Has Your House Got Cracks - A Homeowner's Guide To Subsidence and Heave Damage PDF

HAS YOUR HOUSE GOT CRACKS?
A homeowner's guide to subsidence

and heave damage
Tim Freeman, MA (Cantab), CEng, MICE, is
Managing Director of Geo-Serv Ltd and
former Head of the Foundations Section
of the Building Research Establishment.
He has over 16 years of research
experience with the geotechnics division
of BRE, including 6 years as head of the
section studying the performance of
foundations for low-rise buildings. In
1992 he formed his own company
specialising in the investigation and
remedy of subsidence damage.
Stuart Littlejohn, BSc(Eng), PhD, FEng,

FICE, FIStructE, FGS, FRSA,
is Emeritus
Professor of Civil Engineering at the
University of Bradford and former
Chairman of the Ground Board of the
Institution of Civil Engineers.
He has more than 35 years of industrial
experience and is author of many
publications covering subjects such as
subsidence, structure±soil interaction,
site investigation, ground improvement
and underpinning.
Richard Driscoll, MSc, FICE, is Head of

the Geotechnics Division at the Building
Research Establishment.
He has been responsible for all BRE's
research and publications on the
subsidence and heave of buildings on
clay soils since 1976. He regularly
provides specialist advice on subsidence
matters.
Has your house got cracks?
A homeowner's guide to subsidence
and heave damage
T. J. Freeman, R. M. C. Driscoll and

G. S. Littlejohn
Second edition
Institution of Civil Engineers

and
Building Research Establishment
Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd,
1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
www.thomastelford.com
Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA
Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3±10 Nihonbashi 2-chome,
Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria
First published 1994

Second edition 2002
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 0 7277 3089 4
# BRE and Thomas Telford Limited, 1994, 2002
All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying
or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas
Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the
statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily
imply that such statements and/or opinions are or re¯ect the views or opinions of the
publishers. While every eort has been made to ensure that the statements made and
the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability
or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers.
Typeset by Academic & Technical, Bristol

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin
Contents
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1
1. INTRODUCTION 7
Background 7
Recent trends in subsidence claims 7
Changing attitudes towards subsidence and heave damage 10
Insurance cover 11
What is covered? 11
Geographical loading 13
2. CAUSES OF CRACKING 14
Physical changes 14
Seasonal temperature and humidity 14
Initial drying 15
Loss of volatiles 15
Freezing and thawing of water 15
Ef¯orescence 15
Chemical changes 16
Moisture expansion of brickwork 16
Sulfate attack 16
Corrosion or oxidisation of steel 17
Other chemical processes 17
Over-stressing 17
Vibration 18
Wear and tear 18
3. CAUSES OF SUBSIDENCE AND HEAVE 20

Erosion 21
Shrinkage or swelling in the surface soil 21
Why clay soils shrink and swell 22
Characteristic properties 22
Liquid and plastic limits 23
Where are shrinkable clays found? 23
Shrinkage potential 24
Desiccation 25
How much desiccation? 25
Effect of trees 26
Effect of climate 28
Effect of surroundings 31
4. HOW YOUR HOUSE IS BUILT 33

Foundations 33
Alternative forms of foundation 36
Floors 37
Walls 37
5. PREVENTING DAMAGE 41
Tree management 41
Structural alterations 41
Landscaping 42
Excavation 42
Drainage 42
6. SUBSIDENCE TO A NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY 44

Has my own property been affected? 44
Will I be affected by the remedial works? 45
Are the trees in my garden the cause of the problem? 46
7. RECOGNISING SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE 48

Have the foundations moved? 49
Assessing the damage 50
Appearance 52
Location 53
Timing 55
Other indications 55
Cause for concern? 55
Is stability threatened? 55
Is there a threat to safety? 57
Is serviceability affected? 57
Will I be able to sell the house? 57
Aesthetics 58
What should I do? 58
8. MAKING A CLAIM 61
Professional advice 62
Loss adjuster 62
Building surveyor 63
Structural engineer 63
Civil engineer 63
Appointing the investigator 64
Project management 65
What to expect 66
9. THE INVESTIGATION 68
Initial investigation 69
Visual inspection 69
Distortion survey 70
Desk study 72
Trial pits 73
Drain survey 73
What caused the movement? 74
Engineer's Report 77
Borehole investigations 78
Things to look out for 80
10. MONITORING 83
What is monitoring? 83
Monitoring to con®rm that cause of damage is not
subsidence 84
Monitoring to establish cause of subsidence 84
Monitoring to measure rate of movement 84
Monitoring to check success of remedial action 84
Crack width monitoring 84
Steel rule 85
Magni®er and graticule 85
Glass tell-tales 85
Plastic tell-tales 86
Demec points 87
Brass screws 88
Interpreting crack measurements 88
Level monitoring 90
Interpreting level measurements 90
Monitoring lateral movement 92
Observation period 92
11. THE SOLUTION 94

Repairing or strengthening the superstructure 94
Drainage repairs 94
Reducing the in¯uence of trees 97
Tree removal 98
Tree pruning 100
Root pruning 100
Root barriers 101
Soil stabilisation 101
Remedial underpinning 101
12. DOES MY HOUSE NEED TO BE UNDERPINNED? 103

Criteria for underpinning 103
Is structural stability threatened? 103
Is movement continuing? 104
Is the movement excessive? 104
What is the cost? 106
Is underpinning needed? 106
13. DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNDERPINNING 107

Mass concrete 107
Pier-and-beam 109
Pile-and-beam and piled-raft 109
Mini-piling 113
Partial underpinning 113
14. HAVING THE WORK DONE 116

The speci®cation 116
The contract 117
Cash settlement 119
Party wall awards 120
Will I have to move? 120
Payment 121
Supervision 121
Building Regulations 122
Warranties 122
15. WHAT IF THINGS GO WRONG? 124

During the investigation 124
During the contract 125
After completion 125
16. BUYING AND SELLING 126

Surveys 126
Engineer's Report 128
What to look out for when buying a house 128
Distortion 128
Signs of subsidence 134
Considerations for the seller 136
Checking for signs of damage 136
Selling after damage has been reported to insurers 137
Will a claim for subsidence damage make it dif®cult
when I come to sell? 138
Certi®cate of Structural Adequacy 140
Non-disclosure 140
REFERENCES 141
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 143
APPENDIX B: RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS 148
APPENDIX C: FOUNDATION AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

DESIGN 151
Preface to the second edition
This publication has been commissioned by the Institution of Civil

Engineers (ICE) and the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in
order to provide practical guidance to homeowners whose properties
have been affected by subsidence or who are concerned by the poten-
tial risk of damage.
The ®rst edition produced in 1994 dealt speci®cally with the
problems associated with properties founded on shrinkable clay
soils. The second edition has been expanded to include sections on
other types of subsidence and causes of damage that are unrelated to
foundation movement. The possible problems that can arise when
buying or selling a property that has previously been affected by sub-
sidence are also considered.
ICE and BRE wish to thank the authors, Tim Freeman (Managing
Director of Geo-Serv Ltd and former Head of the Foundations Section
of BRE), Richard Driscoll (Head of the Centre for Ground Engineering
at BRE), and Stuart Littlejohn (former Chairman of the ICE Ground
Board), who have devoted much time and effort to these deliberations.
The authors are deeply indebted to the many organisations that pro-
vided data for both the ®rst and second editions. They also wish to
thank representatives from the insurance industry, and in particular
Tony Boobier of Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and Ian Brett-
Pitt of Direct Line Insurance Plc who forwarded valuable comments
during the ®nal drafting of the guide.
The publishers acknowledge the assistance of Jan and Keith Sorsby
(homeowners) who commented on the ®rst edition and to David
Fowler who re®ned the text to make it more accessible to the general
reader.
List of ®gures
1 Trend in claims for heave and subsidence damage to domestic

properties (based on statistics supplied by the Association of
British Insurers)
2 Distribution of shrinkable clays in South East England
3 Seasonal variation in moisture content with and without trees
4 Dramatic example of the potential effects of tree growth on a house
with shallow foundations (BRE copyright)
5 Measurements of ground movement at various depths in London
Clay (BRE copyright)
6 Observed movements of pads with various applied loadings (BRE
copyright)
7 Cross-section through a typical Victorian house foundation
8 Typical strip footing shown with a ground bearing ¯oor slab (left)
and a suspended timber ¯oor (right)
9 Trench-®ll foundation with two alternative ¯oor slab
arrangements
10 Beam-and-block ¯oor (BRE copyright)
11 Different types of bond for constructing a one-brick-thick solid
wall
12 Cavity wall
13 Different patterns of movement and cracking caused by
subsidence and heave
14 Classic example of damage (category 3, in this case) caused by
hogging distortion (BRE copyright)
15 Classic example of damage (category 4, in this case) caused by
sagging distortion (BRE copyright)
16 Classic example of cracking in asphalt associated with a large tree
(BRE copyright)
17 Classic example of roof distortion caused by foundation movement
(BRE copyright)
18 Recommended method of recording damage (BRE copyright)
19 Using a portable water level to measure out-of-level of brick course
(BRE copyright)
20 Using a plumb-line and ruler to measure verticality (BRE
copyright)
21 Undersailing of brickwork below damp-proof course caused by
swelling clay (BRE copyright)
22 Three types of sampling equipment ((b) and (c) courtesy of Abbey
Underpinning and Foundations; (a) BRE copyright)
23 Measuring crack width using a magnifying glass and graticule
(BRE copyright)
24 Crack monitoring using a glass tell-tale (BRE copyright)
25 Crack monitoring using a plastic tell-tale (courtesy of Avongard)
26 Crack measurement using brass screws (BRE copyright)
27 Results of level monitoring exercise showing bene®ts of tree
management (courtesy of Geo-Serv Ltd)
28 Repair using tie bars (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
29 Repair using corner straps (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
30 Resin bonding of brickwork (courtesy of Abbey Underpinning and
Foundations)
31 Brickwork stitching (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
32 Mortar bed reinforcement (courtesy of RME Ltd)
33 Observed heave of some cottages built on a London Clay site
cleared of trees prior to construction (BRE copyright)
34 Mass concrete underpinning
35 Pier-and-beam underpinning
36 Pile-and-beam underpinning
37 Piled raft underpinning (courtesy of Roger Bullivant Ltd)
38 Four different types of mini-piling
39 Gross distortion to the gable wall of a Victorian property which has
been highlighted by the reconstruction of the wall belonging to the
adjoining property
40 Wide mortar-®lled gap between the window frame and the
brickwork indicates that there has been previous distortion to the
wall
41 Cracking between the window frame and brickwork is evidence of
continuing movement in the wall
42 Damage and distortion to brickwork associated with the previous
collapse of a brick arch lintel
43 Longstanding distortion to the front bay of a Victorian property
44 Panel door that has been adjusted to ®t a distorted opening
Foreword to the second edition
from the Financial Ombudsman
The ®rst edition of Has Your House Got Cracks? was written in response
to the dramatic increase in the level of claims for heave and subsidence
damage to houses that occurred following the dry summers of 1989
and 1990. At a time when there was very little published guidance, it
helped homeowners understand the causes of subsidence and heave
damage and offered guidance on how such damage should be
remedied or prevented.
Over the years since the ®rst edition was published, there has been a
great deal of media coverage on the subject and a corresponding
increase in awareness amongst homeowners. Unfortunately, recent
trends suggest that increased awareness has encouraged some home-
owners to report minor damage that would be appropriately dealt
with by straightforward redecoration. But there are still cases where
insurers claim cosmetic damage where in reality the householder is
facing signi®cant subsidence. Making the correct assessment of the
cause of the presenting problem is critical to handling claims suc-
cessfully. A more serious problem, however, is where excessive or
insuf®cient remedial work is carried out. Both increase the costs for
insurers and inconvenience policyholders.
In 2001 the Financial Ombudsman Service was formed following the
merger of the Insurance Ombudsman with the other ®nancial sector
ombudsman schemes. We continue to receive numerous complaints
from homeowners about subsidence and heave. In many cases, the
reason for the complaint can be traced back to the initial advice offered
to the homeowner. Whether this advice is provided by a building
professional employed by the homeowner or the insurer, it seems
that too often the homeowner is not told what has caused the
damage, what is going to be done to ®x the problem (and the associated
time scales), and what he or she can expect the insurer to pay for.
I therefore welcome the second edition of Has Your House Got Cracks?
which has been extensively revised to re¯ect the developments that
have occurred over the last eight years of the 20th century. In addition
to explaining in simple terms why properties suffer subsidence and
heave damage, it offers practical advice on avoiding damage and
explains the procedures involved in investigating damage, deciding
on appropriate remedial work, processing a claim under the terms of
Building Insurance, and ®nally what to do if things go wrong.
This guide has been sponsored jointly by the Institution of Civil
Engineers and by the Building Research Establishment, which are
leading authorities on the subject of subsidence and heave.
I recommend this publication to homeowners as it provides a
valuable insight into the nature of building subsidence and heave, and
offers impartial and objective advice to anyone who has discovered
cracks to his or her house. In short, it is essential reading to anyone
who is either making a claim for damage or who is thinking about
making a claim.
Tony Boorman
Principal Ombudsman (Insurance)
Financial Ombudsman Service
Frequently asked questions
This short summary aims to answer the questions that most commonly
worry homeowners, and to give you a quick overview of the
subject. Each answer tells you where in the guide to ®nd further
detail, if you need it. Terms shown in italics are explained in the
Glossary.
Why has this guide been written?

The purpose of this guide is to explain in simple terms why properties
suffer subsidence and heave damage and to offer some independent
and objective advice on how the damage should be investigated and
how it should be decided whether or not underpinning is required. It
is hoped that in the fullness of time a better understanding of the
subject will result in a more rational approach to subsidence and
heave damage, which will be re¯ected in lower insurance premiums
and less aggravation for the buyers and sellers of properties that
have suffered minor damage.
What causes subsidence and heave?

Much of the UK's housing stock is founded on what are known
as shrinkable clays. Such clays are strong enough to support a building
of four storeys on a simple foundation. But a clay shrinks when its
moisture content decreases and swells when it increases. Slight move-
ment of houses founded on these soils is therefore inevitable as a
result of seasonal changes in moisture content; or downward move-
ment or subsidence occurring during the summer and upward move-
ment or heave during the winter. However, these movements rarely
cause damage because the whole house is affected more or less equally.
Damage is therefore usually associated with trees, which enhance the
extraction of moisture locally, especially during prolonged periods of
dry weather. Conversely, removing a large tree can cause heave as
moisture gradually returns to the soil. Shrinkage and swelling of the
2 HAS YOUR HOUSE GOT CRACKS?
surface soil are not the only causes of subsidence and heave, but they
are by far the commonest. Other causes of subsidence, including water
escaping from defective drains, and details of why clay soils shrink and
swell can be found in Chapter 3.
How can I tell whether the cracks have been caused by

foundation movement?
It can be very dif®cult to distinguish damage caused by foundation
movement from other causes, especially where damage is relatively
slight ± typically, where the cracks are no wider than 2 mm. Never-
theless, there are a number of characteristics to subsidence and heave
damage and these are summarised in Table III, page 50. Wherever
possible measurements should be made to con®rm that there is a
signi®cant slope to ¯oors and brick courses before jumping to the
conclusion that the damage has been caused by foundation movement.
For further details see Distortion Survey in Chapter 9.
Why is subsidence and heave damage so common?

The incidence of damage caused by clay shrinkage increases dramati-
cally during dry summers ± so-called èvent years'. Although the last
event year in the UK was in 1997, claim ®gures since have remained
relatively high suggesting that many homeowners are reporting
damage that has not been caused by foundation movement. However,
many of these claims relate to properties founded on shrinkable clay
that are likely to be moving seasonally, making it dif®cult for investi-
gators to distinguish between genuine subsidence and general wear
and tear. For further details see Wear and tear in Chapter 2.
Why are some properties aected, when others in the same

street remain undamaged?
Most subsidence damage is in¯uenced by a combination of four main
factors: soil type, weather, vegetation and foundation depth. In certain
areas, soil properties can vary over relatively short distances. Founda-
tion depth can also differ from property to property, especially where
the age of construction varies. Most importantly, the zone of in¯uence
of individual trees will depend on a number of factors such as the avail-
ability of moisture and competition from other vegetation. However,
the fact that the damage is restricted to a single property often suggests
A HOMEOWNER'S GUIDE TO SUBSIDENCE AND HEAVE DAMAGE 3
that other factors may be involved. For example, where a property

has been damaged or distorted in the past, relatively small seasonal
movements can open up existing defects. For further details see
What caused the movement? in Chapter 9.
Can I do anything to reduce the risk of damage occurring or

to prevent existing damage from worsening?
For existing properties in shrinkable clay areas, care should be taken to
keep certain trees, those that are known to cause damage, at a sensible
size if they are close to the building (see Table I, page 29). Care should
also be taken when planting new trees or removing large trees close to
the building. Carrying out structural alterations or excavations near
foundations can make a property more susceptible to damage and
laying drives or paths can alter desiccation by reducing the supply of
rain water (see Chapter 5). For new buildings and extensions, suitable
foundation design complying with current regulations and guidelines
will dramatically reduce the risk of heave and subsidence damage (see
Appendix C).
Are nearby trees causing problems or are they likely to cause

damage in the future?
As a rule of thumb, the more damaging trees should be kept at least one
tree height away from buildings founded on shrinkable clay. When
planting a tree you should therefore take its mature height into con-
sideration. Broad leaf trees are more likely to cause damage than
evergreens (see Table I). Because of their high moisture demand, oak,
elm, willow and poplar are notorious for causing damage. For further
details see Effect of trees in Chapter 3.
Should I prune trees, or remove them altogether?

Where a tree is thought to be causing a problem and it is younger than
any part of the house, it is normally safe to remove it altogether. Where
the tree is older than the house, or any additions to it, do not remove
the tree without seeking professional advice. In such cases, pruning ±
crown reduction rather than pollarding ± is likely to be preferable (see
Chapter 11).
When should I start to worry about the damage?

In the vast majority of cases, cracks caused by clay shrinkage during
dry weather are unlikely to be of structural signi®cance, except
for vulnerable features such as brick arch lintels. Many cracks will
close once there is a return to wetter weather and they can then be
repaired as part of routine maintenance and decoration. Where
damage is Category 3 or more in severity (see Table III, page 50), or
if the problem is not thought to be caused by clay shrinkage, it is
important to seek professional advice (see What should I do? in
Chapter 7).
When should I tell my insurer and how do I make a claim?

You should report to your insurer any damage that is thought to be the
result of foundation movement. Table II, page 49, will help you decide
if foundation movement is to blame. You can report damage without
making a claim and, where cracks are not severe (see previous
question), you may simply state that you intend to repair them. If
you do make a claim, your insurer may appoint an expert, usually a
loss adjuster, whose ®rst task is to establish whether or not the claim
is valid. If it is, a suitably quali®ed professional such as an engineer
will be required to investigate the cause of the damage and advise
on remedial measures. Many insurers appoint this investigator
directly. For further details see Chapter 7.
What will it cost me to make a claim and what is covered?

The cost to you of making a claim is normally limited to the policy
excess, generally £1000. Where the investigator is appointed by the
insurer, you will have to pay this amount only if it is decided that
there is a valid claim and that repairs are needed. Where liability for
damage is denied by your insurer, any costs that you incur will be at
your own risk until such time as the claim is proved. Under the
cover provided by most `Buildings' policies you are entitled to `rein-
statement'. This means that the house will be returned to its pre-
damaged condition without any deduction for wear and tear, provided
that the house has been well maintained and that the level of insurance
is adequate. The insurer will also wish to satisfy itself regarding the age
of the damage and whether previous problems were disclosed when
the policy was taken out. A failure to disclose such information or
comply with other insurance policy conditions may entitle the insurer
to reject the claim.
Will my house need to be underpinned?

In most cases, it is possible to identify the cause of the subsidence and
to take appropriate action to eliminate or reduce it. For example, the
implicated tree can be removed or the leaking drain can be repaired.
Once the cause of the subsidence has been dealt with, the foundations
should continue to perform adequately and appropriate repairs can be
carried out. Underpinning, which is a technique used to deepen or
replace the existing foundations, should be considered as a last
resort that has only limited application to domestic subsidence
damage. Unfortunately, underpinning is often recommended for the
wrong reasons and a framework for deciding when it is the right
solution is presented in Table IV, page 105. For further details see
Chapters 11 and 12.
What investigations will be needed and how long will it all

take?
The investigation of subsidence damage can be a protracted affair
taking 18 months or more. In recent years, however, advances in
knowledge and streamlining of claim procedures have allowed this
period to be reduced signi®cantly. Ideally, any investigations that are
needed to help identify the cause of the damage should be undertaken
as part of the initial inspection. The investigator should then specify
any remedial works that are needed, such as tree removal or drainage
repairs, without unnecessary delay. Although a period of monitoring
will be needed to con®rm that this action has been effective, level
monitoring as opposed to traditional crack monitoring may allow this
period to be reduced to about 6 months. See Chapters 9 and 10 for
further details of the investigations and monitoring.
Will I have to arrange the repairs myself ?

In most cases, the investigator will see the claim through from start to
®nish. This includes agreeing the scope of repairs and decorations with
you and, where appropriate, with your insurer. The procedures
involved are described in Chapter 14, and Chapter 15 offers some
advice on what to do if things go wrong.
Should I avoid buying a house built on clay?

All houses founded on clay soil move up and down slightly over the
course of a year. But, in the vast majority of cases, these movements
are no more signi®cant than the thermal expansion and contraction
that affects all buildings. Cases of structural damage are rare and are
nearly always associated with large trees. Damage of this kind is
generally avoidable by taking appropriate action before the trees
cause damage. See Chapters 5 and 16.
Will a claim for subsidence damage make it dicult to sell

my property?
In principle, a previous insurance claim for subsidence damage should
not reduce your home's market value, because it will have been
reinstated to its former, pre-damaged condition and all appropriate
measures will have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the
damage. In most cases, the existing insurer will continue to offer
cover under normal terms and conditions and will provide a Certi®cate
of Structural Adequacy. Nevertheless, personal expectations vary and
some potential buyers may be put off by a previous claim for sub-
sidence damage, especially where the property has been underpinned.
See Chapter 16 for further details.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Background
Much of the UK's housing stock is founded on what are known as
shrinkable clays. Such clays are strong enough to support a building of
four storeys on a simple foundation, but clays shrink when their
moisture content decreases and swell when it increases. Slight move-
ment of houses founded on these soils is therefore inevitable as a
result of seasonal changes in moisture content ± downward movement
or subsidence occurring during the summer and upward movement
or heave during the winter. Normally the whole house is affected and
the homeowner is unaware that any movement is taking place.
Additional moisture is extracted through the roots of vegetation and
certain trees have the potential to cause large amounts of shrinkage.
For example, an oak tree as it grows from a sapling to maturity extract-
ing progressively more moisture from the soil, might cause 200 mm of
subsidence in a highly shrinkable soil. This shrinkage would then be
reversed if the tree were removed or died. Obviously movements of
this size would have the potential to cause serious damage to any
houses built on conventional foundations. There are other processes
that can cause large amounts of foundation movement, such as landslip,
the collapse of a mine, or large-scale erosion due to a leaking water
main if it goes undetected. However, such examples are rare and the
vast majority of claims for subsidence and heave damage in the UK
relate to the small seasonal changes that take place in the surface
layer of clay soils.
Recent trends in subsidence claims

Greater shrinkage will occur in the surface soil during hot summers or
in summers following a dry winter. This has given rise to what insurers
refer to as èvent years' where the number of claims for subsidence
damage are relatively large. The trend in insurance claims over the
last 25 years is shown in Figure 1 and this indicates that 1976, 1984,
1990, 1991, 1995 and 1997 were event years. The back-to-back hot
8
Fig. 1. Trend in claims for heave and subsidence damage to domestic properties (based on statistics supplied by the
Association of British Insurers)
HAS YOUR HOUSE GOT CRACKS?
summers of 1989 and 1990 in particular had a signi®cant effect on

soil conditions and this is described in more detail in Chapter 3. The
reason the ®gures go back only to the early 1970s is simply the fact
that insurance cover for subsidence and heave did not exist prior to
this time.
Although there has not been a recognised event year since 1997, the
level of claims has not dropped signi®cantly over the last four years.
This suggests that homeowners are becoming increasingly aware of
the possibility that cracks may be the result of subsidence and are
therefore inclined to report even minor damage to their insurer. This
has been borne out by unof®cial reports from some major insurers of
a marked increase in recent years of the number of claims that turn
out to be nothing to do with subsidence.
In practice, most houses crack at some point in their lives. In most
cases, the cause is nothing more sinister than the physical and chemical
changes that affect all building materials ± for example, a 10 m long
brick wall can expand and contract by as much as 5 mm due to seasonal
changes in temperature and humidity (Chapter 2). These changes pro-
duce distortion in the walls and can occasionally cause minor damage;
small seasonal foundation movements cause similar distortion and
similar amounts of damage. However, while physical and chemical
changes are considered to be normal wear and tear and, as such,
excluded from insurance cover, seasonal foundation movements are
considered to be `subsidence'.
Subsidence cover has therefore become a `catch-all' for damage that
cannot be attributed to any other factor. In most cases, a homeowner
reporting damage to his or her insurer will be referred to the subsi-
dence claims department, unless there has been some speci®c event,
such as a ®re or a burst pipe.
Most major insurers are now prepared to fund a proper independent
investigation and it would be reassuring to think that most cases of
trivial damage would be identi®ed as such at an early stage and the
homeowner advised accordingly. Unfortunately, the reality is that
where a claim relates to a property founded on shrinkable clay,
investigations are likely to con®rm the presence of some seasonal
movement. Often this is accepted as proof that the damage has been
caused by `subsidence', without proper consideration of whether the
recorded movements are suf®cient to cause the damage. Indeed, in
many cases the distortions associated with the seasonal movement
will be no greater than those associated with typical thermal expansion
and contraction.
While individual homeowners may be pleased to learn that their

insurer is going to pay for the damage to be repaired and decorated,
this trend is clearly unsatisfactory and is in¯ating insurance premiums
generally. What is possibly more worrying is that, in some cases,
insurers are not only being asked to pay for repairs and decorations,
but also expensive remedial works to prevent a recurrence of minor
damage to a property that has been moving seasonally since it was
built.
There are also some undesirable knock-on effects for selling a house
that has had a claim for subsidence damage or which is situated in a
shrinkable clay area perceived as being prone to subsidence damage.
These are considered in the following section.
Changing attitudes towards subsidence and heave damage

