UK subsidence claims in 2026 are already creating pressure for the property insurance sector. According to the Association of British Insurers, insurers paid £72 million for domestic subsidence claims during the second quarter, while the average claim reached a record £20,000. These figures were recorded before England experienced an exceptionally dry July, increasing concern about further notifications during late summer and autumn.
The £72 million figure relates only to April–June 2026, so it should not be presented as a confirmed annual total. Even so, the evidence supports active preparation by insurers, loss adjusters and claims supply-chain partners.
Dry weather and clay shrink-swell risk
The Met Office reported that England received only 6.5 mm of rain in July 2026, making it the driest July in a rainfall series dating back to 1836. Southern England received just 1.9 mm, around 3% of its long-term average. The Environment Agency also moved more than half of England into drought, including London, while soil-moisture deficits reached record levels in several regions.
These conditions are not claims figures, but they are relevant indicators of movement in shrinkable clay soils. During prolonged dry periods, clay loses moisture and contracts, reducing support beneath shallow foundations. When moisture returns, the ground may swell again. Damage becomes more likely when movement is uneven.
Trees and large shrubs can intensify this process, particularly around older properties with shallow foundations. However, clay shrinkage is only one possible cause of cracking. Leaking drains, loose fill, local voids, mining features, compressible soils and construction defects may produce similar symptoms.
Why accurate diagnosis matters
A diagonal crack may trigger a subsidence claim, but it does not confirm the cause. The Financial Ombudsman Service expects insurers to rely on appropriate expert evidence and thorough investigation. Depending on the property, this may include trial pits, boreholes, soil testing, drainage surveys and crack monitoring.
Claims teams must avoid both unnecessary investigation and premature repair. Excessive testing can increase costs and extend the claim lifecycle, while an incorrect diagnosis may result in recurring damage, complaints and repeated reinstatement.
A proportionate claims pathway should consider the property history, crack pattern, nearby vegetation, drainage condition, geology and previous movement. The likely mechanism should be established before a repair method is selected, and the evidence retained so the result can be verified before decorative repairs are completed.
Selecting the right stabilisation method
The repair should match the ground mechanism and required performance. Where local weak zones, voiding or reduced foundation support can be identified, resin injection may reduce excavation and disruption compared with conventional underpinning. The treatment should be controlled, recorded and assessed against agreed criteria.
Resin injection is not suitable for every claim. Deep weak soils, peat, uncontrolled groundwater, major structural defects or ground beyond the treatable zone may require another solution. Where loads must be transferred to deeper strata, micropiles may be more appropriate. Conventional underpinning also remains necessary in complex cases.
GEOSEC’s evidence-led approach
GEOSEC supports insurers and loss adjusters through diagnosis, targeted intervention and verification. Building inspections can be combined with geotechnical testing and electrical resistivity tomography where this adds useful evidence. Treatment is then designed around the observed conditions, using resin injection or micropiles where technically appropriate.
The completed intervention is documented through treatment records, testing and an as-built report. This gives the claims team a clearer basis for approving the scope, controlling quality and closing the claim.
