- The main body of the building shows around 2mm of movement between monitored points over the same period
- Part of the front garden wall became sufficiently unsafe due to ground movement that it has already been demolished
- A council-owned tree has been identified as the likely cause and its removal was recommended, but the council refused
- If the trees cannot be controlled, the engineer discusses underpinning or geopolymer resin injection, and says that surface repairs alone will not prevent cracking recurring

What we still don't know:

We don't have a final invoice for the remedial works or a complete breakdown of what has actually been done. We've been told the council will cover the cost, but the only evidence we've seen is an email from the seller rather than any formal documentation confirming liability or payment.

We were also sent photos by the estate agent showing work that has been carried out. From what we can see, cracks appear to have been filled. There is no visible evidence of any underpinning or more substantial structural intervention.

The biggest issue for us is the tree. We've been told an application was made to have the council-owned tree removed and that the council refused — but despite repeatedly asking, we've seen no correspondence showing when removal was requested, what exactly was requested, why the council refused, whether the decision was challenged, or what the proposed long-term solution is now that the tree remains. When we asked about this, we were simply told it "was dealt with by the loss adjusters." That doesn't tell us what actually happened.

The share-of-freehold structure also worries us. If movement continues and the building later needs underpinning, resin injection, another insurance claim, or legal action regarding the tree, we're potentially dependent on cooperation from seven other flat owners. We have no idea whether the freeholders are aligned on how the issue should be handled.

Our solicitor has also warned us that we shouldn't rely on informal assurances from the seller, because if those representations later prove inaccurate our practical legal recourse could be very limited.

So we're being pressured to exchange while structural movement is apparently still occurring, the suspected cause hasn't been removed, we don't have the underlying correspondence about the tree, we don't have complete documentation for the remedial works, and the only evidence of work done is photos showing crack-filling.

We appreciate that subsidence isn't automatically catastrophic, particularly in London, and we're not looking for reasons to panic. We were prepared to buy knowing there had been a subsidence claim. What has spooked us is discovering the issue may still be active, combined with the reluctance to provide documentation and the sudden pressure to exchange.

Our questions:

1. For anyone who has bought or sold a property with subsidence, how concerning would you find this situation?
2. Is ongoing movement with the causative tree still in place fundamentally different from a historic, resolved subsidence claim?
3. Would you insist on seeing the council correspondence and full documentation for the remedial works before exchange?
4. Does having eight share-of-freehold owners materially increase the risk if expensive structural work is required later?
5. Given the whole picture, would you continue with the purchase or walk away?