Prior to the introduction of insurance cover for subsidence and
heave damage, it was common practice for homeowners to repair
minor damage as part of routine maintenance and decoration. Label-
ling damage of this kind as `subsidence' has made this practice less
acceptable and has encouraged homeowners to report even minor
damage to their insurer. At the same time, surveyors and engineers
are under increasing pressure to guarantee that the damage will not
recur and are therefore tending to err on the side of caution and specify
expensive underpinning solutions.
When the ®rst edition of Has Your House Got Cracks? was produced, it
was noted that, because of the high cost of underpinning, insurers had
become reluctant to extend cover to a property that was thought to be
at risk. Building surveyors acting on behalf of prospective buyers or
mortgage lenders had also grown increasingly cautious of recommend-
ing the purchase of any property that contained signs of foundation
movement. Consequently, anyone trying to sell a house with cracks
was faced with the prospect of having to put right what in many
cases was no more than cosmetic damage. Where foundations were
perceived to be inadequate, the only remedy that was acceptable to
buyers and insurers was often underpinning, even where the move-
ment was relatively small and there was no threat to the stability of
the building. At the same time, in view of the high level of claims,
insurers were hardening their attitudes to underpinning and becoming
reluctant to sanction underpinning without evidence that the move-
ments were continuing and likely to lead to a progressive worsening
of the damage. Monitoring was therefore often speci®ed to obtain the
required information, although this inevitably led to delays in settling

the claim, and in the meantime the homeowner found it very dif®cult
to sell the property.
In recent years, there have been a number of general improvements.
For example, most major insurers will fund the investigation of
suspected subsidence damage, removing this burden from the home-
owner. Following a claim for subsidence damage, they will also
continue to offer cover at standard terms and conditions, even if there
is a change of ownership. Moreover, if the property is sold before
the repairs are carried out, they are often prepared to transfer the
rights under the claim to the new owner. These steps should, in prin-
ciple, minimise any loss in the value of the house associated with the
damage.
In the long term, however, a more sensible approach to repairing and
remedying subsidence and heave damage will require a change in
attitude among homeowners and a return to the values held before
insurance policies were introduced to cover the repair of these defects.
Before the introduction of insurance cover in the early 1970s, most
homeowners regarded minor cracking as harmless and in no way
detracting from the value of the house. Subsidence damage is not
new; it has existed as long as houses have been built and, although
steps are being taken to make new homes less susceptible to founda-
tion movement, it will never disappear completely. In particular,
trees will continue to be planted too close to properties.
Insurance cover
What is covered?
Foundations can move downwards, upwards or sideways. In insur-
ance policies these movements are described respectively as subsi-
dence, heave and landslip. Although the wording in the insurance
policy will vary from company to company, unless there is a special
endorsement to the contrary, most domestic buildings policies provide
cover for damage to the building caused by foundation movement. A
typical description of the cover from a buildings policy is:
`Damage to buildings caused by subsidence and/or heave of the site on
which the buildings stand and/or landslip'
It should be noted that cover is limited to subsidence and heave òf
the site' to exclude damage caused by movements within the building
itself. Some other common exclusions are:
(a) loss or damage to garden walls, gates, fences, swimming pools,

tennis courts, drives or paving unless buildings are damaged at
the same time and by the same cause;
(b) damage to solid ¯oors caused by compaction of in®ll or the use of
defective materials or faulty workmanship;
(c) loss or damage caused by river or sea erosion.
It is therefore always important to check the policy wording to see

what is and what is not covered. If you do not understand the wording,
ask your broker or building society for advice, or write to the insurer
for clari®cation.
Subject to quali®cations related to adequacy of sum insured and
condition of the building, the cover normally provided in buildings
policies is for reinstatement. This covers the cost of physically repairing
or replacing the damaged parts of the building, in order to restore it to
its pre-damaged condition, with no deduction for wear and tear.
In practice, it would not be sensible to try to repair the fabric of a
building if there is an unacceptable risk of future foundation movements
causing further signi®cant damage. Insurers will therefore generally pay
for remedial measures (including underpinning), if it can be shown that
this is essential to restoring the stability of the foundations. However,
they will not pay for underpinning simply because the existing founda-
tions are perceived to be inadequate or because they do not comply with
current guidelines. Equally, where it is reasonably probable that further
damage can be avoided by, for example, reducing or removing nearby
trees, insurers will normally insist that this possibility is explored
fully. As a general guide it is worth remembering that policies cover
repair of damage that has already occurred, not work undertaken
purely to prevent future damage.
Insurers will be concerned to establish that all signi®cant damage
has occurred whilst you have owned the property and that their
position has not been made worse by a failure of a homeowner to
take reasonable steps or comply with any conditions noted under the
insurance policy.
All policies make you responsible for paying the ®rst part of any claim
for subsidence, heave or landslip damage. This sum, known as the excess,
had generally been £500 since the risks were ®rst added in the early
1970s, although almost all companies have now increased the ®gure to
£1000. In high-risk areas, an even higher ®gure may be applied.
If the damage has not been caused by movement to the foundations,
it is unlikely that it will be covered by your buildings policy. Most
minor damage is caused by physical and chemical changes in the

building materials (see Chapter 2), which is considered to be wear
and tear and, as such, is not covered by your policy. There are, how-
ever, a number of other speci®c risks that are mentioned, including
Àccidental Damage', Èscape of Water', `Storm', `Flood' and `Fire'.
Occasionally, suspected subsidence damage may fall under one of
these headings, in which case the policy excess will normally be £25
or £50, rather than the £1000 that applies to claims under the Subsi-
dence, Heave and Landslip section.
Geographical loading
An insurer will base its premiums on a number of considerations,
including the susceptibility of your property to burglary, ¯ood and
storm damage. Usually these factors are applied in the form of `geogra-
phical loadings', that is premium variations dependent on your post
code. In the case of subsidence, the geographical loading is based on
the predominance of shrinkable clay, determined by British Geological
Survey maps, and the number of previous claims in your area. Unfor-
tunately, soil type can vary greatly over short distances so that many
houses in an area where shrinkable clay is prevalent could, in fact,
be founded on comparatively stable sands or gravels.
Another potential inequity of geographical loadings is that they take
no account of the foundation design. There is no reason why a founda-
tion cannot be designed to resist movement caused by swelling and
shrinkage of clay soils, even close to large trees. The Building Research
Establishment (BRE), for example, has for 50 years been advocating
the use of short bored piles for buildings founded on shrinkable soil;
this type of foundation offers greater protection against shrinkage
and heave, and need not necessarily be any more expensive than con-
ventional strip footings or trench-®ll foundations (see Foundations,
Chapter 4).
If your house is situated in a high-risk area comprising shrinkable
clays, you may be able to persuade your insurer not to apply a geo-
graphical loading in respect of subsidence, because your house is
founded on a stable soil such as sand, or is built on piled foundations,
and therefore not susceptible to the effects of clay movements. How-
ever, an Engineer's Report will probably be needed and the cost of
this may exceed the additional premium. It is more likely, therefore,
that you will need to seek a quote from a company that applies a
lower loading to premiums in your area.
Chapter 2. Causes of cracking
Common sense suggests that walls and ceilings will crack only if there
has been movement. However, the appearance of cracks does not
necessarily mean there has been movement of the foundations. In the
vast majority of cases the movement is occurring within the wall
itself due to physical or chemical changes, over-stressing or vibration.
These four broad categories of damage are discussed in more detail
in the sections that follow, while cracking caused by foundation
movement is discussed in Chapter 3. Further information can be
found in BRE Digest 3611 or in Cracking in Buildings by Bonshor and
Bonshor2.
Physical changes
Seasonal temperature and humidity
Seasonal and daily changes in temperature and moisture content affect
all properties. In most cases the changes are fully reversible and do not
cause any obvious problems. Non-porous materials, such as metals,
glass and plastics, are affected only by temperature, while porous
materials, such as brick, concrete and timber, are affected by moisture
as well. Timber is particularly sensitive to changes in moisture content,
with most of the shrinkage and swelling occurring across the grain.
Most homeowners are surprised to learn that their house can expand
and contract by 5 mm or more over the course of a year as a result of
changes in temperature and humidity. Where a house is part of a
long terrace, the movements can be correspondingly greater. To
accommodate these movements, current (2002) practice requires that
movement joints be incorporated in any long walls at appropriate
intervals. However, this practice was adopted only in the 1960s and
most old terraces will be constructed in continuous brickwork.
Other parts of the property that may be susceptible to damage as a
result of thermal expansion and contraction include the walls support-
ing ¯at roofs, and panels of brickwork over long, reinforced-concrete
lintels.
Initial drying
Cracks that develop in the ®rst few years following construction (or
refurbishment) can often be attributed to initial drying shrinkage. Any
products containing cement or plaster, including concrete blocks and
mortar, have a tendency to shrink as they dry out. This initial shrinkage
can be 50% greater than movement associated with seasonal changes.
Timber achieves an equilibrium moisture content of 12 to 15% in a
normally heated house. When timber-framed houses are built, it is
important that the seasoned timber used in the construction is pro-
tected to prevent it absorbing excessive moisture. Even so, drying
shrinkage can cause overall changes in the frame of 6 mm per storey.
If this movement is not allowed for in the design it can cause cracking
to the external cladding and distortion to door and window frames.
Loss of volatiles
Paints, putties and some sealants shrink as they lose solvents to the
atmosphere. This is an inherent characteristic of these products so, if
performance is critical, a non-solvent-based alternative has to be used.
Freezing and thawing of water

This can affect any porous materials exposed to saturation by moisture
and to low temperatures. As the temperature falls below 08C, ice forms
in the pores closest to the surface. This traps the remaining water and, as
further ice forms, the expansion causes the surface layer to break o ± a
process often referred to as `spalling'.
Free-standing boundary walls, foundation brickwork, and parapet
walls are particularly susceptible to damage of this kind. Even so,
normally only the surface layer is affected and this process rarely
results in signi®cant cracking.
Freezing and thawing can also produce movements in certain soils,
such as ®ne sands and chalk. However, in the UK, freezing rarely
affects the soil below a depth of 0.5 m so that a minimum depth foun-
dation offers adequate protection from this effect.
Eorescence
Water that ®nds its way into walls because of inadequate damp
proo®ng or possibly a leak in the roof can pick up signi®cant amounts
of soluble salts from the brickwork. As the water evaporates from the
surface of the wall, the salt crystals are left behind ± a process known as
èf¯orescence'. Under certain circumstances, the crystals are deposited
below the surface (crypto-ef¯orescence) causing spalling similar to that

associated with freezing and thawing of water.
Chemical changes
Moisture expansion of brickwork
Unlike seasonal expansion and contraction, the initial expansion of a
clay product after it is removed from the kiln is actually a chemical
adsorption process. It is therefore irreversible and can cause substantial
changes in volume. The process is very rapid just after the product has
been cooled after ®ring. The rate then falls off with time, but can con-
tinue for 20 years or more. Materials vary markedly ± for example,
London stock bricks have a low expansion and under®red shale
bricks a particularly high expansion. However, for design purposes
it is usually suf®cient to allow a ®gure of 1 mm of expansion for
every metre length of wall.
Sulfate attack
Sulfate attack is an expansive reaction between Portland cement and
water containing soluble salts, which are usually sulfates of sodium,
potassium or magnesium. In brickwork, the source of the sulfate is
often the bricks themselves and it is normally the mortar or cement
rendering that is attacked. Salts can also be picked up by groundwater
that comes into contact with earth retaining walls or hardcore con-
taining unsuitable aggregates or gypsum plaster. The reaction leads
initially to cracking and spalling of the mortar and render, but even-
tually the gross expansion of the masonry will produce movement,
bowing, arching and general disruption.
The reaction occurs only when masonry is wet for long periods. It
does not, therefore, normally affect the area between the damp-proof
course and the eaves because this is partly sheltered and warmed by
heat leaking from the inside of the house. Parapet walls, free-standing
external walls and retaining walls are more vulnerable, especially if the
coping detail or waterproo®ng is defective.
Sulfate attack of ground ¯oor slabs is quite common and is usually
caused by the use of hardcore or ®ll material containing appreciable
amounts of sulfate. Gypsum products are sometimes included
inadvertently in hardcore, but most cases of damage involve the use
of burnt colliery shale, often referred to as `red shale'. These products
tend to contain considerable quantities of soluble sulfate and should be
avoided.
The sulfate tends to attack the underside of the slab causing it to arch
and crack. The sideways thrust can also push the foundation brickwork
outwards causing slippage at the damp-proof course.
In most cases, further damage can be avoided by breaking out the
¯oor slab and replacing the hardcore with a sulfate-free material.
Corrosion or oxidisation of steel

This is a very common problem affecting ®xings, reinforcement and
structural steelwork buried in porous building materials that become
damp. The main problem is the formation of rust or hydrated iron
oxide to give it its proper name. This produces a fourfold increase in
volume, which can cause movement, spalling or cracking of the sur-
rounding material. The most common failures are in houses with
steel wall ties or concrete reinforced with mild steel.
Other chemical processes

There are several other chemical processes that can affect concrete
products and which are, therefore, more common in commercial
properties than in domestic buildings. These include `carbonation',
àlkali silica reaction' and `hydration of oxides and unstable slag
aggregates'. Further details of these processes can be found in BRE
Digest 361.
Over-stressing
Walls and other components carry the loads imposed by the self-
weight of the building materials and any external forces such as
wind or snow. These loads are normally referred to as dead and
imposed loading respectively. Cracking will occur wherever the total
loading ± or stress ± exceeds the strength of the building material.
This is seldom a problem in domestic properties because most of the
loading is compressive and both bricks and concrete blocks are very
strong in compression. However, over-stressing can occur locally
where loads are concentrated on to a small area via a beam or joist.
Loft conversions and other structural alterations, such as the
removal of a load-bearing wall or chimney breast, will inevitably con-
centrate the loading in the existing walls. Alterations of this kind
should always be done under the supervision of a suitably quali®ed
professional and with appropriate consent from your local Building
Control Of®ce.
Vibration
Research has shown that vibration associated with road traf®c is
incapable of causing damage to a conventionally-built house. How-
ever, common sense suggests that vibration of this kind is not going
to help a damaged property and may cause existing cracks to open
up slightly.
Severe vibrations associated with an earthquake, explosion or mine
blasting can cause extensive damage to nearby properties, but fortu-
nately these processes happen only rarely in the UK. Nevertheless, it
should be borne in mind that bomb damage in the Second World
War is a possible explanation for distortion in properties that are
more than 60 years old, especially in areas such as Coventry and the
East End of London.
Wear and tear

What is often referred to as `wear and tear' in properties is a combina-
tion of chemical changes that occur slowly over long periods and
repeated cycles of temperature and humidity change. Although seaso-
nal changes in temperature and moisture are essentially reversible, in
as much as the building material returns to its original volume,
repeated cycles can cause a crack to widen progressively. The process
is sometimes referred to as `ratcheting' and can be most easily
described in terms of its effect on a brick wall. Because masonry
tends to be very strong in compression, expansion can overcome fric-
tion and other forces and cause relative movement between individual
bricks. This causes existing cracks to open up. However, as the wall
cools or dries out, the tensile bond between bricks is often too weak
to return them to their original position. In addition, the crack may
®ll up with dust or debris while it is open. The net effect is a slight
increase in crack width. Typically this may be only a fraction of a milli-
metre, but over a period of decades even small movements can result in
signi®cant distortion.
It is not uncommon, therefore, to ®nd that the outside, solid walls of
older properties, especially those built with soft lime mortar, are either
bowed or leaning outwards, depending on the restraint provided by
the ¯oors and roof. This effect is particularly noticeable in the end
walls of long terraces, where it is referred to as `the book-end effect'.
In extreme cases, the lean can make the wall inherently unstable and
it has to be taken down and rebuilt. More commonly, the problem is
identi®ed at an early stage and the wall is restrained by the use of tie
bars. Traditionally, these were wrought iron bars ®xed to the party wall
and projecting through the end wall between the ground and ®rst ¯oor
levels. The brickwork of the end wall was then supported by a large nut
screwed to the end of the rod and bearing on an iron plate. The modern
equivalent, which is ®tted to the inside face of the wall, is shown in
Figure 28.
Lime mortar is susceptible to weathering in the form of a combi-
nation of erosion and dissolution due to the acidity of rainwater.
This process can normally be prevented by repointing, where the sur-
face pointing is scraped out and replaced with modern cement-based
mortar; periodic maintenance is required to ensure that the surface
pointing remains in good condition and does not fall out. If this main-
tenance is neglected, the lime mortar on the outside will compress and
the wall will tend to lean outwards resulting in a localised bulge.
Over long periods, both the book-end effect and localised weather-
ing of the mortar can cause signi®cant distortion to an outside wall,
resulting in large internal cracks. In most cases, the cracking alerts
the owner to the problem and appropriate remedial works are carried
out, such as ®tting tie rods and repointing the wall externally. Occa-
sionally, where the mortar has weathered signi®cantly, it may be
necessary to render the wall to prevent further deterioration. It
would be rare, however, to attempt to correct the lean to the wall or
the associated distortion to window and door openings.
While the repointing or rendering may prevent further deterioration
of the mortar, once a wall is badly distorted there is a tendency for
further insidious movement (and hence damage) to occur as a result
of gravity and any sideways loading on the wall. Because downward
movement of the foundations can cause an outward lean to the sup-
ported wall, damage of this kind may be mistaken for subsidence.
Another cause of wear and tear in houses is persistent dampness,
which can result in deterioration to plasterwork and mortar. Provided
the dampness is identi®ed at an early stage, the resulting damage is
likely to be restricted to local debonding of the plaster. However, if
the dampness goes undetected, it may give rise to processes such as
sulfate attack and can eventually result in distortion and localised
structural damage. Repairs are unlikely to correct the distortion and
it is again possible to mistake this for evidence of previous, or continu-
ing, subsidence.
Chapter 3. Causes of subsidence
and heave
Foundations are the supporting link between the building and the
ground. They transmit the loads from the walls, ¯oors and roof into the
ground. At the same time they transfer any ground movement back to
the structure, possibly causing distortions and damage. To perform satis-
factorily, the foundations must withstand ground movement and limit
distortion of the building to tolerable levels. Foundations can fail to do
this either because they are inadequately designed for the loads they
have to carry or, more commonly, because the ground movements are
greater than anticipated. The building then suffers from cracking.
Foundation movement may result from a wide range of factors,
which include:
. compression of a soft layer in the ground as a result of the
applied foundation loads;
. shrinkage and/or swelling;
. erosion;
. soil softening;
. variations in the groundwater level;
. compression of ®lled ground;
. collapse of mine workings or natural cavities;
. nearby construction or excavation;
. frost heave;
. chemical attack on the foundations;
. vibration.
Most of these processes will start to affect the property from the time of
construction and are therefore normally discovered during the ®rst ten
to twenty years.
For an older property without signs of longstanding foundation

problems, subsidence or heave requires some change of circumstances.
In certain parts of the UK, this change can be a collapse of an under-
ground cavity or mine ± for example, many properties in Staffordshire,
Yorkshire and Durham have been damaged by the controlled collapse of
deep coal mines. In the remainder of the UK, there are only two common
processes that are likely to cause subsidence in an older property. These
are: (i) erosion caused by water leaking from a defective drain or water
supply, and (ii) shrinkage or swelling in the surface soil.
Erosion
Water seeping through soil has a tendency to wash out the ®ner
particles, which loosens the soil and ultimately leads to compression.
This process is commonly referred to as èrosion' or, more correctly,
as `sub-surface erosion'. It follows that erosion can occur only in
permeable soils such as sands and gravels, because the water will be
unable to ¯ow through a pure clay. However, some clay soils contain
thin layers of sand which can be susceptible to erosion. It is also the
case that drains are often laid in a gravel-®lled trench. The leaking
water can then erode the gravel and remove the support to the sides
of the trench, which allows the clay to swell and soften.
Erosion from a defective drain normally affects only the soil over the
drain and it is not uncommon, therefore, to see a depression in the
surface paving over the path of a drain. In older terraced properties
the drainage was sometimes laid before the house was built and runs
out underneath the front wall. Occasionally, therefore, a defective
drain can cause localised damage where it passes underneath the
foundations. But, in most cases, the drainage is outside the house,
which makes it less common for the escaping water to affect the
foundations. Signi®cant quantities of water are required for damage
to be caused and this normally occurs only when the drain is
blocked or severely fractured, or where the leakage has been occurring
over a period of many years. Even so, the damage is likely to be very
localised unless the soil contains permeable layers that dip under the
house.
Shrinkage or swelling in the surface soil

By far the commonest cause of foundation movement in the UK is
shrinkage or swelling of clay soils caused by changes in the moisture
content of the layer of soil near the surface. The remainder of this
chapter explains why clay soils change in volume and the circum-
stances under which damage is most likely to occur.
Why clay soils shrink and swell

Clay soils contain a high proportion of extremely small particles with
diameters of less than 0.002 mm. Many of these particles consist of
one of the three common clay minerals: kaolinite, illite and montmorillo-
nite. Their molecular structure is such that their crystals, seen under an
electron microscope, are shaped like plates. Unlike coarser-grained
soils where any water in the ground simply ®lls the voids between
the grains, these small plates can hold the water within their molecular
structure, much as a jelly does. An increase in moisture content forces
the plates apart causing the soil to expand and, conversely, a reduction
in moisture content allows the plates to adopt a denser packing causing
the soil to shrink.
The moisture content of a clay soil can be reduced in one of only two
ways: by increasing the load on the soil by, for example, constructing a
foundation or by raising the ground level; or through moisture being
sucked out by evaporation and the roots of vegetation ± a process
known as desiccation. If the applied load on the soil is reduced, or the
source of suction is removed, moisture will be drawn back into the
soil. Whether the clay is swelling or shrinking, because of its limited
permeability these volume changes occur only slowly, over a period of
months, years or even decades, in extreme cases.
Characteristic properties
Clays are characteristically mouldable (or plastic) and smooth and
greasy to the touch. The more clay particles in the soil, compared
with silt or other coarser-grained material, then the more pronounced
these characteristics are. Each clay mineral has its own characteristics;
montmorillonite, for example, can absorb far more moisture than either
illite or kaolinite.
The strength of clays in their natural state can vary from `soft',
through `®rm' and `stiff' to `hard'. These classi®cations have precise
de®nitions3, but as a rough guide, you can easily mould a sample of
soft clay in your hand, while it is only just possible to push your
thumb nail into a sample of hard clay. The variation in strength of
near-surface clays is largely due to their geological history. The
stronger clays tend to be the older ones which had hundreds of
metres of material subsequently deposited over them; this cover was

later removed by erosion and glacial action in the Ice Age. Such clays
are described as overconsolidated and, near the ground surface, would
normally be classi®ed as `®rm'.
Although mouldable when wet, ®rm clays shrink and crack as they
dry and intact lumps can become very hard to break. A clod of ®rm
clay immersed in water will soften only slowly, without disintegrating.
A clod that disintegrates quickly contains silt and other coarser-grained
materials.
Liquid and plastic limits

A given clay soil can be characterised by measuring the range of
moisture contents over which it is mouldable. The upper end of this
range where the soil begins to `¯ow' is known as the liquid limit and
the lower end where the soil begins to break up is known as the plastic
limit. As with all soil moisture contents, both limits are expressed in
gravimetric terms, that is as the weight of water removed by drying
as a percentage of the weight of dry material.
Standard laboratory tests4 have been de®ned to measure these limits
on a consistent basis so that they can be used to compare different clays
in terms of their likely behaviour. The liquid limit, for example, is a
measure of the amount of water bound to soil particles; hence, the
greater it is, the more `clayey' the behaviour of the soil.
Where are shrinkable clays found?

Firm shrinkable clays occur widely in the south-east of England, as
shown on the map in Figure 2. The geological names of these clays
include: London; Gault; Weald; Kimmeridge; Oxford; Woolwich and
Reading; Lias; Barton; and the glacial drift clays, such as the chalky
boulder clays of East Anglia, in which clay has been mixed with a
range of other soils during the Ice Age. Their moisture contents are
close to the plastic limit; for example, a typical moisture content for
weathered London Clay with a plastic limit of say 26% would be in
the range of 25 to 30%. However, close to the ground surface, the
moisture contents are in¯uenced by evaporation and rainfall, and
¯uctuations from as little as 15% in dry summer weather to 40% in
wet winters can occur.
Some shrinkable clays occur further north than the areas indicated
in Figure 2; for example, those derived from the weathering and
glaciation of carboniferous shales around Sunderland and north of
Fig. 2. Distribution of shrinkable clays in South East England
Shrewsbury. However, in the North the surface clays are generally

sandy and their potential for shrinkage is, therefore, smaller. In
addition to the ®rm clays, there are soft, alluvial clays found in and
around estuaries, lakes and river courses, such as the Fens, the
Somerset levels, the Kent and Essex marshes, and the Firths of Forth
and Clyde. All these clays have a ®rm, shrunken crust which is drier
than the body of clay beneath. Clay shrinkage is not the only
foundation problem in these areas: excessive settlement due to loading
the underlying softer clay and peat can also occur. More detailed
information on the location and identi®cation of clay soils can be
obtained from British Geological Survey maps5.
Shrinkage potential
The potential for a clay soil to cause damage by shrinking or swelling is
called its shrinkage potential. For convenience, this parameter is
assumed to be proportional to the difference between the liquid and
plastic limits, a quantity which is known as the plasticity index or
simply the plasticity of the clay.
Three classi®cations of shrinkage potential (low to high) are suggested

by the National House-Building Council (NHBC)6, but BRE have more
recently proposed the following:
Classi®cation Plasticity index: %
low less than 20
medium 20 to 40
high 40 to 60
very high over 60
It is important to appreciate, however, that the plasticity is only a rough
indicator of the potential of the soil to change volume. A more funda-
mental approach to understanding, and hence calculating, the volume
changes and movements associated with clay shrinkage and swelling
depends on a more detailed examination of the process of desiccation.
Desiccation
Most people associate the term desiccation with a complete removal
of moisture; a `desiccator' for example is a device for removing the
last traces of free water from crystals and `desiccated' coconut is an
example of a food that has been thoroughly dried in order to preserve
it. To geotechnical specialists, however, the term has a slightly different
meaning: it is any reduction below the soil's natural moisture content
caused by evaporation or removal of water through tree roots. A soil
described as desiccated may in fact have a moisture content that is
reduced by only 1% or 2%.
Desiccation often reduces the moisture content of ®rm shrinkable
clays to values close to or below the plastic limit. This makes the soil
appear dry and hard and, near the surface, often causes the ground
to crack. In highly shrinkable soils, cracks 25 mm wide and 0.75 m
deep are not uncommon during dry summers.
How much desiccation?

Deciding how much, if any, desiccation has occurred is not easy.
Provided soil moisture content measurements are available both at
the suspect location and remote from it, in highly uniform ground it
should be possible to see any differences attributable to desiccation;
but clay soils are rarely suf®ciently uniform for this procedure to be
reliable. Furthermore, the luxury of information from both the site
and remote from it is unusual.
The natural moisture content of many ®rm, shrinkable clays is often
close to the plastic limit. In these clays, desiccation can reduce the
moisture content below the plastic limit making the soil appear dry and
crumbly. From experience, certain threshold values for desiccation
have been developed based on either the plastic or liquid limits,
which have enabled investigators to judge whether or not a soil is
desiccated when they have moisture content values from the suspect
location only. Unfortunately, this approach is unreliable at best and
can sometimes be positively misleading. It should therefore be avoided
except where the investigator has other local information that can be
used for comparative purposes.
A far more reliable method of assessing the amount of desiccation
present in a clay soil has been developed by BRE. The ®lter-paper
test7 is a relatively simple laboratory procedure that measures the
state of suction present in a clay sample. This test should be preferred
wherever it is critical to determine the extent of desiccation ± for
example, to specify the required depth for underpinning or to decide
whether or not it is safe to remove a large tree.
Eect of trees
Work at BRE has shown that, in grass-covered areas, the effect of
evaporation in ®rm, shrinkable clays is largely con®ned to the upper-
most 1 m to 1.5 m of soil. However, where there are trees, and to a
lesser extent hedges and large shrubs, moisture can be extracted
from depths of 6 m or more. For high-plasticity clays that tend to
have very low permeabilities, rainfall during winter cannot fully
replenish the moisture removed by large trees during the summer.
Hence a zone of permanently desiccated soil develops under the
tree, as shown in Figure 3.
As the tree grows, the desiccated zone increases in depth and width,
producing more subsidence, which is likely to affect any nearby struc-
tures. In some instances, the subsidence associated with a growing tree
can be dramatic. Figure 4, for example, shows a property that has
cracked as the result of the growth of a poplar tree in the rear
garden. The increasing subsidence towards the tree has caused the
back wall of the house to rotate outwards, which is a classic symptom
of tree-related damage. This is an extreme case; most cases are nowhere
near this bad.
The extent of the desiccated soil depends on the moisture demand of
the tree. In general, broad leaf trees have a greater moisture demand
than evergreens. And, because of their size, oak, elm, willow and
poplar are notorious for causing damage. However, these are not the
ones that most commonly cause damage to housing, because other
Fig. 3. Seasonal variation in moisture content with and without trees
trees with lower moisture demands, notably plane, lime and ash, are
more frequently planted close to buildings. Information collected by
the Royal Botanic Gardens during the 1970s8 suggests that the trees
most likely to cause damage, in descending order of threat, are as
listed in Table I.
For each type of tree, the table gives the distance between the tree
and the building within which 75% of the reported cases of damage
occurred. As a rule of thumb, it would appear that damage can usually
be avoided by ensuring that the tree is no closer to the foundations than
its mature height. For the less `thirsty' trees, this ®gure can be reduced
to half the mature height. There are two reservations about this
generalisation. First, it takes no account of the shrinkage potential of
the soil or the depth of the foundations. Second, it is the leaf area of
the tree rather than its height that ultimately determines its moisture
demand. The rule should therefore be treated with caution and
common sense.
Fig. 4. Dramatic example of the potential eects of tree growth on a house

with shallow foundations (BRE copyright)
Eect of climate
The degree of desiccation in the soil is greatest towards the end of
summer and least in late winter or early spring, and this is re¯ected
in ground movement. To illustrate this point, Figure 5 shows ground
Table I. Risk of damage by dierent varieties of tree9

Ranking Species Maximum Separation Minimum
height of between tree recommended
tree (H): and building for separation in
metres 75% of cases: shrinkable clay:
metres metres
1 Oak 16±23 13 1H
2 Poplar 24 15 1H
3 Lime 16±24 8 0.5 H
4 Common ash 23 10 0.5 H
5 Plane 25±30 7.5 0.5 H
6 Willow 15 11 1H
7 Elm 20±25 12 0.5 H
8 Hawthorn 10 7 0.5 H
9 Maple/Sycamore 17±24 9 0.5 H
10 Cherry/Plum 8 6 1H
11 Beech 20 9 0.5 H
12 Birch 12±14 7 0.5 H
13 White beam/ 8±12 7 1H
Rowan
14 Cypress 18±25 3.5 0.5 H
movements measured at various depths at a London Clay site over a

three-year period; results are shown both for a grass-covered area
and for an area containing some large poplar trees. The movements
were substantially greater in the dry summers of 1989 and 1990 than
they were in 1988, con®rming that desiccation increases in hot dry
weather.
The site measurements also con®rm that ground movements in the
grass-covered area are generally con®ned to the surface metre of soil,
although the unusually dry weather of 1989 and 1990 did produce
movements of 6 mm and 13 mm respectively at a depth of 1 m.
Understandably, the movements in the vicinity of the poplar trees
were larger and, for example, at a depth of 1 m, exceeded 35 mm in an
average year such as 1988. During 1989 and 1990 measurable ground
Fig. 5. Measurements of ground movement at various depths in London

Clay (BRE copyright)
movements were recorded even at depths of 4 m indicating that pro-

longed periods of dry weather can have an effect on deep-seated desic-
cation. The potential effect of these ground movements on buildings
sited near trees is graphically illustrated by the measurements shown
Fig. 6. Observed movements of pads with various applied loadings (BRE

copyright)
in Figure 6, which were made on some 1.5 m deep concrete pads, as

might be used in a factory foundation, for example. These pads were
positioned an average of about 5 m from large poplars. The cumulative
moisture losses during the dry summers produced a `ratcheting' effect
on the pads, resulting in settlements of more than 50 mm over a three-
year period. This movement would be in addition to any long-term
subsidence associated with the growth of the trees. It would be capable
of causing cracks in most brick-built structures, particularly if only part
of the building was affected, maximising differential movement and
hence distortion.
Eect of surroundings
Desiccation depends on the availability of water, which in turn will
depend on a variety of factors. As a homeowner you can, to an
extent, control some of these factors, such as drainage and the
permeability of the surface layer ± more details are given in Chapter
5. Other factors, such as the slope of the ground and the shelter pro-
vided by the house and other nearby buildings, cannot be controlled.
Ground that slopes steeply away from the house may increase desic-
cation in the soil under the foundations by lowering the groundwater
table and making it easier for rain to run off rather than be absorbed by
the soil. Although there are no detailed observations to con®rm this, it

is possible that the consecutive hot summers of 1989 and 1990 caused
cumulative movements, similar to those described above in Effect of
climate, near cuttings, excavations and steep slopes.
Chapter 4. How your house is
built
It is not uncommon for only one or two houses in a street to be

damaged by subsidence, although all are founded on the same type
of soil and are similarly close to large trees. Often the explanation
lies in local variations in the soil or minor differences in the method
of construction, which can have an important in¯uence on the house's
susceptibility to subsidence and heave damage.
Construction practice changed signi®cantly during the course of the
20th century. For example, cavity walls were introduced to improve
insulation, lightweight concrete blocks replaced bricks for all but the
outside leaf of external walls to reduce material costs and to improve
thermal insulation and, with the advent of ready mixed concrete
and increased labour costs, mass concrete largely replaced the use of
brickwork below ground level. At the same time, regulations and
guidance concerning house construction kept pace with advances in
knowledge and increased demand for economy in relation to construc-
tion, maintenance and energy ef®ciency. These changes all had an
effect on the susceptibility of houses to subsidence and heave damage.
Whereas a comprehensive account of house construction is outside the
scope of this guide, the following sections describe some of the more
important differences between older houses and those now being built.
Foundations
In the UK, the concept of providing foundations as a matter of routine
for low-rise buildings dates back to the early 19th century. Prior to this
it was common practice to build walls either directly onto the bottom of
a narrow trench or onto a thin layer of rubble compacted in the bottom
of a trench. The Victorians realised that the stability of the building
could be improved by spreading the load in the wall over a greater
area; they achieved this by stepping or corbelling the brickwork at the
base of the wall to form a footing as shown in Figure 7. In speculative
Fig. 7 Cross-section through a typical Victorian house foundation
housing, the depth to the underside of the footing from ground level
was typically 450 mm unless poor ground forced the builder to dig
deeper; in some cases it might be even shallower. By 1890 it was
becoming common in better construction to line the bottom of the
trench with a layer of weak unreinforced concrete about 600 mm
wide and 215 mm deep. This type of foundation, which is known as
a strip footing, is still widely used, although the practice of using
corbelled brickwork has been dispensed with and the stronger,
modern-day concrete is relied on to distribute the load. Figure 8
illustrates a typical detail for a modern strip footing showing its use
with two different types of ¯oor.
By the late 1940s, it was realised that buildings founded at a depth of
450 mm were susceptible to movement as a result of moisture changes
in the soil. Consequently, a minimum foundation depth of 0.9 m (3 feet)
was proposed for buildings on clay soils. At the same time, it was also
realised that it would be cheaper to construct a foundation to this depth
by ®lling a trench, say, 400 mm wide with mass concrete, rather
than having to excavate a wider trench that would be needed for a
bricklayer to work in. Hence, a new type of foundation, the trench-®ll,
was developed that largely replaced the strip footing for building on
Fig. 8. Typical strip footing shown with a ground bearing ¯oor slab (left)
and a suspended timber ¯oor (right)
clay soils. A typical detail of a modern trench-®ll foundation is shown

in Figure 9; the depth can easily be increased and depths of 3.5 m or 4 m
are sometimes used when building near trees.
Since it ®rst appeared in a code of practice in 194910, the recom-
mended minimum foundation depth of 0.9 m for building on clay
soils has remained unaltered, although the guidance issued by the
NHBC in 196911 recommended a slightly greater depth of 1.0 m on
highly shrinkable clay soils. However, the recommended minimum
depth was not generally adopted until the introduction of Building
Regulations in 1965 made it mandatory in many areas to comply
with the relevant codes. Consequently, many houses built before
1965 may have foundations that are less than 0.9 m deep, despite the
obvious presence of shrinkable clay.
Although the 1949 code of practice recognised that deeper founda-
tions were needed near trees, the ®rst document to give speci®c
advice on how the required depth should be determined was the
NHBC practice note Building near trees11, which ®rst appeared in
1969. This note gave a method for calculating the required foundation
depth, based on the type and height of the tree and its distance from the
proposed building. This was revised in 1974 to take into consideration
Fig. 9. Trench-®ll foundation with two alternative ¯oor slab arrangements
the shrinkage potential of the soil and the geographical location of the
site. Recommended depths have remained unchanged since then and
are in the range 0.9 m to 3.5 m.
In summary, over the past 100 years foundations have become
progressively deeper, stronger and stiffer, especially for houses near
trees. This has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages
are that, because they are deeper, the foundation movements caused
by variations in desiccation are smaller and, because they are stronger,
the foundations tend to spread the effects of the ground movements
over a larger area, reducing distortion. The disadvantage is that, when
excessive subsidence or heave does occur, the foundations will tend to
crack at one point, concentrating the movement over a short length of
wall and producing more severe damage in the superstructure.
Alternative forms of foundation

Although trench-®ll construction is possible to depths of 3.5 m or more,
it becomes increasingly expensive because of the large amounts of
excavation and concrete that are required. Consequently, where foun-
dation depths of several metres are required, it is often more econom-
ical to construct isolated piers or to install piles rather than to excavate a
continuous deep trench. The tops of the piles or piers can then be
connected using a reinforced concrete beam (a ground beam), which
supports the walls.
Another form of foundation used for low-rise buildings is the raft, a
reinforced concrete slab covering the entire area of the building. The
raft, which is often constructed on a bed of compacted hardcore, distri-

butes foundation loads and can help reduce distortion in the brickwork
as a result of differential ground movement. Rafts are therefore com-
monly used on soft soils and ®ll, or in areas prone to mining subsidence.
However, their application to construction on shrinkable clays is limited.
In areas where there are no large trees and only a minimum foundation
depth is needed, a raft is more expensive than conventional construction
using trench-®ll and a separate ¯oor slab. Near trees, it is necessary to
remove the severely desiccated soil and replace it with ®ll, which
involves not only large costs for excavation and removal of spoil, but
also careful control of the ®lling to ensure that it is adequately compacted.
Floors
Floor construction has also changed during the 20th century. In Victor-
ian times the ¯oor of the bottom storey was usually built of timber sup-
ported between the foundations and intermediate sleeper walls. This
suspended ¯oor provided an under¯oor space, which was sometimes
deepened under part of the house to provide a coal cellar, for example.
With the advent of concrete as a building material, the suspended
timber ground ¯oor was largely superseded by the concrete ¯oor
slab. The cheapest way of constructing such a slab is to cast it directly
on a layer of compacted hardcore resting on the ground, after remov-
ing the topsoil. However, this leaves the ¯oor very sensitive to heave
and settlement in the surface soil and is therefore undesirable on
shrinkable clay sites, especially where trees or other vegetation have
been recently cleared. It is therefore becoming increasingly common
to use a suspended ¯oor slab of reinforced concrete, which can span
between the foundations without the need for support from the
ground. This type of ¯oor is normally constructed either using precast
concrete beams with the gaps ®lled by lightweight concrete blocks
(known as a beam-and-block ¯oor ± see Figure 10), or by casting a slab
on a proprietary void former.
Walls
Most UK housing is constructed using load-bearing masonry. The
commonest form of masonry is brick, although natural stone is popular
in some parts of the country and, over the past 30 years, the use of
lightweight concrete blocks has become increasingly common,
especially for internal walls. The main alternative to load-bearing
Fig. 10. Beam-and-block ¯oor (BRE copyright)
masonry is a framed construction, in which a load-bearing frame

carries the roof and ¯oor loads and some type of external cladding
or panel forms the walls. Timber frame houses began to be built in
large numbers in the UK during the 1980s though their market share
has always been limited. Steel or reinforced concrete frames with
in®ll panels have mainly been used for high-rise blocks. However, in
the ten years after the Second World War, when there was a shortage
of labour and materials and the house building industry was unable
to meet demand using traditional methods, some half a million
public sector houses were constructed using non-traditional methods.
These methods included: concrete posts and in®ll panels, thin concrete
slabs supported on light structural steel frames, pre-assembled
brickwork panels, stressed-skin resin-bonded plywood panels, various
forms of asbestos sheeting, and curtain walling. As a general rule, a
framed building is likely to be more ¯exible than one constructed
from load-bearing masonry. See Foundation and superstructure

design, Appendix C.
In traditional brick construction, external walls not exceeding two
storeys in height were generally built one brick-length (215 mm)
thick. For taller walls, a thickness of one and a half or two brick-lengths
would be used for the lower stories. To tie the wall together, some
bricks (known as headers) were laid end on to the outside face of the
wall. Bricks with their long side parallel to the face of the wall are
called stretchers. Different arrangements of headers and stretchers,
known as bonds, are possible; the two most common in house construc-
tion, English and Flemish bond, are illustrated in Figure 11. The bricks
were held together with a lime mortar, consisting typically of one part
lime to three parts sand, which developed its strength slowly and
was not a particularly durable material.
Fig. 11. Dierent types of bond for constructing a one-brick-thick solid wall
Fig. 12. Cavity wall
The most important change in low-rise building practice during the

20th century has been the introduction of cavity wall construction,
where external walls are built using a separate outer and inner `leaf'
divided by an air gap. This form of construction, which signi®cantly
reduces damp penetration and improves thermal insulation, was
adopted in certain parts of the UK during the 19th century but was
not generally accepted as the standard form of load bearing masonry
construction until after the Second World War. A cross-section through
a typical cavity wall consists of a 102 mm thick brick outer leaf, a 50 mm
wide cavity and an inner leaf of 102 mm thick insulating, load-bearing
concrete blocks (see Figure 12). The two leaves are tied together by wall
ties, which were originally made of wrought iron but are now more
likely to be heavily galvanised mild steel, stainless steel or plastic.
The individual leaves of a cavity wall are inherently weaker than a
215 mm solid wall, making it essential that there is a strong bond
between the individual bricks and blocks. Consequently, stronger
cement-based mortars have largely replaced the softer lime mortar.
Unfortunately, cement mortars make the wall less ¯exible and more
prone to cracking as a result of distortion.
Cavity walls can normally be recognised because they are built
entirely of stretchers. Where the outside walls have been rendered or
pebble dashed, it will be necessary to measure the thickness. Excluding
internal or external ®nishes, cavity walls are generally around 255 mm
thick, compared to about 215 mm for a solid wall.
Chapter 5. Preventing damage
Heave and subsidence damage affects only a small proportion of

houses in this country and it would be wrong to suggest that, as a
homeowner, you need to worry unduly about protecting your house
from these defects. At the same time, many houses that do suffer
cracks are old properties whose foundations have performed satis-
factorily for many decades or even centuries. Only occasionally is the
damage caused by a problem that has dogged the property periodically
since it was ®rst built; more often it is the result of either a lack of
necessary maintenance or an injudicious ìmprovement'.
This chapter describes some of the factors that affect the susceptibil-
ity of a house to heave or subsidence damage and which, to a degree,
you can control.
Tree management
Because of their effect on moisture content, you should avoid planting
trees, hedges or large shrubs close to houses founded on clay soils.
Remember to take the fully mature height of any tree you plant into
account (see Effects of trees, Chapter 3). Further advice on safe plant-
ing distances can be found in BS 5837 (1992)12 and in the Gardening
Which article `Trees near the house'13.
Where existing trees are too close to foundations, you should think
about having them pruned or removing them altogether. But removing
a tree that is older than the house or any later extensions can be danger-
ous because it may result in subsequent heave. For more details see
Reducing the in¯uence of trees, Chapter 11.
Structural alterations
Structural alterations, such as the removal of load-bearing walls or the
addition of a second storey to a single-storey extension, can alter
foundation loads. Whereas this may cause settlement under the
more-heavily loaded foundations, the movements on ®rm clays will
be unlikely to cause cracking as they are very small compared to the

amount the clay can shrink and swell. The alterations may, however,
make the structure more susceptible to damage. For example,
modern cavity walls are likely to be less ¯exible than solid walls
built with lime mortar, and converting ground ¯oors to open plan
may tend to concentrate distortions at isolated points.
It follows that some alterations may cause cracking in an old property
that has never previously suffered heave or subsidence damage. Such
damage would be most likely to show up after a period of unusually
dry weather, when the differential settlements caused by seasonal varia-
tions are greatest. Some insurance policies exclude subsidence damage
that arises as a result of structural alterations.
Landscaping
You should take care in planning patios, car parking space, and any
other operations that alter ground levels on shrinkable clay sites.
These can reduce the effective depth of the foundations, thereby
increasing seasonal movements.
As mentioned in Effects of surroundings in Chapter 3, altering the
slope of the ground may also affect desiccation.
Excavation
Take care whenever a large pit or trench is dug close to a building,
because there is a tendency for the soil to move towards the excavation.
See Will I be affected by the remedial works? in Chapter 6. In shrink-
able soils there is the additional risk that the excavation will reduce the
groundwater level locally, thereby increasing desiccation.
Drainage
Water leaking into the ground near foundations as a result of damaged
drains is generally undesirable as it can erode the soil and back®ll
materials (Erosion, Chapter 3); in shrinkable clays it is also likely to have
a local effect on desiccation. Near trees, it may reduce desiccation in the
short term, although the tree will rapidly grow new roots to exploit the
moisture supply, causing further damage to the drain and ultimately
blocking it. Where there are no trees, the reduction in desiccation associated
with a leaking drain may be detrimental as it could increase the variations
in settlement around the property caused by seasonal evaporation.
Improving surface or underground drainage tends to lower the

water table, which may increase desiccation. Conversely neglecting
existing land drains will allow water levels to rise, reducing desicca-
tion. In either case, the changes can cause ground movement that
may have a detrimental effect on any nearby structures.
Impermeable coverings such as concrete or asphalt can also affect
desiccation, both by reducing evaporation and also by reducing the
rate of rainfall in®ltration into the soil. Where there are large trees,
the net effect may be to force the tree to take moisture from further
a®eld, which will in turn generate ground movements in the surround-
ing soil. If there is a risk of damage, it may be preferable to use porous
pressed concrete slabs, which should have less effect on desiccation.
Chapter 6. Subsidence to a
neighbouring property
Many homeowners ®rst become aware of the potential problems asso-

ciated with subsidence or heave damage when their neighbours inform
them that their own house has cracks that they have reported to the
insurer. In these circumstances, you are likely to be concerned that your
own property might be affected by either the subsidence or the proposed
remedial works, particularly if your house is attached to the neighbouring
property. In addition, trees in your own garden may be identi®ed as the
cause of your neighbour's subsidence and you may be asked to deal with
them. These three aspects are addressed in the following sections.
Has my own property been aected?

There is no fundamental reason why your property should suffer
damage simply because there has been subsidence to your neigh-
bour's. The foundations under the two properties may be quite
different, especially if one is older than the other. In certain areas, the
natural soil conditions can vary over relatively short distances and
there is always a possibility that one house might have been built on
a gravel pit, back-®lled pond or other feature. Finally, most subsidence
is relatively localised. For example, it is unusual for a leaking drain to
affect more than one property and your neighbour's trees will often be
much closer to their house than to your own.
Nevertheless, once you become aware of possible subsidence to your
neighbour's house, it is a good idea to examine your own. Any damage
you discover should be assessed objectively in accordance with
Chapter 7 and, if it has the characteristics of damage caused by founda-
tion movement, you should report it to your insurer. Even if the
damage is only cosmetic, it is generally in everyone's interest to nip
the problem in the bud rather than waiting for the damage to escalate.
Often your insurer and your neighbour's insurer will share the cost of
the investigations and may even appoint the same investigator.
Where your house is part of a terrace or a pair of semi-detached

properties, there is a real risk that subsidence to the attached property
will cause damage to your house. Usually damage of this kind will
occur along the party wall, where the two properties are pulling
apart. Your own insurer may suggest that this damage is not covered
by your policy because it is not subsidence of the site on which your
house is built, although not all policies have this wording (see What
is covered?, Chapter 1).
Will I be aected by the remedial works?

Even where your property has not suffered any damage, you are likely
to be affected by the remedial works to your neighbour's property. You
will certainly be affected by the noise and disruption while the works
are being carried out and the contractor may also want to carry out
some of the work from your side of the fence. For example, where
the end wall of your neighbour's house is on, or very close to, the
boundary between the two properties. If it is an adjoining property,
there will also be a risk of minor damage occurring on your side of
the shared wall (the party wall) as a result of the repairs on your neigh-
bour's side. Where underpinning is being carried out, there may be a
risk of the excavations causing movement to your own foundations.
It may even be proposed that the party wall between the two properties
be underpinned.
In England and Wales, any works to the party wall, including struc-
tural repairs and underpinning, are now covered by the Party Wall,
etc. Act (1996). This legislation allows an individual owner of the
party wall to carry out essential maintenance or structural alterations.
At the same time, it protects the position of the other owners by stipulat-
ing the responsibilities of the owner carrying out the work. In particular,
your neighbour would normally have to pay for any damage to your
own property. The legislation also covers any excavations that might
affect a neighbouring property whether it is attached or detached.
Before carrying out work to the party wall, or excavating within 3 m of
your foundations, your neighbour is obliged to issue you with a notice
under the Party Wall, etc. Act (1996), explaining what is being proposed.
If the work includes underpinning within 3 m of your property (or 6 m in
some circumstances), this notice has to be accompanied by a sketch
showing the extent of the excavations in relation to your own founda-
tions. This information is intended to allow you to decide whether the
work is going to affect you. If you are concerned, you are entitled to
appoint your own Party Wall Surveyor (see Party Wall awards, Chapter
14). Alternatively, you and your neighbour may agree to the joint
appointment of a single Party Wall Surveyor. Generally speaking,
whether there is one Party Wall Surveyor or two, their role is to ensure
that the proposed work complies with the legislation. This role would
include minimising the inconvenience to you and minimising the risk
of damage to your property. However, there is nothing in the legislation
that allows you to prevent the proposed work being carried out.
Where the remedial work to an adjoining property includes under-
pinning, it is generally advisable for you to appoint your own Party
Wall Surveyor because of the special care that is needed (see Partial
underpinning, Chapter 13). If appropriate, the Party Wall Surveyor
will obtain expert help from an Engineer. Your insurer may be able
to provide you with the names of ®rms who specialise in party wall
matters. But, in most cases, any professional fees you incur in relation
to party wall matters will be your neighbour's responsibility and you
will be able to claim them back off your neighbour's insurer, provided
they have been incurred with the prior approval of the insurer.
Are the trees in my garden the cause of the problem?

Where the subsidence to your neighbour's property has been caused
by seasonal shrinkage and swelling in the surface soil, you may well
®nd that trees growing in your own garden are implicated. In such cir-
cumstances, you will probably be asked to deal with the trees at your
own expense. This is more than good neighbourliness and failure to
take appropriate action can result in your incurring a liability for any
further damage caused by your trees.
However, before paying for one or more of your favourite trees to
be cut down, it is not unreasonable to ask for appropriate supporting
evidence. This will often be in the form of root samples taken from
below foundation level which have been identi®ed as belonging to
one or more of your trees. In addition, you should ask to see a copy
of the Engineer's Report (Chapter 9) to make sure that the investigator
has con®rmed that the damage has been caused by subsidence. This
report should also con®rm that the surface soil is shrinkable clay and
that your tree is undesirably close to the principal area of damage.
Where you feel the evidence implicating your tree is largely circum-
stantial (see Things to look out for, Chapter 9), you might ask to see
the results of monitoring before deciding on what management to
carry out.
Where you place a great deal of value on the tree, you may want to
seek your own professional advice. Many tree surgeons will provide
free estimates and advice. However, if you need a formal report
you will probably have to engage an arboricultural consultant. The
Arboricultural Association (Appendix B) can provide a list of
approved contractors and consultants who work in your area.
It is up to you to decide on what tree management is required,
although the investigator acting for your neighbour may make some
suggestions. Typically, these will range from cutting back the tree by
30 to 40% through to removal. In some cases, a tree specialist will
have been brought in to make speci®c recommendations. You should
bear in mind that reduction work will have to be repeated every two
or three years to prevent the tree causing problems in the future. There-
fore, in the long term, it is often cheaper to remove the tree rather than
maintaining it at a reduced size. Nevertheless, if you are fond of the
tree and do not feel there is a compelling case for it to be removed,
you may prefer to have it cut back. This work should be carried out
only by a quali®ed tree surgeon with appropriate insurance.
Arguments over trees can often sour relationships between neigh-
bours. With this in mind, you should consider any reasonable requests
from your neighbour carefully and, if you are unsure about whether to
remove the tree or not, at least have it pruned while you are making up
your mind.
Your own insurer is unlikely to become involved unless there is
damage to your own property and is therefore unlikely to fund the
cost of removing or pruning your trees. You may, however, need to
inform your insurer of a potential third party liability claim, if there is
any suggestion that your neighbour may seek to hold you responsible
for the damage to their house. This is very rare and most major insurers
have an agreement whereby they will not seek to recover their costs
from a tree owner who has acted reasonably. But this agreement applies
only to private homeowners and does not apply in cases where the tree
belongs to a Local Authority or commercial organisation.
As a ®nal point, it is worth remembering that prevention is better
than cure. You should therefore consider the potential effects of your
trees on your neighbour's house in accordance with the advice given
in Chapter 5. If you decide that your trees are undesirably close, you
should have them either cut back or removed before they cause
damage (see Tree management, Chapter 5).
Chapter 7. Recognising
subsidence damage
Most homeowners do not make a habit of regularly inspecting their

houses for cracks; you may therefore not notice minor damage for
some time. Often cracks only come to light during decoration or
building work or, very commonly, when your house is being surveyed
on behalf of a prospective purchaser. Alternatively, you may notice
damage when it starts to affect serviceability: for example, windows
stick and doors fail to close properly. Whatever the circumstances,
having discovered cracks, you are likely to be concerned that your
house is suffering heave or subsidence damage, and worry about the
implications. These could range from the damage making it more
dif®cult to sell your house to there being a risk of some of it falling down.
If you ®nd yourself in this position, you have two broad courses of
action. The ®rst is to ®ll the cracks during routine maintenance and
consider whether any of the measures described in Chapter 5 can be
easily implemented to reduce the likelihood of the damage returning;
the second is to seek expert advice either independently or through
your insurer.
If the damage is severe the choice will be obvious. In the vast
majority of cases, however, the damage is likely to be relatively
minor and your decision should be based on the following four steps.
. Con®rm that the damage is caused by foundation movement.

. Assess the damage objectively.
. Consider the potential consequences of not putting right the
cause of the damage.
. Decide, depending on how badly your house is affected,
whether or not the cost and inconvenience of remedial work is
justi®ed.
These four steps are described in more detail below.

Have the foundations moved?

Foundation movement is only one of many processes that can
cause distortion and cracking in buildings. Other common causes of
cracking such as frost attack, thermal expansion and contraction,
drying shrinkage, over-stressing of walls or ¯oors (e.g. as a result of
injudicious structural alterations) and chemical attack are discussed in
Chapter 2. Distinguishing subsidence damage from that caused by
these other processes can sometimes be dif®cult, particularly where
the damage is relatively minor. Nevertheless, there are a number of
general indicators, which are discussed below and summarised in
Table II.
Table II. Indicators of foundation movement

Foundation movement in general
Few isolated cracks at weak points in structure.
Cracks taper from top to bottom.
Cracking is continuous through damp-proof course.
Cracks exceed 3 mm wide.
Cracking occurs both externally and internally at the same location.
Cracking consistent with a pattern of movement.
Doors and windows stick.
Wallpaper rucks at corners and between walls and ceiling.
Gaps appear below skirting board or between ¯oor boards and wall.
Roof tiles displaced, or other signs of distortion in roof.
Drains and services disrupted.
Walls measurably out of level or out of plumb.
Movement due to shrinkable clay

Cracks ®rst appear after prolonged period of dry weather.
Cracks open in summer and close in winter.
Largest cracks in part of house closest to position of large trees.
Obvious damage to garden walls and other structures on shallow foundations.
Cracking to paving and asphalt around trees.
Assessing the damage

Damage assessment can be very subjective. Words like `slight', `bad',
`severe' or ùnacceptable' are often used, but what may seem severe
to you as a homeowner may in fact be slight in terms of its effect on
the serviceability or stability of the building. To help reduce this sub-
jectivity and minimise misunderstandings, a classi®cation of damage
has been published in BRE Digest 25114 which ranges from 0 (slight,
cosmetic damage) to 5 (damage that is likely to require partial or
Table III. BRE ± Classi®cation of damage (based on ease of repair of

damage)
Category Description of typical damage (Nature of repair in italic type)
of damage
0 Hairline cracking which is normally indistinguishable from other causes such
as shrinkage and thermal movement. Typical crack widths 0.1 mm. No
action required.
1 Fine cracks which can easily be treated using normal decoration. Damage
generally restricted to internal wall ®nishes; cracks rarely visible in external
brickwork. Typical crack widths up to 1 mm.
2 Cracks easily ®lled. Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings.
Cracks not necessarily visible externally; some external repointing may be
required to ensure weather-tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly
and require easing and adjusting. Typical crack widths up to 5 mm.
3 Cracks which require some opening up and can be patched by a mason.
Repointing of external brickwork and possibly a small amount of brickwork
to be replaced. Doors and windows sticking. Service pipes may fracture.
Weather-tightness often impaired. Typical crack widths are 5 to 15 mm, or
several of, say, 3 mm.
4 Extensive damage which requires breaking-out and replacing sections of
walls, especially over doors and windows. Windows and door frames
distorted, ¯oor sloping noticeably1. Walls leaning1 or bulging noticeably;
some loss of bearing in beams. Service pipes disrupted. Typical crack
widths are 15 to 25 mm, but also depends on number of cracks.
5 Structural damage which requires a major repair job, involving partial or
complete rebuilding. Beams lose bearing, walls lean badly and require
shoring. Windows broken with distortion. Danger of instability. Typical crack
widths are greater than 25 mm, but depends on number of cracks.
Important: Crack width is one factor in assessing category of damage and should not be
used on its own as a direct measure of it.
Note: 1 Local deviation of slope, from the horizontal or vertical, of more than 1/100 will
normally be clearly visible. Overall deviations in excess of 1/150 are undesirable.
total rebuilding). This classi®cation, reproduced here in its latest form

as Table III (page 50), is based on the ease of repairing the damage ±
it therefore gives no indication of how and when action is needed to
improve the stability of the foundations. For example, the table
indicates that damage in Category 2, which may include cracks up to
5 mm wide, can be easily ®lled and covered by redecoration. Neverthe-
less, extensive redecoration is itself an expensive operation and might
be considered inappropriate if there is a probability of the damage
Fig. 13. Dierent patterns of movement and cracking caused by subsidence

and heave
returning within a short time. Equally, a 5 mm crack which appears

suddenly may indicate progressive movement that is going to cause
further damage unless action is taken to remove the cause.
Appearance
Foundation movement tends to produce a few, relatively large, iso-
lated cracks, rather than a profusion of small, widely distributed
ones. These cracks often taper from top to bottom, re¯ecting the fact
that one part of the structure is rotating relative to another. Considered
as a whole, the pattern and taper of the cracking should be consistent
with a particular pattern of movement, as shown in Figure 13. Where
clay shrinkage is the cause, the pattern of cracking will often indicate
Fig. 14. Classic example of damage (category 3, in this case) caused by

hogging distortion (BRE copyright)
increasing subsidence towards a tree, or increasing heave towards the

position of a removed tree. Some classic examples of building damage
caused by foundation movement are shown in Figures 14 and 15; the
categories of damage refer to the BRE classi®cation summarised in
Table III.
Except very locally, causes of cracking other than foundation move-
ment tend to produce only relatively small cracks, less than 3 mm or so
wide. Therefore, although a crack width of more than 3 mm is not a
necessary condition for the damage to have been caused by foundation
movement, it does help rule out many of the other causes. A pound
coin is exactly 3 mm thick and provides a simple way of measuring
whether the crack exceeds this width. To be signi®cant the crack
should be in a brick or block wall, rather than appearing solely in
plasterwork or at the edge of a stud partition, for example.
Location
The presence of shrinkable clay can often be con®rmed by the effect of
excessive surface movements on garden walls and other structures on
Fig. 15. Classic example of damage (category 4, in this case) caused by

sagging distortion (BRE copyright)
Fig. 16. Classic example of cracking in asphalt associated with a large tree
(BRE copyright)
shallow foundations. Paving may dip noticeably towards large trees

and asphalt surrounding trees may contain crescent shaped cracks as
shown in Figure 16.
The location of the cracks is as important as their physical appear-
ance. Foundation movement often results in cracks at weak points,
such as window openings and doors, or at points where there is a
change in foundation depth, such as the junction of a bay or an exten-
sion with the main structure. Moreover, whereas many other causes of
damage will tend to affect brickwork either only above the damp-proof
course (dpc) or only below it, foundation movement can produce cracks
that are continuous through the dpc. The cracks are often visible on
both sides of the wall and foundation movement is one of the few
processes that can cause cracking in both leaves of a cavity wall at

approximately the same location.
Timing
Damage due to clay shrinkage normally shows up after a long period
of dry weather. Subsequently, the cracks will tend to close in winter, or
wet periods, and may re-open during another dry summer.
Other indications
Foundation movement tends to distort openings and often causes
doors and windows to stick. In some cases the distortion may also
affect partitions, ceilings, ¯oors and the roof, resulting, for example,
in rucking of wallpaper in corners and at the junction of walls
and ceilings, gaps below skirting boards or slippage between roof
tiles as shown in Figure 17. Large movements may disrupt services,
particularly drains.
The best way of con®rming that the foundations have moved is to
measure how much external walls are out of plumb or how much
brick courses are out of level. Brick walls are unlikely to have cracked
unless there have been several centimetres of differential settlement,
which should produce distortions that can be readily distinguished
from any variations in level or plumb due to construction inaccuracies.
Further details of the techniques used to measure the amount of move-
ment that has occurred can be found in Distortion survey, Chapter 9.
Cause for concern?

Before you can decide if the cost of work to repair and prevent damage
recurring is justi®ed, you need to examine the potential consequences
of various levels of damage; these are given below, the most severe
®rst.
Is stability threatened?
Most UK houses have load-bearing masonry walls that carry the roof
and ¯oor loads. These loads cause mainly vertical compressive stres-
ses, and the walls' ability to carry such loads remains satisfactory
even if they are cracked. However, foundation movement tends to
increase the tensile and shear stresses in the walls, and very large
movements can make the walls unstable. Although this is unlikely to
occur unless there is Category 5 damage, it would effectively make
Fig. 17. Classic example of roof distortion caused by foundation movement

(BRE copyright)
the building uninhabitable. Temporary supports such as shoring

would be needed to prevent collapse.
Is there a threat to safety?

It is very rare for clay shrinkage or swelling to cause overall structural
instability, but there is a possibility of lintels and small sections of
brickwork becoming unstable once the damage exceeds Category 3.
Brick-arch lintels used extensively in Victorian architecture are
especially vulnerable, and these can be affected by a crack of no
more than 3 mm. Moreover, where the foundation movement causes
large rotations, there is a risk of roof and ¯oor joists losing their bearing,
especially in older houses where joists were often simply built into the
wall with no positive connection between the end of the joist and the
brickwork. To prevent the risk of injury to occupants and passers-by,
loose brickwork and joists with insuf®cient bearing would have to be
propped and the structure would be likely to continue to deteriorate
unless remedial action was taken. If a homeowner who is aware of a
problem fails to take reasonable action and a passer-by is injured,
this may give rise to serious consequences and may leave the home-
owner legally liable.
Is serviceability aected?
As a general rule, foundation movement is likely to impair service-
ability before any part of the building becomes unsafe; often doors
and windows will stick before any cracking has appeared. Although
you can normally ease and adjust these so that they remain functional,
continuing or seasonal foundation movement will make this increas-
ingly onerous. Once the damage reaches Category 2, you are likely
to have to ®ll cracks to prevent wind and rain penetrating. Whether
or not this is acceptable as a long-term solution depends more on
how rapidly the cracks open or close than on their width. With large
movements (those corresponding typically to Category 3 damage)
there is a risk of more serious defects, such as fractured service pipes
and slipping roof tiles.
Will I be able to sell the house?

Your main worry may be about the effect that obvious cracks can have
on the value of your home, even where there is no other signi®cant
effect. In principle, it is unreasonable for the value of an older property
to be reduced because of the appearance of small cracks during periods
of unusually dry weather. For a Victorian property founded at shallow

depth on a shrinkable soil, for example, a limited amount of cracking at
such times is quite likely. A competent surveyor should be able to
distinguish damage of this kind from more serious problems and
advise clients accordingly.
Similar damage in a newer property, say one built since 1970, is more
unusual because the foundations should be suf®ciently deep to protect
the structure from the effects of dry weather. In such cases monitoring
may be needed to establish whether the damage is simply seasonal or a
symptom of a more serious problem. While it is likely to be more
dif®cult for you to sell the house during the monitoring period,
many insurers will transfer both the cover and your rights under the
existing claim to a new owner. This removes the risk of the new
owner ®nding it impossible to get cover and should, in theory at
least, limit the effect of the damage on the sale price. See Chapter 16
for further details.
Aesthetics
Damage usually begins to concern the average homeowner long before
it affects serviceability or stability. In such cases there will be a wide
range of opinions on what is and what is not acceptable, depending
on individual perceptions and expectations. To some owners the
regular reappearance of a 1 mm crack may be totally unacceptable,
whereas others may be unconcerned by a crack of 3 mm or 4 mm;
indeed, an external crack of this size may go unnoticed for many
years. If you own a Victorian house, it is clearly less reasonable to
expect it to be totally free from cracks in walls than would be the
case for a modern house.
What should I do?

Most houses suffer some cracking during their lives and this can have a
wide range of causes apart from foundation movement. In the vast
majority of cases, these cracks require no more than ®lling with a
suitable mastic or grout. The key question in your mind must therefore
be ± when do I need to do something more? Below we give some general
guidance on what to do, based on the BRE categories of damage in
Table III.
Damage Category 0 or 1: Damage is unlikely to be more than
cosmetic, and it is often dif®cult to identify the cause; persistent
cracks can nevertheless be irritating and a building surveyor or

experienced builder should be able to recommend steps to reduce
the risk of the cracks recurring or ways to mask them using suitable
wall ®nishes. As a general rule, however, ®lling the cracks will be the
only action necessary.
Damage Category 2: Cracks that have been present for many years
without showing obvious signs of widening are unlikely to have
been caused by subsidence and should be repaired as part of routine
maintenance. Cracks that appear after a long period of dry weather
have probably been caused by seasonal shrinkage in the surface soil.
These should not cause concern as they will normally close during
the subsequent winter and you can then ®ll them. They should not
reappear until another period of unusually dry weather. Brick arch
lintels and other vulnerable details may need checking to make
sure that no bricks have become dislodged. Pruning large trees or
shrubs close to the affected area will reduce the chance of the
cracks reappearing. Again, suitable wall ®nishes can mask persistent
internal cracks. However, if cracks appear suddenly for no obvious
reason, you should seek professional advice (see Chapter 8) or
advise your insurer.
Any damage that meets more than two of the criteria listed in
Table II (page 49) is likely to have been caused by foundation move-
ment and you should advise your insurer accordingly. Reporting
the damage does not oblige you to make a claim, and you may tell
your insurer that you simply intend to repair the cracks yourself.
However, it does give the insurer the opportunity to inspect the
damage and take any action it feels necessary to prevent the
damage worsening and therefore being more expensive to repair.
Where the damage is consistent with a subsidence problem which
has occurred within the duration of its policy, many insurers will
now pay for the cost of investigating damage directly. This means
that you can obtain expert advice on whether or not the problem is
serious without incurring any expense.
Damage Category 3: Unless cracks have developed slowly over a
period of many years, they have probably been caused by founda-
tion movement and you will have noticed serviceability problems.
It is unlikely that underpinning will be needed and it is generally
possible to stabilise the foundations by removing or reducing the
cause of the subsidence. For example, defective drains can be
repaired and implicated trees can be cut back or removed (Tree
management, Chapter 5). Whatever the circumstances, specialist

advice is likely to be needed and your insurer should be informed
promptly.
Damage Category 4 or 5: Unless cracks have developed slowly over
a long period of time, they have probably been caused by foundation
movement and will have seriously impaired serviceability. In
extreme cases, there may be a risk of instability and urgent action
may be needed to prevent parts of the house from becoming
dangerous. Unless the cause of the subsidence is obvious and it
can be eliminated, remedial measures in the form of underpinning
or partial rebuilding on new foundations are likely to be required
to reinstate the property to its original condition. You should seek
expert advice and advise your insurer without delay. Where there
is a risk of falling masonry causing injury to occupants or passers-
by, your Local Authority is empowered under the Buildings Act
(1984) to compel you to make it safe.
Chapter 8. Making a claim
Most household buildings insurance policies cover damage caused by

subsidence or heave provided that this damage has occurred since you
have owned the property. Where you have recently changed insurance
companies, the claim will usually be dealt with by your current insurer,
although they may seek a contribution from your previous insurer.
You will not be disadvantaged unless you were aware of the sub-
sidence when you changed insurer and deliberately sought to disguise
the fact. It is important therefore to complete any proposal form you
are sent by your new insurer carefully and honestly. If you are in
two minds about reporting a few cracks, it would be prudent to do
so before, rather than after, changing insurer.
The onus of proving when the damage occurred and that it was
caused by an insured risk rests with you as the policy holder. However,
the burden is not heavy and can often be discharged by providing a
report from an engineer or surveyor concluding that the damage is
consistent with subsidence. If everything points to a subsidence
problem, the Insurance Ombudsman generally feels that the burden
is on the insurer to disprove subsidence. But where there is genuine
doubt about the cause of damage the policy does not cover the cost
of `proving' the claim. You are initially responsible for any professional
fees, except where your insurer has assumed direct responsibility for
those costs. But in practice you can expect to be reimbursed for any
reasonably incurred fees provided that the claim is successful and
the professional fees were incurred with the insurer's prior agreement.
Some policies have a speci®c limit against professional fees ± either
10% or 20% of the sum insured. You will, in any case, be responsible
for costs up to the excess for heave and subsidence claims, normally
£1000. In this regard, some insurers will deal with professional fees
directly without deducting the policy excess; in other words, the
excess is applied only against the cost of reinstatement.
In most cases, the only record of previous damage will be the survey
carried out when you bought the house. Even if this mentions some
minor damage, you are still covered for any further deterioration
that has occurred as a result of subsidence during your ownership. It is

very unlikely that you would have been aware of the possibility of sub-
sidence at the time of purchase, as few mortgage lenders are prepared
to lend money against a property with a known problem. However, it
is important to appreciate that any mention of subsidence in your pre-
purchase survey would be a material fact that should be reported to
your insurer, whether or not subsidence is mentioned speci®cally on
your proposal form.
Professional advice
A suitably-quali®ed professional will be needed to advise you on the
probable cause of the damage, the scope of the investigation that is
needed, and remedial options. Although the advice given should be
the same whether or not the damage is covered by an insurance
policy, it is clearly important that you are aware of the type of work
for which the insurer is likely to pay. The vast majority of disputes
arising from claims for subsidence and heave are caused by the home-
owner's expectations being raised unreasonably at an early stage of the
investigation. It has become increasingly common over the past
30 years for engineers and surveyors to specify underpinning for
houses that have suffered even minor cracks. Insurers, on the other
hand, are beginning to heed the advice of technical bodies such as
BRE15 that, in most instances, underpinning is not essential to main-
taining the building in a satisfactory structural condition. They are
increasingly likely to sanction underpinning only if it can be shown
to be the most cost-effective way of dealing with the damage. Criteria
for underpinning, Chapter 12, deals with this subject in more detail.
In many cases a single professional will see the claim through from
start to ®nish, including the speci®cation and direction of repairs and
remedial work. He or she therefore has a critical role to play in ensuring
that the necessary work is carried out ef®ciently and without committing
you to unnecessary expense. Unfortunately the skills required to do this
work do not fall neatly within any one of the professional disciplines
within the building industry. In practice, the investigation is likely to
be conducted by a member of one of the following four professions.
Loss adjuster
Many insurance claims involve a ®rm of loss adjusters. Their primary
role is to ensure that the claim is settled equitably and in accordance
with the terms of the insurance policy.
Although loss adjusters are paid by insurance companies, they ful®l

an impartial role. Most loss adjusting ®rms belong to the Chartered
Institute of Loss Adjusters (CILA) and quali®ed individuals will
have the letters ACILA or FCILA (associate or fellow of the CILA)
after their names. They may also be associates or fellows of the
Chartered Insurance Institute (ACII, FCII) or the Chartered Institute
of Arbitrators (ACIArb, FCIArb). Individual loss adjusters are often,
also, quali®ed surveyors or engineers.
Building surveyor
A building surveyor is someone who is expert in the repair and
maintenance of houses and other buildings; building societies insist
that a property is inspected by a surveyor prior to approving a mort-
gage. A quali®ed surveyor will be an associate or fellow of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors (ARICS or FRICS). However, this
quali®cation covers a range of disciplines, such as quantity surveying
and valuation, in addition to building surveying. Not all surveyors are
specialists, and many home surveys may be conducted by a `general
practitioner'.
Structural engineer
A structural engineer specialises in the design and use of masonry,
steel, concrete and timber as construction materials. Although some
structural engineers specialise in the design of large structures, those
who have their own company or work in small partnerships will
often concentrate on the repair, alteration and refurbishment of
houses and other low-rise buildings. Many structural engineers have
considerable experience of repairing houses damaged by subsidence
and heave, including the design of underpinning schemes. A quali®ed
structural engineer will be a member or fellow of the Institution of
Structural Engineers (MIStructE or FIStructE).
Civil engineer
A civil engineer specialises in building and construction generally.
There is therefore considerable overlap between this profession
and structural engineering and many engineers are members or
fellows of both the Institution of Structural Engineers and the
Institution of Civil Engineers (MICE, FICE). One of the main differ-
ences between the two is that civil engineering embraces construction
in the broader sense of the word including, for example, tunnels,
excavations, embankments, foundations and roads, rather than

just buildings. A civil engineer will therefore have at least a
working knowledge of how soil behaves and some will be specialist
geotechnical engineers. This is obviously relevant to the design
of foundations and to the remedy of damage caused by shrinkable
clay.
As well as being MICE or FICE, geotechnical engineers are likely to
be members of the British Geotechnical Association, which carries no
chartered status. Geotechnical engineers tend to work for civil and
structural engineering consultancies or for site investigation con-
tractors, although some work for ®rms specialising in geotechnical
engineering or as sole practitioners.
Appointing the investigator

There is a growing tendency among insurers to prefer the use of either
a chartered structural or chartered civil engineer. This is on the basis
that members of these disciplines are better able to consider the full
range of options for stabilising the foundations and will not specify
underpinning unnecessarily.
Some engineering consultancies have both geotechnical and struc-
tural expertise in house. This is an attractive feature since geotechnical
specialists are ideally suited to analysing the properties and behaviour
of the soil. Unfortunately information on a ®rm's experience is dif®cult
to obtain, except by personal recommendation.
The professional institutions, which are listed in Appendix B, will
issue a list of their members who practise in a particular locality, but
will not generally give information on members' areas of expertise.
Some do, however, produce directories which summarise the
experience of individual members and the range of services offered
by the companies for which they work. Two directories which are
particularly relevant are the Geotechnical Directory, produced by the
British Geotechnical Association; and the Ground Engineering Year
Book, produced by the Institution of Civil Engineers. These directories
can be bought directly from the institutions or through some
bookshops; you may also be able to order a loan copy through a
local library.
More than one professional may be involved in the investigation.
For example, the damage may have been discovered by an architect
or surveyor employed by the homeowner to do other work. In such
cases, the architect or surveyor will often want to be responsible for
the investigation and will enlist the services of specialists as and when
they are required. Although this can prove satisfactory, it is inevitably
more expensive because of the duplication of fee and is thus unpopular
with insurers. It can also lead to confusion as to who is responsible for
the different aspects of the claim.
In an effort to improve the way claims are investigated and settled,
many insurers now take responsibility for appointing the investigator,
either directly or through a loss adjuster. In this way, insurers and loss
adjusters can build up a collection of professionals they know to be
suitably quali®ed and experienced. The main advantage for the home-
owner is that you are relieved of the responsibility for the costs of the
investigation. The disadvantage is that you no longer have your own
professional adviser. However, this should be far outweighed by the
fact that you can be con®dent the investigator is experienced in
carrying out the necessary investigations.
Most insurance companies will not object if you insist on appointing
your own investigator provided that the proposed person is suitably
quali®ed and experienced. The costs of any reasonably incurred pro-
fessional fees should then be accepted as part of the settlement of the
claim, if agreed beforehand. In some instances, you may want to
appoint an investigator before making a claim, to advise on whether
or not the damage is caused by foundation movement, for example.
In general, however, you should ask your insurer's advice before
you do this.
Where the insurer is prepared to fund an engineering input from the
outset at its own expense and you want to bring in a second opinion,
then the cost will not automatically be met by the insurer. Much
depends on the reason why you want a second opinion and again
you are only entitled to recover professional costs if these have been
approved by the insurer beforehand. The policy wording often refers
to ìncurred with our agreement'.
Project management
Project management is a relatively new concept introduced by
several of the larger loss adjusting ®rms. These companies now
employ their own engineers and surveyors and offer insurers a nation-
wide claim handling service that includes both the loss adjuster and the
investigator duties. The system is obviously designed to improve
consistency of approach, meet minimum performance standards, and
reduce professional fees, although from a consumer's viewpoint
the service can become less personal, as the size of the operation
increases.
What to expect
The ®rst step in processing a claim for heave or subsidence damage is
normally for the insurer to appoint a suitably quali®ed professional to
visit the damaged property and establish that the damage is consistent
with a subsidence problem. Traditionally, this task was undertaken by
a quali®ed loss adjuster, although it is becoming increasingly common
for the insurer either to appoint an engineer to carry out the initial
inspection or to use a ®rm of loss adjusters that employs engineers.
If the indications are that the damage has been caused by subsidence,
the claim will be processed in one of two ways. Where the insurer has
appointed an engineer, he or she will organise appropriate investiga-
tions and advise you accordingly. Alternatively, where the insurer
has appointed a loss adjuster, he or she will either advise you to
appoint an engineer or appoint one personally on behalf of the insurer.
Following the initial visit, the engineer/adjuster will advise the
insurer what the claim is likely to cost and whether or not all the
damage falls within the terms of the policy. This will include consid-
eration of the sum insured, the age of the damage, and any other
speci®c conditions that may apply to your policy. In particular, if
there is reason to suspect that some or all of the damage may predate
your ownership, the insurer will probably want to see a copy of your
pre-purchase survey.
Following the ®rst visit, you will normally deal with the engineer/
adjuster rather than the insurer, unless there is a problem (see What if
things go wrong?, Chapter 15). If the investigator is engaged by the
insurer, or the adjuster has acted as an engineer in the ®rst instance,
you should receive copies of any technical reports that are produced.
If you employ your own investigator, you will need to send copies of
any reports, invoices and correspondence to the insurer's engineer/
adjuster.
Once appointed, the engineer will carry out any investigations that
are needed to help identify the cause of the damage and, having
done this, will recommend appropriate steps to mitigate or remove it
(e.g. repair a leaking drain or remove a nearby tree). Monitoring is
then likely to be needed to con®rm that this action has been effective.
In many cases the investigation is a protracted process, which may
go on for 18 months if there is a degree of uncertainty in selecting
the best remedy. Ironically, it is the cases of serious damage that tend
to be resolved most quickly, because monitoring is less likely to be
speci®ed where it is obvious that measures are needed to stabilise
the foundations. The components of a typical investigation are
described in Chapters 9 and 10.
Where the damage is affecting serviceability, or where it is par-
ticularly unsightly, the insurer may pay for temporary repairs (e.g.
easing and adjusting doors and windows, ®lling large cracks and loca-
lised decorations) to restore the property to an acceptable standard
while the investigation is carried out. Generally, however, repairs
will only be sanctioned once it has been established that there is a
reasonable expectation that any future foundation movements will
not cause further signi®cant damage.
Finally, once the investigations have been completed, the investiga-
tor will put forward his or her proposals for repairs and any further
remedial measures that are needed to stabilise the foundations. The
repairs will normally be aimed at reinstating the property to its
former, undamaged condition and will therefore include the redecora-
tion of any rooms that have suffered damage.
The remedial measures proposed by the investigator should have a
reasonable expectation of preventing further signi®cant damage; they
will not guarantee that further damage will be prevented. In many
cases, there may be more expensive solutions (e.g. extensive under-
pinning) with a lower risk of further damage occurring, and there
may be cheaper schemes with a higher risk. As far as is practicable,
the investigator should point out the range of options available and
their relative costs and expectations. The ®nal choice will then rest
with whoever is funding the work and will be based on the individual
merits of the situation. An insurer may opt for a remedial scheme with
a high probability of preventing further damage in order to avoid the
expense and inconvenience for the homeowner of further claims.
More commonly, however, the insurer will be prepared to accept
that there is some risk of the damage recurring. In such circumstances,
it would seem inappropriate for the insurer to refuse to renew existing
cover or to apply a second excess in the event that you need to make a
further valid claim for damage attributable to the same cause (see What
if things go wrong?, Chapter 15).
Once the scope of any remedial works has been agreed, the work is
usually carried out by a building contractor. The procedures involved
at this stage are described in Having the work done, Chapter 14.
Chapter 9. The investigation
The investigation should answer four basic questions.
. Has the reported damage been caused primarily by foundation

movement?
. If so, is the cause shrinkage or swelling in the surface soil, some
other cause, or a combination of factors?
. Is the movement continuing, or is there potential for further
movement?
. If so, what can be done to reduce further damage?
To answer these questions it is essential that the investigator identi-

®es the cause of the damage as precisely as possible. To do this, he or
she will collect information on: the location and nature of the cracks,
the way in which the house has been built including foundation
depth, signs of previous distortions, the pattern of movement in the
building, soil type, the presence of trees, location and condition of
drains, the nature of the surrounding topography and any other
information about ground conditions in the locality.
Traditionally, an investigation was carried out in a number of
distinct stages: (i) an initial visual inspection; (ii) a site investigation
carried out by a specialist contractor, involving the excavation of trial
pits and a drainage inspection; (iii) a distortion survey; (iv) a period
of monitoring; and (v) a more detailed site investigation to provide
design parameters for remedial underpinning. After each stage, the
investigator would report to the insurer (and the homeowner) and
obtain permission to proceed to the next stage.
In recent years there has been a gradual move away from this piece-
meal method, towards a more condensed approach where appropriate
investigations are carried out on the ®rst visit. Although the traditional
method is still used, there are a number of advantages to the condensed
approach ± for example, it obviously minimises delay and disruption
to the homeowner. More importantly, however, it lends itself to sorting
genuine subsidence from unrelated problems at an early stage. This

allows sensible decisions to be made about the need for and cost-
effectiveness of any further investigations.
The ®rst part of this chapter describes the components of a typical
initial investigation which are: a visual inspection; a distortion
survey; a desk study; a drainage survey; and trial pits. In most cases,
these should enable the investigator to decide on the cause of the
movement and appropriate remedial measures. Occasionally, more
information on the soil conditions will be required, which will entail
the use of boreholes. Where the damage is found to be caused by
subsidence, a period of monitoring will be required to ascertain
whether the remedial measures have been effective. This aspect of
the investigation is discussed in Chapter 10.
Initial investigation
The primary objective of the initial investigation is to ascertain the most
likely cause of the reported damage and, in particular, whether it has
been caused by subsidence, heave, a process unrelated to foundation
movement, or a combination of factors. Usually this is carried out
after a formal claim has been lodged with the insurer, although in
some instances it may be performed to help the homeowner decide
whether he or she has a legitimate claim. The essential elements of
the investigation are the same in either case.
Visual inspection
The initial survey of the damaged property should include a sketch
showing the position, width and taper of all internal and external
cracks14, as shown in Figure 18. There are two reasons for doing this
± ®rst, it provides an objective record against which future damage
can be compared and second, it helps to identify the pattern of move-
ment. Foundation movement normally affects a large portion of the
property and the resulting damage will be consistent with the overall
distortion to the structure. Often a sketch can highlight damage that
is well removed from the perceived area of movement, because one
part of the house is pulling on another. It follows that, for subsidence
and heave damage, the location of the cracking does not necessarily
correspond to the location of the foundation movement.
It is important to establish the history of the damage and you can
play an important role by providing information about when cracks
®rst appeared and whether they have remained at their original size,
Fig. 18. Recommended method of recording damage (BRE copyright)
opened progressively or opened in summer and closed in winter. In

addition, the investigator will look for signs of previous repairs and
will examine the surfaces of cracks ± recent cracks in brickwork tend
to have a clean appearance, whereas dirt will have accumulated in
older cracks. The severity of the damage should be evaluated accord-
ing to the classi®cation given in Table III (page 50).
The size, position and species of all trees close enough to have an
effect on the foundations will also be noted. In most cases, the initial
inspection should include some measurements to determine whether
there is any discernible slope to ¯oors and lean to walls.
Distortion survey
The purpose of the distortion survey is to estimate the amount of
foundation movement that has occurred since the house was built16.
Several centimetres of foundation movement are normally required
to cause cracking and this should be readily measurable. It follows
that the absence of a discernible slope to the ¯oors and brick courses
would strongly suggest that the damage has been caused by processes
unrelated to foundation movement.
Rudimentary measurements can be made by holding a one-metre
builder's level horizontal against the external brickwork in the vicinity
of damage and assessing any dip to the brick courses by eye. A
more accurate survey of the whole house can be carried out using a
portable water level17, which is essentially a plastic bottle connected to
Fig. 19. Using a portable water level to measure out-of-level of brick

course (BRE copyright)
a graduated cylinder by a length of ¯exible tubing (see Figure 19).

Where the external walls are rendered so that brick courses cannot
be seen, the measurements can be made on the ¯oor and the cills of
windows.
It is also useful to measure the deviation of walls from the vertical,
which can be done using a long builder's level or a plumb-line and
ruler17 as shown in Figure 20. There is a tendency for subsidence to
cause the supported wall to rotate outwards and for heave to cause
the supported wall to lean inwards. More importantly, an outward
lean without evidence of any slope to ¯oors and brick courses is a
sign that the damage has been caused by physical or chemical changes
in the brickwork (Wear and tear, Chapter 2).
In many cases, there may be old distortion present in the brickwork.
The investigator will therefore need to judge whether or not the
damage is consistent with the measured distortion. This is discussed
in more detail under What caused the movement? later in this
chapter.
Fig. 20. Using a plumb-line and ruler to measure verticality (BRE

copyright)
Desk study
A desk study comprises a search of existing data and reference
material, which can often provide useful clues to the cause of founda-
tion movement. As a bare minimum, the surface geology should be
checked by reference to the 1 : 50 000 geological map, or, where avail-
able, the six inch to one mile or 1 : 10 000 series. In some cases5 it may
be a good idea to check old maps, records and aerial photographs for
the locations of pits, streams, neighbouring properties, trees, and
other features that may have had an in¯uence on the foundations. It
may also be possible to ®nd copies of the plans for the original building
work and any extensions, which can then be used to check the intended
depth of foundations, any precautions taken against heave when the
house was built, ¯oor slab design, wall to ¯oor connections, and
other construction details. This course of action is cheaper and less
disruptive than having to excavate trial pits, although there is always
the snag that the actual construction may have deviated from that
shown in the plans. Foundation details, in particular, are likely to be
modi®ed during construction to meet the ground conditions encoun-

tered and consequently foundation depths are often shown on the
plans as `to be agreed on site'.
Trial pits
Small excavations or trial pits can be used to con®rm the depth and
condition of the foundations and to establish the nature of the under-
lying soil. Shallow samples taken from a trial pit can be used for
tests of soil properties, such as plastic and liquid limits, which can
then be used to establish the soil's shrinkage potential (see Shrinkage
potential, Chapter 3). Deeper samples can be obtained using a hand
auger and these can then be used to measure the variation of moisture
content or suction with depth, and hence an indication of the depth of
any desiccation.
In clay soils, auger samples also allow the depth of any root activity
to be checked. The best way to do this is to break open lumps of intact
clay and look for any roots that are exposed, bearing in mind that the
roots that remove moisture are often no thicker than a hair. By studying
their structure under a microscope larger roots with a diameter of at
least 1 mm can be identi®ed to see what family of tree or shrub they
belong to. This can be useful where the nearby trees belong to a third
party who may want evidence to con®rm that the roots of their tree
are growing under your foundations, although ®nding roots from a
particular tree can be something of a lottery.
Trial pits will not always be necessary, especially where distortion
measurements have failed to detect any signi®cant slope to ¯oors
and brick courses. In other cases, trial pits often do little more than
con®rm what is already suspected ± for example, that the foundations
are shallow by modern day standards and that there are roots from the
nearby trees below footing level. An experienced investigator will
therefore weigh the bene®ts of excavating a trial pit against the cost
and potential disruption. Where the damage is relatively minor and
there is an obvious cause, such as a nearby tree, monitoring foundation
movements (see Level monitoring, Chapter 10) is generally more
informative, and less expensive, than detailed soil testing.
Drain survey
As explained previously (Erosion, Chapter 3), water leaking into the
ground near foundations is generally undesirable and the investigator
will often want to check the condition of the drains to help eliminate
the possibility of leakage having contributed to any foundation

movement. Manholes situated within your property are used to gain
access to the drains. Leakage can be detected by performing a series
of simple pressure tests on sections of drain that have been isolated
using in¯atable packers or expandable plugs. These tests are carried
out by ¯ooding the manholes and measuring the time taken for the
water to escape.
However, most drains that are more than 30 to 40 years old are
unlikely to be watertight. It is therefore better to examine the inside
of the drains visually using a small closed-circuit television (CCTV)
camera. The camera survey may be slightly more expensive than
pressure tests but has the advantages of being able to identify the
nature of the defect and to pinpoint its location. Generally, the investi-
gator will be looking only for major fractures or blockages that could
explain the appearance of the damage, rather than the minor cracks
and small gaps between pipes that are inevitably found in any old
drainage system.
What caused the movement?

Having completed the investigations described in the previous section,
the investigator should be able to say, in most cases, whether there has
been recent foundation movement and, if so, what has caused it. If
there is no measurable slope to the ¯oors and brick courses, or the
distortion is clearly longstanding, the investigator is likely to conclude
that the damage has been caused by one of the processes described in
Chapter 2. A possible exception to this rule would be where the
investigations are being undertaken in late winter or spring and it is
suspected that the damage has been caused entirely by seasonal
shrinkage in the surface soil associated with a nearby tree. In these
circumstances, the foundations might have been returned to their
original position over the winter period reversing any distortion in
the brickwork. Monitoring would then be needed to determine the
extent and size of any continuing movement.
Where the investigator has concluded that the damage has not been
caused by foundation movement, he or she should be able to give
advice on what repairs and/or further investigations are needed. But
in most cases this work will be outside the scope of insurance cover
and you will have to fund it yourself.
Where the slope to ¯oors and brick courses is consistent with sub-
sidence, the investigator will identify the most likely cause and will
recommend appropriate measures to prevent or reduce future move-

ments. Although shrinkage and swelling of clay soils are the most
common causes of foundation movement, they are not the only ones
(see Chapter 3). Factors the investigator will take into account in
reaching a conclusion include the following:
(i) Soil type ± Only clay soils expand and contract as their moisture
content changes. If the soil is mainly granular (silt, sand, gravel,
or chalk, for example) volume change can immediately be ruled
out.
(ii) Foundations ± For a house on clay soil, its susceptibility to ground
movement depends chie¯y on the depth of its foundations. If no
trees are present, clay shrinkage is unlikely to damage a building
founded at a depth of 1 m or more. Even for an older property on
relatively shallow foundations, the investigator will need to con-
sider why the damage has appeared now and not previously.
In newer buildings, unusual foundations may provide clues
about the site conditions at the time of construction. For example,
the use of foundations more than 1 m deep in clay soils suggests
that the builder was anticipating large ground movements as a
result of trees cleared from the site prior to construction. This
can be checked by looking for deep roots in boreholes or by
studying aerial photographs of the site taken before construction.
Similarly, the use of piles, pads or a raft foundation suggests that
additional movement due to dif®cult ground conditions was
anticipated.
(iii) Pattern of movement ± Looking at the pattern of cracking, aided
by measurements from a distortion survey, will usually establish
which way the ground has moved ± up, down, or sideways ± to
cause the damage. Some types of damage are characteristic of
speci®c causes ± for example undersailing of brickwork below
damp proof course, as shown in Figure 21, usually denotes
swelling soil.
(iv) Trees ± As already mentioned, by in¯uencing desiccation nearby
trees play a crucial role in causing ground movements. However,
damage is normally associated only with medium or large trees. It
is very unusual for shrubs or other minor vegetation to cause
damage, unless there are other factors such as a sloping site.
(v) Water ± Groundwater running freely into a trial pit or borehole in
a clay soil indicates the presence of layers of coarse-grained soil.
This can affect the permeability of the soil dramatically and will
Fig. 21. Undersailing of brickwork below damp-proof course caused by

swelling clay (BRE copyright)
allow desiccation levels to change more quickly than in a pure

clay. If free water is present throughout the year, desiccation is
highly unlikely. Water escaping from a drain can often be
identi®ed by its unpleasant smell and evidence of black organic
matter.
(vi) Surroundings ± Local topography, such as sloping ground, and
impermeable surfaces of concrete or asphalt, can affect the moisture
content of the soil (see Effect of surroundings, Chapter 3).
In some cases, there may be several contributory factors. For
example, a property may be more susceptible to damage as a result
of clay shrinkage because of distortion caused by settlement following
construction or the processes described in Chapter 2. It is essential
therefore that the investigator gauge whether or not the scale of
damage is consistent with the recorded distortion (see Distortion
survey, Chapter 9).
If the damage and distortion appear consistent, the investigator can

conclude that both are recent and, depending on the nature of
the distortion, can identify the most likely cause. However, greater
distortion in the brickwork than one would expect for the degree of
damage that has occurred, would indicate that the damage is the
legacy of an old problem, which has been repaired previously.
It is also extremely helpful if the investigator can estimate how much
subsidence has occurred, based both on the measured distortion and the
severity of the damage. He or she can then consider whether this amount
of movement is consistent with the assumed cause. For instance, if it
appears that there has been 50 mm of subsidence, the investigator will
consider whether this amount of movement is consistent with clay
shrinkage for the given soil conditions, the depth of the foundations,
and the size, type and position of any nearby trees. If not, then other pro-
cesses must be involved and further investigation may be needed to
identify them. These might include further desk studies or a more
detailed soil investigation, but more commonly it would be appropriate
to monitor foundation movements as described in Chapter 10.
Where the damage is relatively minor, it is generally more dif®cult to
identify the cause with certainty. In such circumstances, the investiga-
tor has to weigh up the bene®ts of further investigations or monitoring
against their cost. Every case has to be judged on its merits and, if there
is no obvious reason for the cracking, it might be prudent to carry out
an appropriate period of monitoring. However, common sense has to
prevail and where the cost of repairs is unlikely to exceed the cost of
monitoring, the best advice is generally to repair the damage as part
of routine maintenance. The effects of any further movement either
to the foundations or within the walls themselves will then be self-
evident and the severity of the new damage will determine whether
more investigations are going to be worthwhile.
Engineer's Report
The investigator will normally produce a report, often described as an
Engineer's Report even if the investigator is not a Chartered Engineer,
summarising the results of the initial investigation and setting out
conclusions and recommendations. This report will be addressed to
whoever is paying for the investigation ± either the insurer or the
homeowner. It should be disclosed to both parties, although occasion-
ally you may have to formally request a copy from your insurer or loss
adjuster.
While the style of report and the level of detail are largely a matter for
personal preference, the report and any accompanying correspondence
should include a clear statement on the following three issues:
(i) the cause of the damage, indicating any areas of uncertainty and
how these are to be addressed;
(ii) what needs to be done to ®x the problem, including likely time
scales and further investigations, if appropriate; and
(iii) what the homeowner can expect the insurer to pay for.
Provided the investigation has been carried out by a quali®ed pro-

fessional, this report should in most cases determine whether or not
the insurer accepts that there is a legitimate claim. If the claim is
considered valid, the initial investigation and any subsequent investi-
gations can be considered part of the remedial process and should be
paid for by the insurer.
Borehole investigations
Where deep soil samples are required or the soil conditions make hand
augering impractical, it may be necessary to carry out mechanical
boring. However, this is a relatively expensive operation and should
be used sparingly. Some examples of when it might be justi®ed are:
. where the removal of a large tree is being considered and it is

important to determine accurately the depth and degree of
desiccation;
. where a house is suspected of being on a ®lled pit and it is
important to con®rm the geology to considerable depth; and
. where a pile-based underpinning scheme is being considered
and it is important to pro®le the strength of the soil for design
purposes.
When investigating shrinkable clays, samples of undesiccated clay

should, wherever possible, be obtained from a control borehole for
comparison. In certain circumstances, for instance where the clay is
heterogeneous or no control borehole is possible, the only way of
reliably identifying desiccation is to measure the suctions in the soil
(see How much desiccation? in Chapter 3).
Various types of drill rig are used for obtaining borehole samples,
some of which are illustrated in Figure 22. A light cable percussion
(a) Light cable percussion rig
(b) Hand-held drive-in sampler (c) Restricted access rig
Fig. 22. Three types of sampling equipment ((b) and (c) courtesy of Abbey
Underpinning and Foundations; (a) BRE copyright)
rig is often used to obtain ùndisturbed' 100 mm diameter samples

which are needed for accurate determination of soil strength and
desiccation. Where this is not important, a powered auger or hand-
held drive-in sampler is likely to be cheaper. These are also smaller
and can be used in restricted spaces.
Things to look out for

The investigations will be speci®ed by your professional adviser and
he or she should have adequate training in interpreting the results.
However, it would be naõÈve to assume that every investigator is
equally experienced or quali®ed in this respect. Regrettably there are
a number of myths relating to subsidence damage which are still
adhered to by some building professionals. As a homeowner, these
are some of the things you should look out for:
(i) Circumstantial evidence ± clay shrinkage is recognised as being

the commonest cause of subsidence. It is easy therefore to jump
to the conclusion that cracks have been caused by subsidence
when the surface soil is believed to be a shrinkable clay and
there is a tree in the general vicinity of the damage. However,
many properties have existed in close harmony with large
trees for decades without suffering subsidence. If there has
been suf®cient movement to cause damage, there will be a
measurable slope to ¯oors and lean to walls. Wherever practical,
the investigator should avoid concluding the cause to be sub-
sidence without carrying out some measurements to con®rm
the pattern of distortion, even if these measurements are rudi-
mentary ones made with a builder's level (see Distortion
survey, Chapter 9). If any doubt remains, foundation movements
should be monitored (see Level monitoring, Chapter 10) before
con®rming the cause of the damage.
(ii) Alternative causes ± before concluding that the reported damage
has been caused solely by subsidence, the investigator should
consider whether the damage is consistent with the recorded
slope to ¯oors and brick courses. If not, he or she should consider
if there are any other plausible causes that are unrelated to
foundation movement and give their reasons for discounting
them.
(iii) Trees and desiccation ± where trees are suspected of causing
damage, there will be evidence of root activity to considerable
depth in the soil. Fine roots will be present in the soil to a
depth of at least 1 metre below foundation level and soil samples
taken during summer months will contain evidence of desic-
cation. The presence of desiccation should be based on com-
parisons with a control borehole and/or ®lter-paper suction
measurements. Comparisons between the soil's moisture content
and any benchmarks based on liquid and plastic limits (see How
much desiccation? in Chapter 3) are unreliable and should be

avoided.
(iv) Clay shrinkage without trees ± shrinkage in the surface soil may
cause some movement to houses on shallow foundations, but it
is unlikely to cause damage, even in an exceptionally dry year.
One possible exception to this rule is a steeply sloping site
where a prolonged period of dry weather may cause the water
table to move progressively further away from the slope into
the soil. It follows that, where there are no roots present in the
soil, tests that indicate the soil to be desiccated should be treated
with suspicion.
(v) Defective drainage ± water leaking into the soil from defective
drainage is generally undesirable, but rarely causes signi®cant
foundation movement (see Erosion, Chapter 3). In most cases,
a major blockage or partial collapse is needed for signi®cant
amounts of water to escape into the soil. Despite this, it is not
uncommon for drains to be identi®ed as the likely cause of
damage, even where there is no evidence to con®rm that there
has been subsidence. Most drains that are more than 30 to 40
years old are unlikely to be watertight and the presence of
minor defects should not be regarded as con®rmation that
leakage from the drain is the cause of the damage.
(vi) Soil softening ± it is a common misconception that clay soils can
soak up water like a sponge and in doing so they soften and lose
their ability to support foundation loads. In reality, clay soils
have a natural moisture content that remains unchanged unless
the loads acting on the soil are either increased or decreased.
When the applied load is decreased, clays do take in moisture
and soften, but this is always accompanied by an increase in
volume and can only occur below foundation level where there
is an adjacent excavation or other void for the soil to expand into.
(vii) Poor ground ± the presence of soft soil or poorly-compacted ®ll
beneath the foundations is a possible cause of foundation move-
ment. However, the movement invariably starts from the time
of construction and the rate of movement slows progressively as
time goes on. In most cases, the movement is effectively ®nished
within 10 to 20 years. Soil investigations may reveal that there is a
layer of soft soil under the foundations. But for any property that
is more than 20 years old, the investigator should not identify poor
ground as being the cause of subsidence, without explaining why
the foundations have not been affected previously.
(viii) Underpinning ± underpinning should be speci®ed only where

the cause of the movement has been identi®ed and it has been
established that the cause cannot be eliminated. The investigator
should explain his or her reasons for recommending the under-
pinning and its potential bene®ts and drawbacks. It follows that
underpinning should never be speci®ed simply because the
investigator has been unable to correctly identify the cause of
the movement.
Chapter 10. Monitoring
What is monitoring?
In most cases, the only reliable way of assessing whether or not the
foundations of a property are moving is to carry out measurements
over an appropriate period of time; this is called monitoring.
A monitoring programme may concentrate on one of two aspects:
crack monitoring which records whether the damage is getting
worse (or better); or level monitoring which records the vertical
movement of the foundations. At present, level monitoring is relatively
rare and is used in only 5% of all claims. However, it does have a
number of advantages which are highlighted in the following sections.
In addition, it is occasionally necessary to record horizontal movement.
In such cases, for example where landslip is suspected, measurements
made in the ground are likely to be more conclusive than measure-
ments made on the structure.
Unfortunately, because it inevitably delays settling the claim, and the
reasons for the delay are often not appreciated, monitoring can cause
acrimony between policy holders and their insurer. It is therefore impor-
tant that the monitoring is properly speci®ed to minimise the delay.
Monitoring should be considered only if it is unlikely that the
condition of the property will deteriorate signi®cantly during the
period of observation. It is therefore important that the measurement
techniques are accurate enough to detect changes before they have
any noticeable effect on the building. Where the initial observations
indicate that the damage is worsening rapidly, it will be necessary to
consider the need for immediate remedial work without waiting for
the end of the monitoring period.
It also follows that the use of monitoring should be restricted to
claims where the information will in¯uence the remedial measures.
For example, there would be little merit in monitoring a damaged
garage or extension if the investigator has already decided that it is
beyond economic repair and will require demolition and rebuilding.
The bene®ts of monitoring fall into the following four broad
categories:
Monitoring to con®rm that cause of damage is not subsidence

Where the damage is relatively minor, it is generally dif®cult to
assess whether it has been caused by foundation movement or by an
unrelated process. Physical investigations as described in Chapter 9
will provide a number of clues that will help identify whether or not
the property is susceptible to subsidence, but are rarely conclusive.
In circumstances such as these, monitoring provides the only practical
way of determining whether there are any ongoing movements of the
foundations and, if so, whether these are large enough to account for
the reported damage.
Monitoring to establish cause of subsidence

Where an investigation, as described previously, has proved inconclu-
sive, monitoring can be a very cost-effective diagnostic tool. For
example, monitoring can distinguish movement due to seasonal clay
shrinkage, which tends to be cyclic, from that due to processes such as
settlement, landslip and erosion, which tend to develop in one direction.
Monitoring to measure rate of movement

Where the cause of the damage is self-evident, monitoring can be used
to establish whether the damage is continuing to worsen, and if so
whether the rate of movement is slowing down. This can be a very
useful technique where the damage has been caused by a process
that has a limited duration, such as heave following removal of a
tree. Similarly, where the damage has occurred during a period of
abnormal weather, this type of monitoring can help establish whether
the foundation movements in a `typical' year are likely to be tolerable.
Monitoring to check success of remedial action

The most powerful application of monitoring is to gauge the effective-
ness of action that has been taken to remove the cause of the damage,
such as cutting down or pruning nearby trees. The investigator can
then make any decisions on the need for further remedial work, such
as underpinning, objectively and fairly.
Crack width monitoring

The most common and simplest way of monitoring subsidence
damage is to measure changes in the width of existing cracks. This
can be done in several ways18.
Fig. 23. Measuring crack width using a magnifying glass and graticule (BRE
copyright)
Steel rule
Provided suf®cient care is taken, crack widths can be measured to the
nearest 0.5 mm using a steel rule. However, because the readings tend
to be subjective and it is dif®cult to ensure that the crack is measured at
the same point each time, this method is normally used only for record-
ing the state of damage during the initial inspection.
Magni®er and graticule

Internal cracks on plaster or other smooth ®nishes can be monitored by
measuring the offset between two pencil marks using a magnifying
glass ®tted with a graticule, as shown in Figure 23. With care, move-
ments can be measured to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
Glass tell-tales
Cementing glass strips across cracks, as shown in Figure 24, used to be
a popular method of detecting progressive movement. However, such
Fig. 24. Crack monitoring using a glass tell-tale (BRE copyright)
tell-tales give little indication of how much movement is taking place

and are easily vandalised. Consequently, the use of this technique
should be avoided.
Plastic tell-tales
The most popular system is shown in Figure 25. It consists of two
overlapping plates screwed to the wall, one marked with a cursor,
the other with a scale graduated in millimetres. The two plates are
mounted on opposite sides of the crack so that the cursor is initially
in line with the centre of the scale; any subsequent movement of the
crack can then be measured to the nearest millimetre on the scale.
The advantage of this system is that a reading can be taken at any
time by anyone, including the occupiers, without any additional
measuring equipment. The disadvantages are that the tell-tales are
relatively obtrusive, vulnerable to vandalism or accidental damage,
and have only a limited accuracy. In general, they should be used
only in conjunction with a more accurate method, such as the
`Demec' or `brass screw' techniques described below.
Fig. 25. Crack monitoring using a plastic tell-tale (courtesy of Avongard)
Demec points
Two small, dimpled stainless steel discs are ®xed on opposite sides
of the crack. The distance between them can then be measured very
accurately with a separate, hand-held instrument called a `Demec'
gauge. This gauge was developed for measuring very small move-
ments ± as little as 0.02 mm ± in concrete and masonry in laboratory
tests. A disadvantage is that it is so accurate that it will also detect
movement due to changes in temperature and moisture in the brick-
work, which can confuse the picture. Demec points have the advantage
of being very unobtrusive, but they are only suitable for use on a ¯at
surface and cannot be used to measure cracks at corners. The main
disadvantage, however, is the limited range of the gauge ± the maxi-
mum extension that can be measured is 2.4 mm and the maximum
contraction 1.6 mm. Where signi®cant movement is occurring, it will
be necessary to install replacement discs at intervals to allow readings
to continue.
Brass screws
The technique recommended by BRE18 is to ®x small brass screws into
the wall either side of the crack and to measure the distance between
them using a caliper. This system has the advantages of being
simple, robust, relatively unobtrusive and, by using the calipers in
different modes, capable of measuring cracks in corners and other
awkward positions, as shown in Figure 26. If three screws are arranged
in a right-angle triangle, both horizontal and vertical movements can
be measured. With a digital caliper, an accuracy of better than
0.1 mm overall should be easily achievable.
Where screws might be obtrusive, particularly internally, Demec
studs can be used instead and the measurements made by locating the
tips of the caliper jaws in the central dimples. Plastic tell-tales, also
®tted with Demec studs, are now available to enable more accurate
measurements to be made using calipers. It should be noted, however,
that calipers have two sets of jaws: one for measuring internally and
one for measuring externally. Locating the internal jaws in the Demec
points will produce a different reading to using the external jaws. The
shape of the jaw also varies between different makes of caliper and
this can produce slight differences. Errors of this kind can be a source
of confusion when measurements are made by different investigators.
Interpreting crack measurements

However accurately crack widths are measured, these are the
symptoms and not the cause. Hence the results can be ambiguous; a
crack may form for one reason and progress for another. Once a
crack has formed, normal expansion and contraction in the walls can
cause small changes in crack width, even though no further foundation
movement has taken place.
As most homeowners appreciate, there is a tendency for existing
cracks to get bigger year by year. This is mainly due to the walls
being stronger in compression than tension. The compression caused
by thermal expansion is therefore strong enough to cause the cracks
to open, while the tension produced by contraction may not fully
reverse the movement (see Wear and tear, Chapter 2). In addition,
there is a tendency for dirt and debris to fall into the cracks while
they are open which then prevents them closing.
A further complication is that all properties founded on shrinkable
clay soils will be moving seasonally over the course of the year, because
the surface soil shrinks in summer months and expands in winter
Fig. 26. Crack measurement using brass screws (BRE copyright)

months. In most cases the movements will be no more than a few

millimetres and the effects on the house will be indistinguishable
from thermal expansion and contraction and other changes. However,
while these movements are incapable of causing damage, they can
cause an existing crack to open and close slightly.
For these reasons, it is important that small changes in crack width
are not interpreted as positive evidence of subsidence. The Institution
of Structural Engineers19 has recently recommended that cracks of no
more than 2 mm which open and close seasonally by less than 1 mm
be regarded as ìnconsequential'. Many experienced investigators
may disagree with the ®gure of 1 mm and will have their own limits,
which serves only to highlight the potential ambiguity associated
with crack monitoring.
Despite the potential disadvantages, crack monitoring is preferred
by many investigators because they can carry out the measurements
themselves without involving a specialist contractor. In addition,
many investigators have considerable experience of interpreting the
results and do not see the need for more sophisticated techniques.
For the foreseeable future, therefore, it is likely that the majority of
decisions regarding subsidence claims will continue to be based on
the results of crack monitoring.
Level monitoring
Level monitoring uses a precision optical level to record the vertical
movement of small screws or other contact points ®xed to the building.
While other techniques exist, none can match the overall accuracy of
0.5 mm which is achievable with a precision level. For most applica-
tions, small screws or masonry nails can be used as monitoring points
and these are normally suf®ciently unobtrusive as to avoid acts of
vandalism.
Wherever possible, levels should be measured relative to a ®xed
reference point or datum. For most domestic applications, a storm-
water drain or similar deep feature is suf®ciently stable for this
purpose. However, where there are no deep drains or where absolute
accuracy is imperative, a deep datum can be specially installed at a
suitable depth20,21.
Interpreting level measurements

Level monitoring normally provides a clear and unambiguous indication
of which parts of the property are moving and by how much. Where the
A HOMEOWNER'S GUIDE TO SUBSIDENCE AND HEAVE DAMAGE
Fig. 27. Results of level monitoring exercise showing bene®ts of tree management (courtesy of Geo-Serv Ltd)
91
movement is continually downwards due, for example, to erosion or

compression of a layer of soft soil, even small movements (1 or 2 mm)
can be signi®cant as they will have a cumulative effect on the structure.
In this respect, level monitoring can rapidly identify movements that
may be causing no discernible changes in crack width.
More commonly, the foundation movement will be seasonal ± down-
wards in summer months when the surface soil is shrinking and
upwards in winter when the soil is swelling. In these circumstances,
it is important to remember that some small seasonal movements are
inevitable and movements of a few millimetres will have no more
effect on the property than typical thermal expansion and contraction.
Larger movements up to, say, 10 mm over the course of a year are
undesirable but may not necessarily be causing damage. In some
cases, where the movement is evenly distributed, the house may be
capable of withstanding seasonal movements of 20 mm or more.
In most cases, action will have been taken early in the claim to reduce
the in¯uence of nearby trees and shrubs and the primary purpose of
the monitoring will be to assess whether this action has been effective.
The application of this technique is illustrated by the results shown in
Figure 27. In this instance, which involved an exceptionally large
poplar, the tree was ®rst reduced and, when this proved ineffective,
it was removed. More usually, the initial course of action would be
effective and the monitoring period would be considerably shorter.
Despite its potential advantages, level monitoring is more expensive
than crack monitoring and this tends to restrict its use to claims where
it is likely to have a tangible bene®t.
Monitoring lateral movement

Lateral movements can be critical in cases involving potential landslip.
They are rarely measured in claims involving shrinkable clay because
of the costs involved. The usual technique is to install a special plastic
tube in a borehole about 15 m deep. Movement from the vertical can
then be measured by lowering an instrument known as an inclinometer
down the tube. The technique is highly specialised and should only be
performed by a ®rm with the necessary expertise.
Observation period
It is often stated that monitoring needs to continue for a period of at
least a year to distinguish seasonal movements from any long-term
subsidence or recovery. Indeed, this was the recommendation in the

®rst edition of Has Your House Got Cracks? The recommendation is
still generally valid where decisions are being based on changes in
crack width. However, level monitoring over a six month period will
normally provide a clear picture of which parts of the property are
moving, and the size and direction of the movement.
Provided the initial monitoring results are favourable and indicate
that initial remedial measures have been effective, the investigator
should be in a position to recommend appropriate repairs. If required,
further level monitoring can then be carried out after the repairs have
been completed to provide further con®rmation of foundation stability
as shown in Figure 27. Obviously, once the damage has been repaired,
it is not possible to carry out further crack monitoring and the
investigator is obliged to delay the repairs until the monitoring has
been completed.
Whether relying on crack or level measurements, the number of
instances where the initial monitoring is unfavourable should be
small; less than 5 in every 100 claims perhaps. In these instances, the
investigator will have to decide whether it is practical to carry out
further measures to remove the cause of the problem. In many cases,
this may involve approaching the owner of a nearby tree to see if he
or she is prepared to remove it. If this is not practical, the investigator
will have to consider the merits of implementing an underpinning
scheme. Nevertheless, in most cases where damage has been caused
by clay shrinkage or swelling, the bene®ts of longer periods of monitor-
ing are likely to be limited. The observation period should not, there-
fore, exceed, say, 18 months without very good reason.
Ideally monitoring readings should be taken every month, but in
practice every six weeks for crack monitoring or every two to three
months for level monitoring is usually adequate.
Chapter 11. The solution
If it is con®rmed that the foundations have moved and that further

movement is likely, a decision has to be made on how to prevent
further damage. One solution is to underpin the foundations. However,
underpinning is a relatively drastic and usually expensive solution and
other options should be explored ®rst, including ± strengthening the
superstructure, drainage repairs, reducing the in¯uence of nearby
trees and stabilising the soil. These options are described in the follow-
ing sections.
Repairing or strengthening the superstructure

Where it can be shown that the cause of the damage is a process which
is now largely over, such as heave following removal of a tree, or one
that is likely to occur only rarely, such as clay shrinkage during excep-
tionally dry weather, it is generally possible to prevent further damage
by repairing or strengthening the superstructure. Techniques include
use of tie bars and straps (see Figures 28 and 29), resin bonding of
brickwork (see Figure 30), brick stitching (see Figure 31), and mortar
bed reinforcement (see Figure 32). Details of traditional repair tech-
niques can be found in any good textbook on structural repair, such
as Melville and Gordon's The repair and maintenance of houses22.
A relatively new technique, known as corseting, consists of casting a
reinforced concrete beam around the perimeter of the building, usually
at or below ground level. The beam is connected to the brickwork by
means of vertical steel reinforcing bars or `dowels' and the beam is
subsequently tensioned by a torque wrench or hydraulic jack. The
corset stiffens the building at foundation level, and helps it bridge
local areas of subsidence.
Drainage repairs
Obviously, where damage has been attributed to water escaping from
defective drainage or water supply pipes, it is important to carry out
Fig. 28. Repair using tie bars (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
appropriate repairs as soon as possible. In most cases, the foundations

will stabilise rapidly once the source of the escaping water has been
removed.
Where drains are collapsed or seriously damaged, they will have to
be excavated and replaced. More commonly, however, the defects can
be recti®ed ìn situ' by installing a plastic liner inside the existing clay
pipework. There are various proprietary systems on the market, some
of which come with a 10 year guarantee. Before installing the liner, the
drain is mechanically cleaned and visually checked with a video
camera. The resin-impregnated liner is then pushed (or pulled) into
place from a manhole or other access point and ®xed in position by
in¯ating an internal bag which forces the liner against the inside wall
of the pipe until the resin has set.
Although generally cheaper than excavation and replacement,
plastic lining is not cheap and should be reserved for cases where
there is evidence that leakage is eroding the surrounding soil and caus-
ing damage, or where there is evidence of signi®cant root growth
inside the pipe.
Fig. 29. Repair using corner straps (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
Fig. 30. Resin bonding of brickwork (courtesy of Abbey Underpinning and

Foundations)
(a) Before (b) After
Fig. 31. Brickwork stitching (courtesy of Falcon Repair Services Ltd)
Reducing the in¯uence of trees

Where heave has been caused by the removal of trees, there is nothing
that can be done to prevent the swelling process running its full course.
However, where shrinkage has been exacerbated by trees, one of the
following techniques may reduce their in¯uence and provide a very
cost-effective remedy.
Fig. 32. Mortar bed reinforcement (courtesy of RME Ltd)
Tree removal
Removing the tree altogether will have the greatest and most immedi-
ate effect on the levels of desiccation in the soil. As explained earlier,
this should be safe provided the tree is no older than any part of the
house, since the consequent heave can at worst only return the foun-
dations to their original level. In most cases there is no advantage
in a staged reduction in the size of the tree and the tree should be
completely removed at the earliest opportunity.
The time taken for the soil to recover depends largely on the
permeability of the soil. In extreme cases involving highly shrinkable
clays and large deciduous trees, it may take tens of years for the
ground to reach equilibrium, even though most of the heave occurs
during the ®rst few years; in one well-documented case23, where
large elm trees were removed from a London Clay site prior to con-
struction of some cottages, movements were still measurable 25 years
Fig. 33. Observed heave of some cottages built on a London Clay site
cleared of trees prior to construction (BRE copyright)
later, as shown in Figure 33. In more permeable soils, full recovery may
be achieved in one or two years. The length of time that recovery is
likely to take may be a factor in deciding whether or not removing
the tree is an acceptable solution.
Where the tree is older than the house, or there are more recent
extensions to the house, it is not advisable to remove the tree altogether
because of the danger of inducing damaging heave. In such cases, your
investigator should calculate the heave potential in the soil adjacent to
the foundations before deciding whether or not the tree can be
removed.
If the tree is the subject of a Conservation or Preservation Order, you

must apply to the Local Authority for permission to remove it or,
indeed, to remove any part of it.
Tree pruning
Where it is unsafe to remove the tree altogether and the cracking is
relatively minor, some form of pruning, such as crown thinning, crown
lifting, crown reduction or pollarding should be considered. Pollarding, in
which most of the branches are removed and the height of the main
trunk is reduced, is often mistakenly speci®ed because most published
advice links the height of the tree to the likelihood of damage. In fact
the leaf area is the important factor. Crown reduction, where individual
branches are shortened, is therefore generally preferable to pollarding.
The pruning should be done in such a way as to maintain the shape
of the tree, without leaving it vulnerable to disease (as pollarding
often does). This should be done only by a reputable tree surgeon or
quali®ed contractor working under the instructions of an arboriculturist.
In the short term, any form of pruning is likely to stimulate growth,
although the moisture uptake of the tree will still be reduced because
there are fewer leaves transpiring the moisture. Nevertheless, if the
tree is left to its own devices, there is a risk that the pruning will
actually produce a tree with a higher moisture demand. It is essential,
therefore, that the tree management is repeated periodically to
maintain the tree at a reduced size. Typically, this will involve pruning
every other year.
Root pruning
You may ®nd there is opposition to the removal or reduction of an
offending tree; for example, it may belong to a neighbour or the
Local Authority, or have a Tree Preservation Order on it. In such
cases there are other techniques that can be used from within your
own property. One option is root pruning, which is usually performed
by excavating a trench between the tree and the damaged property
deep enough to cut most of the roots. The trench should not be so
close to the tree that it jeopardises its stability12,24. In time, the tree
will grow new roots to replace those that are cut; but in the short
term there will be some recovery as the degree of desiccation in the
soil under the foundations reduces. Where the damage has only
appeared in a period of dry weather, a return to a normal weather
pattern may prevent further damage occurring.
Permission from the Local Authority is required before pruning the

roots of a tree with a Preservation Order on it.
Root barriers
Root barriers are a variant of root pruning. However, instead of simply
®lling the trench with soil after cutting the roots, the trench is either
®lled with concrete or lined with an impermeable layer to form a
`permanent' barrier to the roots. Whether the barrier will be truly
permanent is questionable, because the roots may be able to grow
round or under it. However, the barrier will at least increase the time
it takes for the roots to grow back and should encourage the tree to
grow its new roots in other directions.
Soil stabilisation
For some causes of subsidence it is possible to prevent further movement
by improving the stability of the underlying soil; for example, cavities in
the soil caused by erosion can be ®lled by injecting cement-based grout
under pressure. The stabilisation of clay soils that are moving as a result
of changes in moisture content is less straightforward. In theory, the
characteristics of the clay and its tendency to change volume can be
signi®cantly altered by adding certain chemicals. Shrinkage potential
in particular can be reduced by using lime which replaces sodium
ions in the clay minerals with calcium ions. This technique is effective
in the laboratory and can be used to treat clay ®ll, but the extremely
low permeability of most shrinkable clays makes the technique imprac-
tical to use in the ground. This severely limits the usefulness of chemical
additives, although some proprietary treatments are available.
Another technique that is sometimes used in an attempt to reduce
seasonal shrinkage and swelling is arti®cially to increase the supply of
water. Gravel-®lled trenches may help reduce desiccation levels locally
provided they are maintained full of water. Unfortunately, unless large
quantities are used, any water added during the summer is likely to
evaporate before it in®ltrates the soil enough to have any lasting bene®t.
It is also unwise to excavate too close to foundations, as there would be a
danger of softening the soil and causing worse settlement.
Remedial underpinning
Where existing foundations are found to be inadequate, they can
be stabilised by underpinning, which means either providing new
foundations or, more usually, extending the existing foundations

downwards to reach stiffer or more stable ground. Chapter 12 sets
out how to decide whether or not underpinning is the correct solution;
Chapter 13 explains how underpinning is done.
Chapter 12. Does my house need
to be underpinned?
The use of underpinning as a remedy for subsidence and heave

damage has increased dramatically since insurance cover for
these risks was introduced. However, in 1991, a BRE report15 con-
cluded that most underpinning is not technically justi®ed and there
is little evidence to suggest that this trend has changed in recent
years.
Unfortunately, underpinning is not a cure-all for subsidence. In
many cases it will be ineffective and can sometimes actually make a
property more susceptible to damage in the future. It is only natural,
therefore, that insurers regard underpinned properties with suspicion
and will often decline to offer cover or will seek to apply special terms
and conditions.
Where the remedial measures described in Chapter 11 can be
used, they will generally be more cost-effective than underpinning
and will provide an equally valid or superior solution. But where
there is severe damage, or nothing else is likely to be effective, under-
pinning will often be the correct solution and should be speci®ed
without delay.
Criteria for underpinning

One problem facing the investigator is the absence of a generally
accepted method for deciding when underpinning is justi®ed and
when it is not. There is therefore a wide range of individual opinion,
which will be based on the following considerations.
Is structural stability threatened?

Where the damage is so severe that there is doubt about the ability of
the building to continue to carry the loads applied to it (in other words,
where there is risk of walls, ¯oors, or the roof becoming unstable),
urgent action will be needed to prevent it collapsing. Although external
shoring or internal propping can be used as a temporary solution, a

permanent solution will almost certainly require underpinning or
partial rebuilding on deeper foundations; in extreme cases, the most
cost-effective solution may be demolition and rebuilding of the
whole structure. This is unlikely to apply unless the damage is
Category 5 (Table III, page 50) and it is extremely rare for damage
due to movement in shrinkable clay to be as severe as this.
Is movement continuing?
Where the structural stability of the building is not threatened, the
prognosis for further damage becomes of prime importance. Engi-
neers, loss adjusters and insurers will want to know whether the
movement is `progressive' ± in other words, is there evidence, such
as cracks widening, of increasing damage as a result of continuing
foundation movement?
Unfortunately, small changes in crack width are often mistaken for
evidence of continuing movement and are used as justi®cation for
implementing underpinning (see Interpreting crack measurements,
Chapter 10). Ideally, any conclusions regarding the stability of the
foundations should be based on level monitoring. Where this infor-
mation is not available, small changes in crack width should be
disregarded.
Even where there is evidence of continuing foundation movement,
this does not imply that underpinning is essential. As mentioned in
Chapter 11, movements associated with a large tree can be effectively
reduced by either pruning or removing the tree. On the other hand,
where heave has been caused by removing a tree, there is nothing
which can be done to prevent the ground from swelling and, if further
substantial movement is expected, underpinning is probably going to
be the best option.
Is the movement excessive?

Small seasonal movements are inevitable for properties founded on
clay soils and are not justi®cation for implementing underpinning
schemes. Changes in crack widths can give a false impression of
what is happening to the foundations and it is clearly preferable to
base any decisions on direct measurements of foundation movement
(see Level monitoring, Chapter 10). Whilst level monitoring is often
referred to as being too expensive, its use can effectively eliminate
unnecessary underpinning.
Table IV. Appropriate action for various levels of damage

Damage Appropriate action (Relevance of underpinning in italics)
classi®cation
0 to 1 Remedial measures are generally unnecessary as cracks can be
repaired as part of routine maintenance. Where cracks recur during
periods of dry weather, consider pruning nearby trees and shrubs.
Monitoring is needed to con®rm that damage is caused by foundation
movement. Underpinning unlikely to be cost-effective except in very rare
circumstances, for example where there is recurrent damage to
expensive wall ®nishes.
2 Cracks which appear at end of summer and close during subsequent
winter can be repaired in spring and steps taken to reduce the risk of
damage recurring, such as pruning nearby trees and shrubs. Where
cracks are not seasonal, having taken steps to minimise the movement,
monitoring should be used to establish extent, magnitude and rate of
foundation movement. Underpinning is unlikely to be cost-effective,
unless foundation movement is progressive or excessive and there is
either a likelihood of recurrent damage which will be expensive to
repair, or the potential for further movement (e.g. as a result of heave)
will create excessive damage (say Category 4) .
3 Having taken steps to mitigate the cause of the movement, monitoring
should be used to establish extent, magnitude and rate of movement;
brick arches and other susceptible features may need propping to
prevent deterioration. Underpinning is likely to be cost-effective, where
movement is progressive or excessive and alternatives such as tree
removal are impracticable.
4 Unless there is a risk of instability, monitoring should be used to
establish extent, magnitude and rate of movement. Wherever
practicable, steps to remove the cause of the movement should be
taken prior to monitoring. Underpinning is needed to prevent instability
where movement is progressive or excessive, unless the cause of the
damage is obvious and can be easily removed; for example, if caused
by a large tree and there are no impediments to its removal, this may
be preferable to underpinning.
5 Temporary support (e.g. external shoring and/or internal propping) is
probably needed to prevent collapse. Monitoring may be needed to give
warning of instability, but is unlikely to aid selection of appropriate
remedy. Underpinning or rebuilding on deeper foundations needed to
reinstate affected areasy; work should be implemented rapidly to
prevent unnecessary deterioration of the structure.

Level monitoring should be speci®ed wherever underpinning is being considered as an option.

As de®ned in Table III.
y In some circumstances lifting or jacking the structure back to level may provide an eco-
nomic alternative to rebuilding.
What is the cost?

Because foundation movements associated with shrinking or swelling
clay are unlikely to threaten the structural stability of the building, the
arguments for or against underpinning are primarily related to cost
and removal of the blight of repairs at intervals in the future. To be
justi®ed some people argue that the cost of underpinning must be
less than the cost of periodically repairing the cracks.
In practice, applying this principle is less straightforward, because
the chance of the damage recurring depends on unpredictable factors
such as the weather, and because it is dif®cult to quantify inconveni-
ence and distress to the homeowner in ®nancial terms. In addition,
an injudicious underpinning scheme may have a marked effect on
the market value of the property, which is likely to outweigh any
other economic considerations.
Nevertheless, using engineering judgement, it is possible to gauge
the potential bene®t of a proposed underpinning scheme in cost
terms and this approach should be given considerable weight when
stability or safety is not an issue.
Is underpinning needed?
The ®rst edition of Has Your House Got Cracks? included a suggested
framework for deciding whether a property should be underpinned,
which is summarised in Table IV. The framework is based on the
severity of the damage as de®ned in Table III and the results of
monitoring.
Since the publication of the ®rst edition, this framework has been
circulated to a number of major UK insurers for comment and the
feedback has been generally favourable. Indeed, no insurer has asked
that the framework be modi®ed, although it has been pointed out
that each case has to be judged on its merits and it is normally left to
the investigator, rather than the insurer, to decide whether or not
underpinning is justi®ed.
Chapter 13. Different types of
underpinning
There are essentially four underpinning methods that can be used ±

mass concrete, pier-and-beam, pile-and-beam and mini-piling.15,25
The choice of method is governed primarily by the ground conditions
and the required foundation depth.
Mass concrete
Underpinning using mass concrete is often referred to as `traditional'
underpinning because the principle has been in use for centuries. In
the past, when labour costs were low and before ready mixed concrete
became widely available, traditional underpinning was constructed in
brickwork; nowadays, mass concrete is invariably employed.
In principle, mass concrete underpinning is a method of deepening
existing strip or pad foundations so that they reach a stable stratum
with adequate bearing properties. The underpinning is carried out in
a series of bays or areas as shown in Figure 34. The width of each
bay is determined by the ability of the walls to span the gap created;
for most houses with competent brick or stone-work, this is likely to
be in the range 1.0 to 1.4 m. Where there is any doubt about the
wall's ability to span the bay, the wall should be needled and the load
transferred to temporary supports bearing on the ground.
Groups of bays with the same number (see Figure 34) are excavated at
the same time, so that no more than 20% to 25% of the wall is left
unsupported at once. The mass concrete is cast into the bay to leave a
75 mm to 150 mm gap between the concrete and the underside of the
existing foundation. Once the concrete has had a minimum of 24 hours
to harden, this gap is `pinned up' by ramming in a dry concrete with a
maximum aggregate size of 10 mm and just enough water to enable the
mixture to remain in a ball when squeezed in the hand. This dry mix will
have little tendency to shrink; ramming it in tightly creates intimate
contact between the old and new foundations and prevents settlement.
Fig. 34. Mass concrete underpinning
After the ®rst group of bays is completed, work can begin on the next
group. It is normal practice to allow at least 24 hours between pinning
up and the excavation of an adjacent bay. The procedure is repeated
until the prescribed length of footing has been underpinned.
A variant of traditional mass concrete underpinning is staggered or
`hit-and-miss' underpinning. Instead of forming a continuous strip
beneath an existing footing, the underpinning remains as discrete
bays or piers. The span between piers is determined by the strength
of the existing footings. This method would not normally be used
where foundation loads are relatively high or where the footings are
shallow, insubstantial or cracked as a result of ground movement.
The use of hit-and-miss underpinning is therefore somewhat limited,
but it can be an economic solution in favourable circumstances and
is especially suitable where existing foundations are constructed of
reinforced concrete.
The simplicity of mass concrete underpinning means that it can be
installed by a relatively non-specialist workforce and is therefore
available from sources such as local builders. Nevertheless, careful
speci®cation and direction of the site work by a quali®ed engineer
are considered essential in order to obtain a satisfactory result. The
cost advantages of mass concrete underpinning decline rapidly as the

required depth increases, because of the increasing costs of materials
and transporting spoil away, and the high cost of hand excavation.
Although mass concreting to depths of 4 m or more is possible, as a
general rule it is unlikely to be the cheapest option where the depth
required exceeds 2 m; this limits its use in cases where subsidence or
heave is caused by a large tree. Mass concrete may also be unsuitable
where there is a surface layer of loose or waterlogged ground which
would hinder hand excavation.
Pier-and-beam
Pier-and-beam or base-and-beam underpinning was introduced shortly
after the Second World War by the underpinning specialist Pynford
and is now widely used. It is useful where the depth of the foundation
needed is too great for traditional underpinning to be economic.
Instead, isolated mass concrete piers are dug to the required depth at
intervals round the building, with a reinforced concrete ground
beam, installed at or above footing level, that spans between the
piers and supports the walls (see Figure 35).
Pier-and-beam underpinning is feasible in most ground conditions.
However, it tends to be economical only at depths shallower than
about 4 m. Excavations can be carried out where there is loose or
waterlogged soil by using shields (e.g. trench sheeting), but this adds
considerably to the cost. Pier-and-beam underpinning is particularly
suitable for use in shrinkable clay where further volume changes are
anticipated. The piers can be excavated to depths at which the effects
of shrinkage and heave are minimal and, provided the sides of the
piers are protected, the building can be isolated from the effects of
further volume changes in the soil. The ground beam serves to
strengthen the building early in the underpinning process.
Pile-and-beam and piled-raft

Pile-and-beam systems are similar in concept to pier-and-beam under-
pinning, but have advantages where there is no suitable bearing
stratum available within a depth economical for hand excavation of
piers (say 4 m to 5 m) or where it is necessary for the underpinning
to pass through loose or water-bearing strata.
Ground beams are normally constructed in the same way as for
pier-and-beam underpinning, except that the beams are extended at
Fig. 35. Pier-and-beam underpinning
corners and intersections to form caps for attaching to the pile heads.
Intermediate supports are formed by pairs of piles with `needle
capping beams' or, where internal access is restricted, using `cantilever
pile caps' as shown in Figure 36.
Piles vary in diameter from 150 mm to 400 mm for low-rise build-
ings, although smaller diameters may be used on lightly-loaded
structures. Because of access limitations and the need to minimise
vibration which could affect vulnerable structures nearby, the piles
are usually constructed by augering a hole in the ground in which
concrete is then cast to form the pile. However, smaller-diameter
piles may be driven.
Where external access is restricted, the existing ¯oor slab can be
removed and the piles installed inside the house; they are then
Fig. 36. Pile-and-beam underpinning
connected using a reinforced concrete raft which is keyed to the

external walls below ground level by removing small sections of
brickwork, as shown in Figure 37. This is called a piled raft.
It is preferable to install the piles after the construction of the beams,
especially where there is a risk of pile installation causing further
damage to the unstrengthened building. This makes detailing and
construction of pile caps dif®cult. Piled-raft systems are attractive to
the underpinning designer where the ¯oor slab has to be replaced in
any case to avoid damage as a result of clay heave.
One disadvantage of pile-based systems is that the relatively slender
piles (150 mm to 400 mm diameter) used in domestic-scale under-
pinning provide less resistance under lateral loading than more
robust piers. In addition, deeper and more sophisticated ground
investigation data are needed for the proper and economic design of
the piles.
Fig. 37. Piled raft underpinning (courtesy of Roger Bullivant Ltd)

Mini-piling
In this method of underpinning, there is no ground beam. Loads are
transferred directly from the structure to the piles, either by needles or
cantilevered pile caps, or by placing the piles directly through the exist-
ing footing. In low-rise buildings the pile supports would normally be at
1 m centres or less. Because of the short spans between piles, pile loads
are low and small-diameter mini-piles are used. Typically, diameters
range from 65 mm to 150 mm. They are formed either by driving steel
or plastic casings into the ground and then ®lling them with cement
grout, or alternatively they can be bored and cast in situ. Which tech-
nique is adopted depends largely on the ground conditions. Guidance
on the design, supervision and approval of remedial works and new
foundations for low-rise buildings based on mini-piles is given in BRE
Digest 313.26
Mini-pile systems are distinct from pile-and-beam and piled-raft
underpinning because they rely on the strength of the existing founda-
tions to transmit the wall loadings. Consequently, mini-piling tends to
be cheaper than other pile-based systems and can even compete with
mass concrete underpinning on cost. However, because of the small
diameter of the piles, they are unsuitable for applications where high
lateral loads are envisaged, as is often the case in shrinkable clay.
Moreover because mini-piles can be used only where the strength and
integrity of the existing foundations can be assured, they are unsuitable
for older properties or properties in a bad structural condition.
Mini-piles are particularly suited to underpinning buildings on
uniform, shallow thicknesses of ®ll and natural soils not susceptible
to shrinkage and heave. They are also one of the few techniques that
can be used to stabilise ¯oor slabs (see Figure 38).
Partial underpinning
Where only part of the building has been affected by ground move-
ment, it is generally unnecessary to underpin the whole structure.
An underpinning scheme that does not include all load-bearing
walls is called partial underpinning. In some cases, the underpinning
will be restricted to one side of the property; in others, the internal
walls may be left in their original condition. Underpinning of a semi-
detached or terraced house, where it may not be practical to extend
the remedial scheme to the neighbouring properties, is also in effect
partial underpinning.
Fig. 38. Four dierent types of mini-piling
Partially underpinning a building on shrinkable clay needs special

care. As shown in Figure 5, page 30, foundations at a depth of 1 m
may move by up to 13 mm in a dry year. This is not normally noticeable
because the whole house will move as one unit. But if part of the
building is underpinned, it is likely to move far less than the non-
underpinned part. These differential foundation movements can
cause further damage where the underpinned and non-underpinned
sections meet.
One way of avoiding such damage is to extend the underpinning
under the unaffected part of the building and to reduce the depth in
steps to avoid creating sudden, large changes in foundation depth.
This is most easily achieved with mass concrete underpinning,
where the depth of each bay can be easily varied; the usual practice
is to decrease the depth of underpinning in 0.3 m steps until it
merges with the original foundations.
This approach can also be applied to pier-and-beam and pile-and-

beam systems, by extending the ground beams beyond the last pier
or pile under the unaffected part of the house. It is more dif®cult to
extend this approach to a piled-raft, which means that special care is
needed when applying this technique to a partial underpinning
scheme.
Alternatively the likelihood of cracking can be reduced by ensuring
that the depth of the underpinning is not over-speci®ed, so that the
underpinned section of the building continues to move more or less
in sympathy with the rest of the structure. This may increase the risk
of existing cracks re-opening slightly, but may provide a more cost-
effective solution than, for example, having to underpin the whole
structure.
Chapter 14. Having the work done
The procedure for having the work carried out is the same whether the
damage is being repaired under an insurance claim or you are paying
for it yourself. In either case, a suitably quali®ed professional should be
employed to prepare a speci®cation and to direct the work. Although
this may sometimes be an architect or surveyor, if your house is being
underpinned you will need an engineer.
The speci®cation
The professional adviser will draw up a schedule (or list) of work to be
done, which will fall into three broad categories:
(i) groundworks: underpinning, rebuilding foundation brickwork,
grouting, replacing ¯oor slabs, levelling paving, etc.
(ii) structural repairs: removing and rebuilding sections of brickwork,
resin injection or stitching of cracks, installing tie rods and steel
straps, repointing mortar joints, etc.
(iii) making good: plastering, repapering or retiling walls, adjusting
doors and windows, painting.
Where the work is being done under an insurance claim, you will
have to agree the scope of the work with the loss adjuster. This often
involves an element of compromise, particularly over decoration.
Very few houses are damage free and there will often be a number of
minor cracks in areas well away from the focal point of the movement.
These may have been caused by one part of the house pulling on
another or may simply be wear and tear. Understandably, most home-
owners expect the insurer to pay for the repair of all cracks that have
appeared since the subsidence occurred. In some cases, this would
involve redecorating virtually the whole house. The loss adjuster, on
the other hand, will suspect that some small cracks may predate the
subsidence or will have appeared anyway due to normal wear and
tear. The truth is that it is generally impossible with minor cracks to
tell how old they are or what has caused them.
Every case has to be treated on its own merits, but one possible solution
is to try and distinguish between rooms containing structural damage and
rooms containing cosmetic cracks that can be dealt with by a decorator.
For the rooms containing structural damage, some plasterwork will
have to be removed and the rooms will therefore require decoration to
hide the repairs. It is therefore only fair that the insurer is asked to pay
for this. For rooms containing only cosmetic cracks, unless the damage
is very unsightly, there is no disadvantage to dealing with the cracks as
part of routine decoration which most homeowners carry out every 5 to
7 years. For rooms containing recent damage that are close to the
perceived area of subsidence, it would be fair to ask the insurer to pay
for the additional cost of dealing with the cracks and contribute towards
the decorating costs. Equally, it would be unreasonable to expect the
insurer to pay for cosmetic damage that is not fresh or where the
rooms are in parts of the house well removed from the subsidence.
As a general point, it is worth remembering that the insurer's
responsibility is for reinstatement on a like-for-like basis. Any decora-
tions should therefore be to an equal standard to the existing.
However, if you want to take the opportunity to wallpaper a room
that was previously painted or to upgrade the quality of the existing
®nishes, the loss adjuster should do his or her best to accommodate
these improvements in the schedule. In most cases, you should
expect to pay only for the extra cost of the materials.
The contract
Traditionally, the homeowner was expected to enter into a formal con-
tract with the building contractor before having any insurance-funded
work carried out. However, some insurers now prefer to appoint the
contractor directly, which offers a number of potential advantages:
. If there is an issue regarding workmanship, the onus clearly

rests with the insurer to put it right. One major insurer has
taken this a step further and offers to guarantee the repairs
carried out by their nominated building contractor, while you
remain a policy holder.
. Pricing is normally against a schedule of rates rather than
competitive tendering, which avoids your having to allow
several builders access to inspect the damage and price the work.
. The time taken to implement the repairs is generally shorter.
In view of the bene®ts, it is hoped that this will become standard

practice in the future. However, as things stand, it is likely that you
will be asked to appoint the contractor yourself and this would
obviously apply where the repairs fall outside the scope of insurance
cover. In such cases, the remedial or repair work should be carried
out under a standard contract, such as the Minor Works Agreements
issued by the Joint Contracts Tribunal ( JCT) or the Institution of
Civil Engineers. If no formal agreement is signed, you should at least
exchange letters with the contractor con®rming the terms under
which the work is to be performed.
Once work begins, though employed by you or the insurer, the pro-
fessional adviser is expected to act impartially in settling any disputes
which arise between you and the contractor.
As well as de®ning the scope of the work, the contract will specify
the extent of the contractor's liability. Where the insurer is not a
party to the contract, you may need to make arrangements to extend
your insurance cover to include accidental damage to adjacent proper-
ties as a result of the building work. The consequences of failing to
arrange special insurance can be severe, and professional advice
should be sought. If the work is being funded as part of an insurance
claim, the loss adjuster should be able to offer some advice regarding
the arrangement of adequate insurance cover during the course of
the work; otherwise you may need to approach an insurance broker.
Additional costs that arise through obtaining extra insurance are
normally recovered as part of the claim. The contract will also de®ne
how the contractor will gain access to the site, and in some cases it
may be necessary to get permission from neighbours for some of the
work to be carried out from their land.
A contractor for the work is usually selected by competitive
tender. The main contract may be let to a general builder, with
provision for separate sub-contracts for specialist work such as
underpinning or installation of replacement windows. Alternatively,
many specialist ®rms now offer a wide range of services including
underpinning, structural repairs and making good, and can therefore
perform the complete contract in-house. For a large claim, it would
be normal practice to invite three or four ®rms to tender for each
contract or sub-contract. For a smaller claim, it may be possible to
agree prices with a single ®rm or perhaps obtain two competitive
quotes.
It is clearly important to select a competent and reliable contractor
and the professional adviser will ensure that tenders are sent only to
®rms capable of completing the necessary work satisfactorily. If you

have personal knowledge of a reputable builder you can, of course,
ask for their name to be included in the list of tenderers. Once the
tenders have been received, the professional adviser will recommend
which contractor should be given the work. This will normally be the
one who has submitted the lowest bid, unless any of the contractors
have attached unreasonable conditions to their tender returns or
have failed to include all the necessary items speci®ed in the Schedule
of Work.
If the work is being funded as part of an insurance claim, the profes-
sional adviser will pass his or her recommendations both to you and to
the loss adjuster. Although the ultimate choice of contractor is yours,
insurers will normally pay only for the lowest acceptable tender bid.
Therefore, if you choose one of the more expensive contractors, you
should expect to pay the extra cost yourself.
Cash settlement
The insurer's main concern will be to ensure that any remedial works
and structural repairs are carried out properly to minimise the
possibility of the damage recurring. The insurer has little or no interest
in whether the decorations you are entitled to are carried out. At the
same time, many homeowners prefer to carry out their own decora-
tions or may have a local decorator that they know and trust. Under
these circumstances, the insurer will normally be prepared to offer
you a cash settlement instead of paying for the decorations. This
payment will be based on the prices estimated by the builders who
have quoted for the work, but will include a number of deductions.
In particular, most insurers will not pay the VAT element unless it
can be demonstrated that the work was actually carried out by a
VAT-registered contractor. Other deductions will include the policy
excess and any contingencies in the speci®cation to cover unforeseen
problems.
Another situation where a cash settlement may be useful is where
the homeowner is planning to carry out major alterations, such as
the construction of a new extension. It makes little sense to have
rooms repaired and decorated if there is a likelihood of the decorations
being spoilt by the proposed improvements. In such circumstances, the
professional adviser should be able to recommend to the insurer a pay-
ment based on the cost of the work that is being omitted. The home-
owner can then put this money towards the cost of the improvement.
Party wall awards

In England and Wales, where a semi-detached or terraced house is
being underpinned or where a party wall is being repaired, it is
necessary to comply with the requirements of the Party Wall, etc. Act
(1996). This legislation requires you to serve the owners of the adjoin-
ing house or houses with a notice warning them of the work that is
being carried out. If your neighbours have any reservations about
the work that is being proposed, you will need to appoint a Party
Wall Surveyor to ensure that the proposed work complies with the
requirements of the Act. In simple cases, the Party Wall Surveyor
will probably be your professional adviser, although this arrangement
is not ideal because the Party Wall Surveyor has to act impartially in
the event of a dispute arising between you and your neighbour. If
your neighbour does not agree to your choice of Party Wall Surveyor,
he or she is entitled to appoint their own Surveyor and you will have to
meet any reasonable professional fees.
Amongst other things, the Party Wall Surveyor (or Surveyors) will
prepare a formal Schedule of Condition for the neighbouring property
and an Award describing any conditions applying to the work. In most
cases, you are likely to be responsible for any damage to your neigh-
bour's property that occurs during the course of the work and for all
professional fees. These costs would normally form a legitimate part
of your insurance claim and, in practice, your professional adviser
should take care of all the administration whether or not he or she is
acting as your Party Wall Surveyor.
The party wall legislation may also apply to a detached property
where it is proposed to excavate within 6 m of your neighbour's
foundations. For further details, there are a number of easy-to-read
publications devoted to the party wall legislation27,28.
Will I have to move?

Where extensive underpinning or structural repairs are being carried
out, for safety or convenience you may have to move out while the
work is being done. It is not uncommon for a period of three to six
months to be needed to complete the work. The cost of alternative
accommodation, or loss of rent in the case of rented accommodation,
is covered by most buildings insurance policies, although there are
usually limits to the amount of money available. The standard of alter-
native accommodation provided is normally based on your minimum
requirements, rather than being on a like-for-like basis. Accommodation
and loss of rent costs are often shared between buildings and contents
insurers, if your cover is with different companies.
Payment
Because the contract is between you as homeowner and the builder,
you are responsible for making the necessary payments. However,
where the work is being done as part of an insurance claim, you can
normally sign a mandate, which allows your insurer to pay the builder.
In fact, many builders insist on the mandate being in place before they
accept the contract.
For a large claim, the builder will want to receive payments in stages
during the course of the work. Whether it is you or the insurer who is
paying, your professional adviser will need to certify the builder's
invoices before they are passed for payment. This ensures that the
builder is paid only for work that has been completed satisfactorily.
Often insurance policies are arranged through a bank or building
society with which a homeowner has a mortgage. It is sometimes a con-
dition of the mortgage that payment is made by the insurer in the joint
names of the homeowner and the building society, so that the society
will need to countersign the cheque before it is passed on to the home-
owner or contractor.
At some stage, you will be asked for your policy excess. Some
insurers deduct the policy excess from the builder's ®rst invoice,
which means that you have to pay the excess to the builder soon
after the work has started. A preferable option is for you to make a
cheque out to the builder, which your professional adviser will then
hold onto until the work has been completed to your satisfaction. How-
ever, to allow you to do this, the insurer has to agree to pay the initial
invoices in full. Alternatively, you may be able to pay the policy excess
directly to your insurer, which then allows the insurer to pay all the
contractor's invoices.
When the work is virtually complete, you may be asked to sign an
àcceptance form', which con®rms to the insurer that the claim has
been resolved to your satisfaction and allows the ®nal payment to be
made to the contractor.
Supervision
The professional adviser will visit the site periodically to inspect
the work, record progress and sort out any technical problems. The
frequency of the visits will depend primarily on the complexity of the

operations that are being undertaken. For example the professional
adviser might carry out daily inspections of underpinning work, but
only visit the site once a week while decoration is being carried out.
The professional adviser cannot provide day-to-day supervision of
the work. This is normally provided by the contractor's foreman or
clerk of works. For small jobs, such as decoration, there may be no
formal supervision and in such circumstances it is important that
you let the professional adviser know if you are unhappy with the
way the work is being carried out. You should, however, bear in
mind that overzealous `supervision' of contractors is likely to interfere
with their work and can therefore be counter-productive. You should
be particularly careful not to issue any verbal instructions that could
be construed as extending or modifying the agreed Schedule of
Work; if you do, you may ®nd yourself footing the bill for the extra
work. To be part of the contract, any amendments to the Schedule of
Work must be issued formally through the professional adviser.
Building Regulations
Any underpinning or major rebuilding work requires approval under
the Building Regulations (1991)29 or, in the case of buildings in Scotland,
the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations (1991)30. To obtain this
approval, plans for the work have to be submitted to the Local
Authority, who will then make periodic inspections of the work on
site. The responsibility for obtaining Building Regulations approval
may rest with the professional adviser or the contractor, and should
be explicit in the contract. There are different ways in which Building
Regulations approval can be obtained; your professional adviser
should be familiar with those.
Warranties
As a general principle, it is impractical and uneconomic to specify
remedial solutions that will absolutely guarantee that no further
damage will occur. In most cases, the scheme speci®ed by the pro-
fessional adviser will have a reasonable expectation of providing a
satisfactory solution considering the relative cost and likely effective-
ness of the other options. The professional adviser will not, therefore,
give any form of guarantee or warranty. Many will, however, issue a
Certi®cate of Structural Adequacy which indicates that the problem
has been remedied using best practices and procedures. Moreover, in

common law the professional adviser does owe his or her client a
duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in executing the work.
Many contractors will issue a 10 or 20-year guarantee for the under-
pinning work. However, unless they are members of the Association of
Specialist Underpinning Contractors, these guarantees are unlikely to
be backed up by insurance and will only remain valid as long as the
underpinning ®rm remains in existence. Many guarantees also have
various conditions which attach ± typically excluding damage which
might occur to underpinning as a result of continued growth of trees.
Chapter 15. What if things go
wrong?
Problems can arise at three stages: during the investigation; while the
work is being done; and at any time after the completion of the
work, should the damage return. The following sections explain
what you should do if things go wrong.
During the investigation

Where damage is being investigated as part of an insurance claim, you
will normally deal with a loss adjuster or other expert appointed by the
insurer. If you feel that the claim is taking an unnecessarily long time,
or that the service is poor, you should initially address your complaint
to the principal of the ®rm of loss adjusters or engineers, as appropri-
ate. If you do not obtain satisfaction then the matter should be reported
to the insurer. Where insurance is arranged through a building society,
bank or insurance broker it may well be that these intermediaries will
also be able to offer some assistance. If these actions fail to resolve the
matter, you can appeal to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS),
whose address is given in Appendix B. The FOS will then give a
decision on whether or not the insurer is ful®lling its obligations
under the terms of the policy. This service is provided at no charge to
you. However, membership of the FOS is not compulsory, though
most leading insurers do belong to it. You will therefore need to check
that your insurer is a member. Before referring a claim to the FOS,
you must give the insurance company a ®nal chance to resolve the
matter by writing to, and receiving a reply from, the company's Chief
Executive at head of®ce. The FOS can deal with most disputes concern-
ing subsidence and heave claims but remember that if your case is solely
about delay, a reference to the Ombudsman may further hold up your
claim as the insurer must send all its papers to the FOS for investigation.
The judgement issued by the FOS is binding on the insurer but not
on you. Referring the matter to the FOS does not, therefore, prevent
you later pursuing the matter through the courts. However, unless you
qualify for Legal Aid, the cost of legal action is generally prohibitive
and it should only be considered as a last resort. If you do decide to
take legal action, contact a solicitor with experience of handling sub-
sidence or heave claims. The cost of taking such advice will be at
your expense and an action through the courts may take a considerable
time, perhaps years.
During the contract

Any problems that arise during the execution of the works are nor-
mally dealt with by the professional adviser. Where he or she is
unable to resolve a dispute, the contract usually has provision for the
appointment of an arbitrator whose decision is binding on both you
and the contractor. In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary
to replace a contractor who fails to ful®l his or her obligations.
After completion
If the remedial work fails to prevent the damage returning, the insurer
may deal with the damage as a new claim subject to a separate excess
or a continuation of the old claim, depending on the circumstances. For
example, if the ongoing movement is due to inadequate design or
workmanship in the original underpinning, then the new damage
may not give rise to a valid claim. In such cases the homeowner
may need to take up the matter directly with the builder or professional
adviser, or possibly consult a solicitor.
It is rare for an insurer not to continue cover for subsidence and
heave following the settlement of a claim. If cover is refused you
should establish the reasons as refusal to continue cover clearly implies
some lack of con®dence in the work carried out. Whereas an insurance
company has the right to cancel or alter the contract of insurance,
provided adequate notice is given, you should not be disadvantaged
as a result of having made a claim. Consequently, if, by refusing to
continue the cover, the insurer leaves you with a property that is
uninsurable, you should consider reporting the matter to the FOS.
The FOS cannot compel the insurer to offer cover, but could instruct
the company to pay for further work to make the property an
acceptable risk to another insurer.
Chapter 16. Buying and selling
The recent trends in insurance claims shown in Figure 1 suggest that

around 40 000 households are likely to be affected by `subsidence'
every year. It is natural, therefore, that many buyers are anxious to
avoid properties that are at risk and also that there is an ever increasing
proportion of properties on the market that have been the subject of
subsidence claims in the recent past. This in itself raises a fundamental
issue ± is a property which has already experienced subsidence damage more or
less liable to experience problems in the future?
The remainder of this chapter offers some impartial guidance for
buyers and sellers of properties in shrinkable clay areas, that are
commonly labelled as being àt risk' from subsidence. However, it is
appropriate ®rst to offer a few comments on the professional guidance
that you can reasonably expect to receive.
Surveys
The procedures relating to buying and selling properties are currently
under review and one suggestion that is being considered is for the
seller rather than the purchaser to have the property surveyed. This
avoids the same property being surveyed repeatedly by a number of
potential buyers and also provides the seller with evidence that his
or her property is free of major defects ± a sort of MOT for houses.
However, as things stand, the onus is on the buyer to arrange for a
survey to be carried out.
There are essentially three types of survey: (1) a basic valuation
survey, which is the minimum, required by the mortgage lender; (2)
a more detailed Home Buyers Report, which is in a standard question
and answer format; and (3) a Condition Survey, which is a comprehen-
sive appraisal of the condition of the property and any maintenance
that is required (sometimes referred to incorrectly as a `Full Survey'
or a `Full Structural Survey'). Even a Condition Survey will have
certain limitations and these will normally be listed at the start of the
report. In many cases, further inspections by specialist contractors
will be recommended ± for example, to look at the need for damp

proo®ng, woodworm treatment, or drainage repairs.
Deciding what sort of survey you need is not always straight-
forward. Obviously the more expensive surveys will go into more
detail and will look at the condition of the plumbing, electrical and
other ®ttings, as well as the fabric of the house. Much will depend
on your own level of knowledge. But, generally speaking, the older
the property and the poorer its condition, the more important it is to
obtain a detailed survey which will allow you to gauge the cost of
essential and future maintenance.
All surveyors acting on your behalf owe you a duty of care to
provide you with accurate and professional advice. However, the
level of this duty will depend on the type of survey undertaken and
the fee paid. For example, it would be reasonable to expect a Condition
Survey to itemise all essential and non-essential maintenance and to
give budgetary estimates for this work to be carried out, while a valua-
tion survey is unlikely to do more than point out major structural
defects that might have a bearing on the market value. Generally
speaking, evidence of subsidence would be regarded by most building
professionals as a potential `major structural defect'. You should
therefore expect your surveyor to examine the property for signs of
subsidence and to pass on any relevant information.
With respect to subsidence, the surveyor will be looking primarily for
signs of recent movement or structural repairs. Where these are absent,
the surveyor may note any previous distortion, but will usually describe
this as `longstanding' and `not indicative of current subsidence'. If the
surface soil is known to be shrinkable clay, the surveyor should mention
this and also point out any trees that are undesirably close. In such cases,
the surveyor should make some recommendations for future preventa-
tive maintenance in line with those given in Chapter 5.
The essence of a good survey is one that alerts you to potential
problems, without being overly cautious or pessimistic. The buyer
must appreciate that insurers will regard any property on shrinkable
clay with trees nearby as a `high risk' as far as cover for subsidence
damage is concerned. This is simply a matter of statistics and it does
not mean that an individual property is bound to suffer damage. In
fact, unless there are no signs of the trees having caused damage in
the recent past, there must be a good reason for suspecting damage
will occur in the future ± for example, if there is a relatively young
tree that is growing vigorously and therefore increasing its demand
for moisture year on year. In such circumstances, it is appropriate for
the surveyor to point out that tree management is needed to reduce

the risk of future damage. Advice of this nature would have serious
consequences for future insurance cover and it is likely that the pur-
haser would need to make enquiries and assure himself or herself
that there would be no impediment to carrying out the necessary
work. Ideally, of course, any tree management should be carried out
straight away, prior to completing the purchase.
Engineer's Report
Most surveys, even those described as a `Full Structural Survey', are car-
ried out by Building Surveyors (see Professional Advice, Chapter 8).
Where there is evidence of structural damage or recent repairs, most
surveyors will recommend that an Engineer be appointed to comment
speci®cally on the possibility of there being subsidence. If the damage
has clearly been caused by something other than subsidence, the Engi-
neer will recommend appropriate remedial measures and/or repairs.
Where there is a possibility that the damage is subsidence, however,
the Engineer is likely to suggest that the damage be reported to the exist-
ing insurer (i.e. the seller's insurer) and this will initiate the procedures
described in Chapter 8. In fact, it is becoming increasingly common for
subsidence claims to be initiated at the point of sale and, to avoid the
buyer having to pay for the Engineer's Report, many surveyors will
suggest simply that the seller report the damage to his or her insurer.
The procedure for completing the sale of a property during the
course of an insurance claim is described under Selling after
damage has been reported to insurers, later in this chapter.
What to look out for when buying a house

To avoid unnecessary costs, most people will commission a survey only
when they have decided to put in an offer on a property and have had
the offer accepted. In most cases, therefore, buyers will carry out the
initial assessment of the property themselves. The potential risk of
subsidence is only one factor to look out for when buying a house. In
fact, it is often less important than general wear and tear, which can
have serious cost implications that are not covered by insurance.
Distortion
The presence of distortion in itself is not necessarily a cause for
concern. In many older properties it is considered `characterful' and
is simply the end result of repeated cycles of physical and chemical

change over many decades (see Chapter 2). Occasionally, it can indi-
cate a period of neglect (see Wear and tear, Chapter 2), and rarely it
can indicate that the property has suffered structural damage as a
result of subsidence or another event, such as bomb impact. Unless
there are signs of recent damage or repairs, the likelihood is that the
distortion has been present for many years and that no immediate
remedial work will be required. Nevertheless, it is important to be
aware of the distortion and its likely cause, so that you can put some
money away for ongoing maintenance or possible repairs at some
point in the future. This is normally an issue that would be addressed
in the pre-purchase survey, although it doesn't do any harm to draw
the surveyor's attention to anything you have noticed already and
ask him or her to comment on it speci®cally.
Viewed from the outside, gross distortion to the walls can result in a
visible lean or bow, especially to gable end walls as shown in Figure 39.
It is best to try and line the wall up with something else that is approxi-
mately vertical, such as the corner of a neighbouring property. It is
generally possible to detect leans of about 1 in 150 by eye (i.e. a lean
of 60 mm in a 9 m high gable wall) and any leans less than this are
unlikely to be structurally signi®cant. Often the distortion is more
localised and results in a bulge to the wall, which tends to be more
noticeable around window openings, because any outward movement
to the wall will cause a gap to open up between the window frame and
the brickwork. This gap is usually ®lled with mortar as part of routine
maintenance. An unusually large ®llet of intact mortar is therefore a
sign of previous movement, while an open gap between the mortar
and the brickwork is a sign that there has been further movement
since the last external maintenance; some examples are shown in
Figures 40 and 41. Roofs should also be checked for signs of general
sag or slippage between tiles, as shown in Figure 17.
Localised distortion is often corrected by rebuilding the affected
panel of brickwork, which can usually be seen because the new
bricks will not match the original or will simply be cleaner. Occasion-
ally a whole wall will have been taken down and rebuilt. Bay windows
and brick arch lintels over windows and doors are particularly suscep-
tible to movement. Both should be checked for signs of repairs or
having been rebuilt. The partial collapse of a brick arch will often
affect the panel of brickwork above and cause an obvious dip in the
brick courses as shown in Figure 42. The front bays in Victorian proper-
ties were normally built with brick or stone columns at the corners and
Fig. 39. Gross distortion to the gable wall of a Victorian property which has
been highlighted by the reconstruction of the wall belonging to the
adjoining property
these should be checked to make sure they are not leaning excessively.
An example of a distorted bay is shown in Figure 43.
Internally, distortion will often affect door openings, causing them to
lozenge. Over the years, the door will have been adjusted periodically
to ®t the opening and will itself be lozenge shaped. In panel doors this
results in an obvious taper to the top panel as shown in Figure 44, so
that even relatively small movements are readily apparent. Window
openings can be affected in a similar way. Often the window frame
Fig. 40. Wide mortar-®lled gap between the window frame and the
brickwork indicates that there has been previous distortion to the wall
itself will have been replaced at some point requiring the use of tapered
packing between the frame and the opening.
Walls, particularly outside walls, should be checked internally for
signs that they are leaning. Because it is hung vertically, wallpaper
with any form of pattern can be a very useful indicator of whether
the corners of a room are straight or not. Tiles in bathrooms and
kitchens can be used in a similar way. Check also that features such
as pelmets and picture rails line up with ceilings. The human body is
relatively sensitive to changes in level and often you will get the
impression that you are walking downhill if there is a signi®cant
slope to the ¯oor. This can be checked easily with a pocket spirit
Fig. 41. Cracking between the window frame and brickwork is evidence of
continuing movement in the wall
level. The same instrument can be used to check that mantelpieces and
window cills are horizontal.
Where there are signs of recent damage or recent repairs, you should
seek professional advice on the scope of any further repairs that will be
Fig. 42. Damage and distortion to brickwork associated with the previous
collapse of a brick arch lintel
Fig. 43. Longstanding distortion to the front bay of a Victorian property
needed. In this respect, it may be more economical to ask an engineer to

comment speci®cally on this aspect rather than commissioning a Con-
dition Survey, which is likely to recommend an Engineer's Report in
any case. You should also consult an engineer to advise on the
need for remedial works if there is a noticeable lean to any outside
Fig. 44. Panel door that has been adjusted to ®t a distorted opening
walls. Traditionally, leaning walls were stabilised by the use of iron

rods protruding through the brickwork. Nowadays, the same effect
can be achieved internally using steel straps as shown in Figure 28.
Signs of subsidence
The characteristics of damage caused by subsidence have already
been described in Chapter 7. Before looking for signs of movement,
it is useful to know whether the surface soil is a shrinkable clay
or not. The map shown in Figure 2 will give you an idea. However,
it is much better to check the relevant 1: 50 000 scale maps that are
available from the British Geological Survey at a price of about £10 each
(Appendix B). Failing this, ask the sellers whether they notice cracks
opening up in the lawn during dry weather (which indicates the
soil to be shrinkable) and check paving and garden walls for signs of
movement. Anything that is founded on the surface soil will be far
more susceptible to movement than the house. The Estate Agent
should also be able to provide some local knowledge, as should the
Building Control staff in the local Council of®ces.
If the soil is thought to be a shrinkable clay, it is important to appreci-
ate that the property will be moving up and down slightly over the
course of the year as a result of the seasonal changes taking place in
the surface soil (see Chapter 3). However, these movements are usually
no more signi®cant than the thermal expansion and contraction that
affects all buildings. In most cases, the disadvantage of owning a
house founded on a shrinkable clay is that doors or windows may
stick during the summer or, if you are unlucky, you may experience
small cosmetic cracks during prolonged periods of hot weather. The
presence of clay therefore should not, in itself, put you off buying a
house.
At the same time, it should be appreciated that trees and large shrubs
will cause larger seasonal shrinkage and swelling in the surface soil
and cases of structural damage are almost always associated with a
medium or large tree. A note should therefore be made of any signi-
®cant trees in the immediate vicinity of the property and the closest
parts of the property (for example bay windows or porches) should
be examined for signs of movement or recent repairs. If there are
none, there is no reason to suspect problems in the future, unless the
trees are young and growing vigorously. If this is the case, you
should bear in mind the cost of future tree maintenance for trees
belonging to the property and make enquiries regarding the ownership
of any trees that do not belong to the property. For example, if they
belong to a neighbour, does he or she have them cut back regularly?
See Chapter 6 for further details of controlling trees belonging to a
neighbouring property.
You should also bear in mind that any house built since 1965 may
well have deeper foundations to protect it from the effects of any
trees that were present when the house was built.
If the surface soil is not clay ± for example it is shown on the
geological map as a sand or a gravel ± the foundations will not be
affected by nearby trees. You will, however, still have to consider
the implications for managing any trees belonging to the property to
maintain them in good health and prevent them blocking out too much
light.
Considerations for the seller

Checking for signs of damage
Not many homeowners make a habit of regularly checking their homes
for signs of damage. It is quite possible therefore that a prospective
buyer will point out damage which you may not have noticed. In
other cases, the cracks may have been there for many years and you
have simply ignored them because they never seemed to get any
worse. The buyer, however, will look on the cracks somewhat
differently. He or she will almost certainly have heard about subsi-
dence and the associated problems it brings and may be put off
buying a house with even the smallest of cracks. Even if the buyer is
unconcerned and puts in an offer, any damage picked up in a pre-
purchase survey can lead to complications. While a good surveyor
should be able to recognise minor damage for what it is and advise
his or her client accordingly, many are overcautious because of the
risk of being sued if the damage turns out to be the ®rst sign of a
more serious problem, such as subsidence. They will, therefore,
either recommend an Engineer's Report or simply advise their client
not to proceed with the purchase.
It is therefore a good idea to check your house over for signs of
damage before you put it on the market. You can either do this yourself
or with the aid of a local builder, a Building Surveyor or an Engineer
(see Professional advice, Chapter 8). It is also a good time to get out
the survey that you had carried out before you bought the house and
make sure that any recommended maintenance was not overlooked.
Your pre-purchase survey is, in fact, an important document, because
it records the condition of the property at that time. It may, for
example, prove that existing cracks have been there for many years
and that the damage is not getting any worse.
It is generally better to deal with any signi®cant damage or essential
maintenance before putting your house on the market. It is not wasted
money because the potential buyer will almost certainly seek to deduct
the cost of the work from the purchase price and it is easier to sell a
house presented in good condition.
Any damage that you discover should be assessed objectively in
accordance with Chapter 7, which will help you decide what action
to take. In many cases, where the cracks are old or are so minor that
you have not noticed them previously, the sensible course of action is
to have the cracks repaired. Before doing so, it is a good idea to take
some photographs of the cracks and you should also keep a copy of
the builder's invoice. Any external repairs are likely to be picked up
in the pre-purchase survey and the surveyor may want to satisfy him
or herself that the work was done properly.
Conversely, where you suspect that the cracks have appeared only
recently and where there is evidence that they have been caused by
foundation movement (see What should I do? in Chapter 7) you
should not carry out any repairs without ®rst reporting the damage
to your insurer. This need not prevent you from pressing ahead with
the sale of the property, as discussed in the following section.
Selling after damage has been reported to insurers

On average, it takes about 18 months to resolve a claim for subsidence
damage, especially where the damage is relatively minor and an
appropriate period of monitoring is needed to con®rm the nature
of the movement. Most homeowners who are trying to sell their
property, or indeed who decide to sell their property at some point
during the 18 month period, will not want to wait until the claim has
been completed.
To get round the problem, many insurers will allow you to assign
your rights under the claim to a new owner. In this way, the new
owner will be entitled to receive the same settlement that you would
have, had you not sold the property. An added advantage is that any
decorations can then be to the new owner's taste rather than your own.
The transfer of rights under the claim will normally take place after
the initial investigation and the submission of the Engineer's Report.
By this time, the investigator should have identi®ed the probable
cause and will have con®rmed whether the insurer will accept the
cost of repairs under the Subsidence Section of the policy. The buyer
should therefore have a good idea of what the insurer is going to
pay for and should be assured that the only cost to him or her will
be the policy excess.
The policy excess can either be paid by the seller or the equivalent
amount can be deducted from the price paid by the buyer. It is, how-
ever, important that responsibility for paying the policy excess is not
overlooked and this is something that the solicitors handling the sale
would usually take on board.
Where the damage is very minor, the investigator may recommend
that a decision regarding liability be deferred until the monitoring
exercise has been completed. In these circumstances, the buyer will

know that he or she is buying a house either with some wear and
tear that can be dealt with as part of routine maintenance, or with a
minor subsidence problem that will be resolved by the insurer. As
the cost of repairing the minor damage is likely to be about the same
as the policy excess for a subsidence claim, the buyer will not be out
of pocket if the seller offers a small discount on the asking price.
Will a claim for subsidence damage make it dicult when I come to sell?
In principle, the fact that you have had a claim for subsidence damage
should not reduce the market value of your property. Under the terms
of your insurance cover, your property will have been reinstated to its
former, pre-damaged condition and all appropriate measures will have
been taken to prevent a recurrence of the damage. Your house will be
less at risk of future damage than it was before you made the claim and,
arguably, it will be less at risk than other properties in the same
neighbourhood, which have not been investigated.
Unfortunately, insurers maintain that traditionally this has not been
the case and suggest that the reverse is true ± in other words, a house
that has previously suffered damage is a `bad risk', especially as the
cost of rectifying a poorly repaired house can be disproportionately
high the second time around. Most insurers will therefore decline to
offer subsidence cover on a property that has already had a claim
made on it, or will only offer special terms and conditions. The absence
of normal insurance cover would, in itself, put most people off buying
the house, but the real problem is that no mortgage lender will provide
funds for an uninsured property.
To get round this problem, following a claim for subsidence damage,
most major insurers will continue to insure a property under normal
terms and conditions, and will transfer this cover to a new owner
when the house is sold. Clearly, to do otherwise would suggest that
the insurer was in some way unhappy with the way in which the
claim was resolved.
In recent years, it is also the case that insurers are more prepared to
consider every case on its merits. Therefore, while you may not be able
to get a quote for an underpinned property over the phone, some
insurers will offer you reasonable terms once they have received full
details of the work that was done. In addition, there are one or two
small insurers who specialise in insuring properties that have been
the subject of a previous claim.
Every mortgage lender has its own rules about the type of property it
will lend against. But, provided the property is normally insured, the
risk of a future occurrence of subsidence damage should have little
bearing on its inherent value. There is no good reason, therefore,
why a mortgage lender should refuse a loan on a property simply
because it has previously been damaged by subsidence. Many
buyers would look at it in the same way ± The property has had problems
in the past. These have been put right. If there are further problems, my
insurance is there to pay for them. Arguably, the only ®nancial implication
of a future occurrence of subsidence is the policy excess, which is
usually £1000, a small amount in comparison to the value of the house.
Of course, in practice there are other considerations. In particular,
not many people would welcome the stress and inconvenience asso-
ciated with a claim for subsidence damage. The prospective purchaser
should therefore make any enquiries that may be necessary to gauge
the severity of the previous problem to satisfy himself or herself that
appropriate steps were taken to avoid the damage recurring. These
enquiries would typically include obtaining details from the current
insurer, seeing copies of the original reports and investigations, and
ideally speaking with the investigator personally.
Except in the unlikely event of these enquiries yielding any informa-
tion to suggest that the previous investigations were not carried out
competently, the buyer should normally be assured that the risk of a
recurrence of signi®cant damage is remote. In most cases involving
clay shrinkage and swelling, the original damage will have been
inconsequential in structural terms and any recurrence is likely to be
less severe than the original. The most likely cause of a recurrence of
damage is the re-growth of the tree that was cut back after being iden-
ti®ed as the cause of the damage. This risk can be reduced considerably
by ensuring that the owner of the tree is aware of his or her continuing
responsibility to maintain the tree periodically (see Chapter 6).
The time interval between the completion of the repairs and the sale
of the property is also an important factor to be taken into considera-
tion. For example, provided there are no signs of a recurrence of the
damage, a buyer can be sure that there has been no further signi®cant
movement to a property that was underpinned and repaired, say, ®ve
years ago. Conversely, a property that was repaired only recently has
yet to pass the test of time. However, it is more likely that the insurer
will have full details of the claim relating to the recently repaired
property and it should be possible to obtain a Certi®cate of Structural
Adequacy, which is described in the next section.
It follows that the previous subsidence claim should have little or

no bearing on the market value of the property. In most cases, the
property will actually be in better condition after the repairs and
decorations have been completed. Nevertheless, human nature being
what it is, the buyer is likely to want some kind of discount. What
discount, if any, the seller is prepared to offer will depend more on
market forces than any tangible loss of value.
Certi®cate of Structural Adequacy

The Certi®cate of Structural Adequacy is a document that has been
introduced in recent years to help prevent a claim for subsidence
damage blighting a property. It is produced by the investigator respon-
sible for the claim and is essentially an assurance that the investigator
has done his or her job properly, rather than a guarantee against
further damage. It will usually contain a brief description of the
damage, its cause and the scope of remedial works and repairs that
were carried out, including the name of the contractor. A recom-
mended format for the Certi®cate can be found in the Institution of
Structural Engineers' publication Subsidence of Low-Rise Buildings,
Second Edition19.
Non-disclosure
When you come to sell your house you are obliged to disclose any
material fact which may affect its value and this would include any
repairs carried out as part of an insurance claim, especially if this
work included underpinning. Often you will be asked speci®cally if
the property has been underpinned. You may even be asked whether
you are aware of any underpinning carried out to your neighbours'
properties or of any neighbourly disputes involving trees.
If you have simply reported minor cracking to your insurer and,
following appropriate investigations, you have been advised that the
damage is not caused by subsidence or is too minor to merit repair,
you have not actually `made a claim'. It would be arguable therefore
whether this would be a material fact; but it is generally safer to
mention it, rather than run the risk of being sued if the information
comes to light at a later date. If you are in any doubt, this is something
you should discuss with the solicitor handling your sale.
References
1. BRE Digest 361, Why do buildings crack? 1991.
2. R B Bonshor and L L Bonshor, Cracking in buildings. Construction

Research Communications Ltd, 1997.
3. British Standards Institution, BS 5930, Code of practice of site investigation,

BSI, London, 1981. The proposed revision of this Standard is being
prepared by BSI subcommittee B/526/1.
4. British Standards Institution, BS 1377, Methods of testing soils for civil

engineering purposes, BSI, London, 1991.
5. BRE Digest 318, Site investigation for low-rise building: desk studies, 1987.
6. NHBC. Standards. National House-Building Council, Amersham, 1999.
7. BRE Digest 412, Desiccation in clay soils, 1996.
8. D F Cutler and I B K Richardson, Tree roots and buildings. 2nd edition.

Harlow: Longman, 1989.
9. BRE Digest 298, The in¯uence of trees on house foundations in clay soils, 1985.
10. British Standards Institution, CP 101, Foundations and substructures of

nonindustrial buildings of not more than four storeys, BSI, London, 1949.
11. NHBC. Practice Note 3 ± Building near trees, National House-Building

Council, Amersham, 1969.
12. British Standards Institution, BS 5837, Trees in relation to construction, BSI,

London, 1992.
13. Gardening Which, Trees near the house, Nov pp 359±361, 1989.
14. BRE Digest 251, Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings, 1990.
15. R Hunt, R H Dyer and R Driscoll, Foundation movement and remedial

underpinning in low-rise buildings, BRE Report BR 184, 1991.
16. P Robson, Structural appraisal of traditional buildings, Gower Technical,

1989.
17. BRE Digest 344, Simple measuring and monitoring of movement in low-rise
buildings: part 2 ± settlement, heave and out-of-plumb, 1995.
18. BRE Digest 343, Simple measuring and monitoring of movement in low-rise
buildings: part 1 ± cracks, 1989.
19. Institution of Structural Engineers, Subsidence of low-rise buildings, 2nd

edition, 2000.
20. J E Cheney, BRE Current Paper CP26/73, Techniques and equipment using
the surveyor's level for accurate measurement of building movement, 1973.
21. BRE Digest 386, Monitoring building and ground movement by precise
levelling, 1993.
22. Melville and Gordon, The repair and maintenance of houses. Estates Gazette
Ltd, 1988.
23. J E Cheney, 25 years' heave of a building constructed on clay, after tree removal,
Ground Engineering, vol 21, no 5, pp 13±27, 1988.
24. British Standards Institution, BS 8004 Foundations, BSI, London, 1986.
25. S Thorburn and G S Littlejohn, Underpinning and retention, 2nd edition.

Blackie Academic and Professional, 1993.
26. BRE Digest 313, Mini-piling of low-rise buildings, 1986.
27. John Anstey, Party walls and what to do with them, 4th edition. The Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 1996.
28. DETR, The Party Wall etc. Act 1996: explanatory booklet. Crown Copyright
1997, product code 97 PBD 008.
29. Building Regulations (1991)
30. Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations (1991)

Appendix A. Glossary of technical
terms
(Page numbers refer to explanations or principal usage in the text)
Arboriculturist ± a tree specialist, preferably a member of the Arboricultural Association

and who should carry appropriate liability insurance (p. 100).
Base-and-beam ± a method of underpinning based on cast in-situ ground beams

supported by squat concrete columns; also referred to as `pier-and-beam' (p. 109).
Beam-and-block ¯oor ± a method of constructing a suspended ¯oor slab consisting of

pre-cast concrete beams and lightweight concrete blocks (p. 37).
Bearing capacity ± the maximum foundation load that can be applied to a soil (p. 151).
Bond ± the arrangement of bricks, blocks or stones within a masonry wall to a set
pattern to achieve a combination of adequate strength and attractive appearance (p. 39).
Certi®cate of Structural Adequacy ± a document to con®rm that previous damage has

been properly investigated and repaired (p. 140).
Corbelling ± stepping of brickwork to increase the width of a wall in order to support

a load (p. 33).
Corseting ± a method of reinforcing low-rise buildings based on installing post-

tensioned concrete beams at foundation level (p. 94).
Crack monitoring ± periodic measurement of crack width to assess whether or not

damage is getting worse (p. 84).
Crown lifting ± a method of pruning trees based on completely removing the lower
branches (p. 100).
Crown reduction ± a method of pruning trees based on reducing the size of the canopy
by shortening the length of branches (p. 100).
Crown thinning ± a method of pruning trees based on reducing the size of the canopy
by removing selected branches (p. 100).
Damp-proof course (dpc) ± a waterproof layer installed near the base of a masonry wall
to prevent upward movement of moisture (p. 54).
Desiccation ± any signi®cant reduction in soil moisture content, caused by evaporation

or extraction of moisture by trees, shrubs, etc. (p. 25).
Dierential settlement (or dierential foundation movement) ± a measure of the distortion

in a wall based on the vertical displacement of one point with respect to another
(p. 42).
Footing ± a shallow concrete foundation placed under a wall or column to spread the
load over a larger area of ground (p. 33).
Ground beam ± a reinforced concrete beam used to support a wall and to transfer the
wall loading to piles or pads (p. 36).
Hand auger ± a boring tool used to excavate holes of between 50 mm and 250 mm
diameter in soil (p. 73).
Hardcore ± coarse inert granular material commonly used to ®ll hollows and to
provide a suitable base on which to cast a concrete ¯oor slab (p. 37).
Headers ± bricks laid across a wall so that they are end on to the outside face (p. 39).
Heave ± upward ground movement and the corresponding movement of aected

foundations (p. 100).
Heave potential ± a quantitative measure of the capacity of a desiccated soil to

generate upward movement in existing or proposed foundations (p. 99).
Hogging ± de¯ection of a wall or beam resulting in the ends being lower than the
middle: opposite of sagging (Fig. 14).
Illite ± one of the three common clay minerals (p. 22).
Joist ± a beam, often timber, used to support ¯oorboards or ceilings (p. 17).
Kaolinite ± one of the three common clay minerals (p. 22).
Landslip ± movement of soil down a slope (p. 7).
Level monitoring ± periodic measurement of vertical foundation movement to quantify

any ongoing subsidence or heave (p. 90).
Lime mortar ± a bonding agent for masonry consisting of a mixture of sand and lime
(p. 39).
Lintel ± a beam, usually of timber, concrete or steel or an arch of brick or stone, placed
above a door or window opening to support the weight of the wall above (p. 57).
Liquid limit ± a measure of the minimum moisture content at which a clay loses its
`plastic' properties and begins to ¯ow (p. 23) (c.f. plastic limit).
Mastic ± ¯exible sealant used to ®ll gaps where movement is anticipated, for example
between a window frame and surrounding brickwork (p. 58).
Mini-pile ± type of piling commonly used for underpinning, using driven or cast-in-place
piles with a diameter of between 65 mm and 150 mm (p. 113).
Moisture content ± a measure of the amount of moisture contained in a sample of soil

calculated from measurements made before and after drying at a temperature of 1058C;
can be expressed in either volumetric (as a percentage of the total volume) or more
usually gravimetric (as a percentage of residual weight after drying) terms (p. 1).
Monitoring ± periodic measurements of a damaged building to establish whether

foundation movement is continuing or damage worsening (p. 83).
Montmorillonite ± one of the three common clay minerals (p. 22).
Needle ± a small beam installed under or through a wall as a support (p. 107).
Overconsolidated ± description of clay that has previously existed under far higher
con®ning stresses than at present (p. 23).
Peat ± soft, compressible dark brown or nearly black soil derived from vegetable
matter (p. 24).
Permeability ± a measure of the ease with which water is able to pass through the
ground (p. 22).
Pier ± a squat concrete or masonry column constructed below ground level and used
either to support concentrated point loads or to provide support for reinforced
concrete ground beams (p. 36).
Pier-and-beam ± a method of underpinning using cast-in-place ground beams supported

by squat concrete columns; also referred to as `base-and-beam' (p. 109).
Pile ± a relatively long slender foundation element used to transmit foundation loads
to a deep stratum, fabricated from timber, concrete or steel; piles may be installed by
driving or by casting concrete into a bored hole (p. 36).
Pile-and-beam ± a method of underpinning based on cast-in-place ground beams

supported by piles (p. 109).
Piled raft ± a method of underpinning based on a cast-in-place reinforced slab

supported by piles (p. 111).
Plastic limit ± a measure of the minimum moisture content at which a clay retains its
`plastic' properties and does not break up when moulded (p. 23) (c.f. liquid limit).
Plasticity index (or plasticity) ± the dierence in moisture content between the plastic
limit and the liquid limit for a given sample of clay (p. 24).
Pointing ± surface mortar in the joints and seams on the outside of a masonry wall
(p. 19).
Pollarding ± a method of tree management in which most of the branches are removed
and the main trunk is shortened (p. 100).
Portable water level ± a device for measuring the vertical distance between two points
(p. 70).
Raft foundation ± a type of foundation in which the entire building is supported on a

reinforced concrete slab (p. 36).
Recovery ± increase in soil moisture content and associated increase in volume,

produced by a reduction in the forces (or suctions) that cause desiccation (p. 93).
Sagging ± de¯ection of a wall or beam resulting in the middle being lower than the
ends: opposite of hogging (Fig. 15).
Settlement ± downward movement of soil under load, especially as soil compresses

under foundation loads (p. 24).
Short bored piles ± a type of foundation for houses or other low-rise buildings using
relatively short (usually less than 10 m long) piles constructed by boring a hole and
®lling it with concrete (p. 13).
Shrinkable clay ± a clay whose volume changes signi®cantly with variations in moisture
content (p. 22).
Shrinkage potential ± a qualitative measure of a clay soil's capacity to cause damage as a

result of volume change; three classi®cations exist: `low', `medium' and `high' (p. 24)
(c.f. heave potential).
Silt ± a soil made up of particles with diameters of size intermediate between clay (less
than 0.002 mm) and sand (greater than 0.06 mm) (p. 22).
Sleeper wall ± a low wall constructed at foundation level to support a suspended

timber ¯oor (p. 37).
Stretchers ± bricks laid in the line of the wall so that the long side is visible on the face
of the wall (p. 39).
Strip footing ± a shallow concrete foundation cast in the bottom of a trench to provide
continuous support for a wall (p. 13).
Structural damage ± cracks or distortion that signi®cantly weaken the house or

building: typically, for load bearing masonry, cracks with a width of at least 2 mm
which are visible from both sides of the wall (p. 117).
Stud partition ± method of constructing non-load-bearing walls in houses in which

plasterboard is attached to a timber frame (p. 53).
Subsidence ± downward ground movement and the corresponding movement of

aected foundations (p. 1).
Suction (or pore water suction) ± negative pressure within the water occupying the
spaces between soil particles, which can be caused by evaporation from the surface of
the soil and the extraction of moisture through the roots of vegetation and is
therefore commonly associated with the process of desiccation (p. 78).
Suspended ¯oor ± method of constructing a ground ¯oor so that it is not supported

on the ground (p. 37).
Tie bars ± iron rods or steel straps used to support the brickwork on the end wall of
a terrace (p. 134).
Trench-®ll foundation ± type of foundation commonly used for houses and other low-
rise buildings, where a narrow concrete-®lled trench is used to provide continuous
support for a load-bearing wall (p. 34).
Trial pit ± a small excavation dug to inspect foundations and/or soil conditions; the
maximum depth for a hand dug trial pit is about 1.5 m, although depths of 3 m or
more are easily achievable with a mechanical excavator (p. 73).
Underpinning ± a technique for replacing or deepening existing foundations (p. 103).
Undersailing ± outward movement of brickwork below damp-proof course (p. 75).
Void former ± collapsible material used to form a space under cast-in-place concrete
¯oor slabs in order to protect the slab from the eects of swelling soil (p. 37).
Appendix B. Relevant
organisations
Arboricultural Association
Amp®eld House
Romsey
Hants SO15 9PA
Telephone: 01794 368717
Email: admin@trees.org.uk
www.trees.org.uk
Building Research Establishment (BRE)

Advisory Service
Garston
Watford
Herts WD2 7JR
Telephone: 01923 664000
Email: enquiries@bre.co.uk
www.bre.co.uk
British Geological Survey (BGS)

Kingsley Dunham Centre
Keyworth
Nottingham NG12 5GG
Telephone: 0115 936 3100
Email: enquiries@bgs.ac.uk
www.bgs.ac.uk
British Geotechnical Association (BGA)

One Great George Street
London SW1P 3AA
Telephone: 020 7665 2233
Email: admin@geo.org.uk
www.geo.org.uk
Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters (CILA)

Peninsular House
36 Monument Street
London EC3R 8LJ
Telephone: 020 7337 9960
Email: info@cila.org.uk
www.cila.org.uk
Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)

South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London E14 9SR
Telephone: 020 7964 1000
Email: enquiries@®nancial-ombudsman.org.uk
www.®nancial-ombudsman.org.uk
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

One Great George Street
London SW1P 3AA
Telephone: 020 7222 7722
www.ice.org.uk
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE)

11 Upper Belgrave Street
London SW1X 8BH
Telephone: 020 7235 4535
Email: mail@istructe.org.uk
www.istructe.org.uk
National House-Building Council (NHBC)

Buildmark House
Chiltern Avenue
Amersham
Bucks HP6 5AP
Telephone: 01494 735363
www.nhbc.org.uk
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

RICS Contact Centre
Surveyor Court
Westwood Way
Coventry CV4 8JE
Telephone: 0870 333 1600
Email: contactrics@rics.org.uk
www.rics.org.uk
Appendix C. Foundation and
superstructure design
New build
The easiest way to avoid subsidence damage is to make sure that the
foundations of new buildings are adequate in the ®rst place.
A certain amount of foundation movement is inevitable, since
ground will compress under the loads applied by the foundations;
equally, ground movements may occur as a result of processes that
are unconnected with the applied loads, such as changes in the moist-
ure content of shrinkable clays. It is generally both impractical and une-
conomic to design foundations to be totally static throughout the life of
the building. A successful foundation design will therefore ensure that
the level of movement transmitted to the superstructure is acceptable
and that distortions never exceed tolerable levels.
In many instances foundation design depends on the bearing capacity
of the underlying soil. For buildings founded on ®rm, shrinkable clays,
however, this is unlikely to be an important consideration, because
such clays are strong enough to support a low-rise building on a con-
ventional strip footing of, say, 400 mm width. Rather it is the depth of
the foundations that is critical for building on these soils ± they should
be deep enough not to be affected by changes in moisture content. The
effects of evaporation and moisture extraction by vegetation reduce
with depth. Where there are no trees or large shrubs, a foundation
depth of 0.9 m is generally adequate. But foundations designed to
this minimum requirement allow no provision for future tree planting.
In practice, many homeowners will, at some point, want to plant small
trees such as fruit trees near the house and so it may be prudent though
costly to provide foundations that are deeper than the recommended
minimum. A depth of 1.5 m, for example, would allow an apple or
pear tree to be safely planted at half its mature height (4 m to 6 m)
from the foundations even on highly shrinkable soil.
Clearly it may be necessary to use even deeper foundations where
there are existing trees on the site, especially if these are large
broad-leaf trees such as oak, willow, elm or poplar. Recommended

foundation depths for different types of tree, at various distances
from the foundations, and for three classi®cations of shrinkable soil
are contained in the NHBC Standards6. Since the maximum recom-
mended depth is 3.5 m, it is possible to use trench-®ll foundations in
all circumstances. The depth of desiccation under a large tree can be
considerably greater than the recommended foundation depth; for
example, in London Clay, desiccation to depths of 6 m is not unusual.
Nevertheless, the degree of desiccation tends to decrease with depth
and tends to be fairly constant in the deeper soil unless the tree is
removed or grows substantially larger. Consequently, the depth of
the foundations can be substantially less than the depth of desiccation
and still provide adequate stability for the house. It follows that large
trees should be left in place wherever possible. This would not apply
where the tree is on, or very close to, the proposed site for the house
and, in such circumstances, a piled foundation should be considered.
This can be designed to give a far higher margin of safety against
movement and is often no more expensive than deep trench-®ll.
A fundamental disadvantage of deep trench-®ll foundations in heav-
ily desiccated soils is that, by cutting through tree roots, they inevitably
upset the equilibrium in the soil even if no trees are removed; this in
turn generates lateral movements in the soil, which then tend to
push the foundations sideways. To reduce the effect of the lateral pres-
sures it is necessary to protect one side of the trench (normally the
inside face) with a compressible material such as low-density
expanded polystyrene. However, in such circumstances, many engi-
neers prefer to use piled foundations since piles have less of an effect
on the equilibrium in the soil and may readily be taken down below
the desiccated zone.
Floor slabs are also susceptible to damage as a result of clay shrink-
age and swelling and, when building on shrinkable soils it is advisable
to use a suspended ¯oor with an adequate void under it, rather than a
slab bearing on the ground. The NHBC Standards6 offer advice on the
depth of void required; for example, 150 mm is recommended for soils
with a high shrinkage potential.
Extensions
The foundation requirements for extensions are essentially the same as
those for new houses, with one important proviso. With new houses,
the distortions due to foundation movements are limited by the fact
that the whole structure tends to be affected at the same time. In the
case of extensions, however, any initial settlement will show itself as
differential movement between the extension and the original house
and, where the foundation design of the extension is different from
that of the original house, the response of the two parts to dry weather
may be dramatically different. It follows that problems may arise
wherever the foundations for the extension are signi®cantly deeper
than those of the original house.
The foundations for any extensions will have to comply with the
Building Regulations (1991)29, or in the case of buildings in Scotland,
the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations (1991)30. These regula-
tions require compliance with existing codes and guidance and, in
the case of building on shrinkable clay, this is likely to be interpreted
as meeting the recommendations of the NHBC Standards6. Conse-
quently the minimum foundation depth for an extension founded on
clay will be 0.9 m and may be substantially greater where there are
large trees in the garden. Equally, if the house is more than 30 years
old, it may have been built on foundations that are no more than
0.6 m deep and may in many cases be even shallower. In such cases,
the most important consideration is avoiding creating a `hard spot'
in the structure, where the foundation depth changes rapidly over a
short distance. There are three ways in which this can be achieved:
(i) underpin some of the foundations of the original house to the level
required for the extension and step the underpinning up progres-
sively away from the extension to avoid creating a `hard spot';
(ii) match the foundations of the extension to those of the original
house and step them down progressively away from the original
house to comply with the NHBC recommendations; or
(iii) build the extension entirely on deep foundations and provide a
movement joint between the two structures.
None of these options will guarantee a satisfactory result in all cases
and it will be necessary to consider the merits and cost of the three
options in each case before deciding on the appropriate foundation
design. Moreover, the interpretation of the Building Regulations
varies between Local Authorities and the three options may not be
accepted universally.
Superstructure details
In theory, quite a lot can be done to reduce the susceptibility of low-rise
buildings, such as houses, to damage from foundation movement. For
example, framed structures with brick in®ll could be used in place of

load-bearing masonry, or reinforcement could be inserted into
mortar courses near weak spots such as window openings. In practice,
this approach is rarely used because it is generally more straight-
forward to ensure that the foundations perform adequately.
One exception to this rule is where a sudden change in foundation
depth is unavoidable, either because of varying ground conditions or
where an extension is being added. If it is not possible to step the
foundations up to avoid creating a hard spot, then a vertical movement
joint can be introduced into the structure. This is basically a gap in the
brickwork ®lled with a ¯exible sealant (sometimes described as a
mastic), typically around 10 mm wide.
Movement joints are essentially deliberate cracks. As such they help
prevent the walls cracking elsewhere and, provided they are properly
constructed, should not detract from the overall appearance of the
house and should provide adequate protection from rain and wind.
The most common use of movement joints is in large panels of brick-
work, where they are essential to accommodate movements associated
with changes in temperature and the initial expansion of the bricks.
The use of movement joints as a means of avoiding damage where an
extension abuts an original house is becoming increasingly common.

Has Your House Got Cracks - A Homeowner's Guide To Subsidence and Heave Damage PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Has Your House Got Cracks - A Homeowner's Guide To Subsidence and Heave Damage PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HAS YOUR HOUSE GOT CRACKS?

A homeowner's guide to subsidence

Stuart Littlejohn, BSc(Eng), PhD, FEng,

Richard Driscoll, MSc, FICE, is Head of

T. J. Freeman, R. M. C. Driscoll and

Institution of Civil Engineers

Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

First published 1994

ISBN: 0 7277 3089 4

# BRE and Thomas Telford Limited, 1994, 2002

Typeset by Academic & Technical, Bristol

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1

3. CAUSES OF SUBSIDENCE AND HEAVE 20

4. HOW YOUR HOUSE IS BUILT 33

6. SUBSIDENCE TO A NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY 44

7. RECOGNISING SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE 48

11. THE SOLUTION 94

12. DOES MY HOUSE NEED TO BE UNDERPINNED? 103

13. DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNDERPINNING 107

14. HAVING THE WORK DONE 116

15. WHAT IF THINGS GO WRONG? 124

16. BUYING AND SELLING 126

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS 143

APPENDIX B: RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS 148

APPENDIX C: FOUNDATION AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

This publication has been commissioned by the Institution of Civil

1 Trend in claims for heave and subsidence damage to domestic

Why has this guide been written?

What causes subsidence and heave?

How can I tell whether the cracks have been caused by

Why is subsidence and heave damage so common?

Why are some properties aected, when others in the same

that other factors may be involved. For example, where a property

Can I do anything to reduce the risk of damage occurring or

Are nearby trees causing problems or are they likely to cause

Should I prune trees, or remove them altogether?

When should I start to worry about the damage?

When should I tell my insurer and how do I make a claim?

What will it cost me to make a claim and what is covered?

Will my house need to be underpinned?

What investigations will be needed and how long will it all

Will I have to arrange the repairs myself ?

Should I avoid buying a house built on clay?

Will a claim for subsidence damage make it dicult to sell

Recent trends in subsidence claims

summers of 1989 and 1990 in particular had a signi®cant effect on

While individual homeowners may be pleased to learn that their

Changing attitudes towards subsidence and heave damage

required information, although this inevitably led to delays in settling

(a) loss or damage to garden walls, gates, fences, swimming pools,

It is therefore always important to check the policy wording to see

minor damage is caused by physical and chemical changes in the

Freezing and thawing of water

below the surface (crypto-ef¯orescence) causing spalling similar to that

Corrosion or oxidisation of steel

Other chemical processes

Wear and tear

For an older property without signs of longstanding foundation

Shrinkage or swelling in the surface soil

Why clay soils shrink and swell

metres of material subsequently deposited over them; this cover was

Liquid and plastic limits

Where are shrinkable clays found?

Why are some properties aected, when others in the same

Will a claim for subsidence damage make it dicult to sell

Fig. 4. Dramatic example of the potential eects of tree growth on a house

Table I. Risk of damage by dierent varieties of tree9

Has my own property been aected?

Will I be aected by the remedial works?

Fig. 13. Dierent patterns of movement and cracking caused by subsidence