As far as I know, the Fitzwilliams never mined in the estate, for obvious reasons, but they owned most of the local collieries - Elsecar, New Stubbin etc. There's some information on this website about the local coal-mining:

http://www.rotherhamunofficial.co.uk/history/tradeandindustry/coalinfo/rotherham-collieries.html 

Kimberworth was just one big opencast site when they built our street, and the road wasn't tarmacced for another year - it was like Cactus Gulch. The Wentworth estate had been in place for a long time though, so I presume they owned most of the mining rights for miles around for centuries, though I think the monks had quite a bit too.

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if a speculative claim can have any merit if the house was purchased with latent defects known to be caused by subsidence.

I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if a speculative claim can have any merit if the house was purchased with latent defects known to be caused by subsidence.

Covered by various bits of legislation which I can't remember.

If its coal mining subsidence the mine operator (or the Coal Authority) is liable.

"Latent defects" has a specific meaning which I don't think is relevant here.

Are there any photo`s or video`s that show any of this subsidence damage?

As any of the video`s of this property i have viewed show nothing un-toward regarding subsidence.

Also is it the opencast operations or old workings beneath the property that this claim is regarding?

There's some info on the Wiki page about the workings, but the extent of any workings under the house itself is quite poorly documented, if at all - there's not a lot in the book about that either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Woodhouse 

I apologise if my original post didn't put it too well. The question I was really asking was whether a claim against the Coal Board is transferrable. If you purchase a property where the extent of the subsidence/damage is known for a knockdown price can you claim for a 'loss' that you have not actually incurred or is their some statutory entitlement that applies regardless? If the Fitzwilliam family had made such a claim, that would be understandable but surely subsequent owners may not have the same entitlement. Latent Damage/defect is a fault in the property that could not have been discovered by a reasonably thorough inspection before the sale. The caveat emptor rule generally applies, but under certain circumstances where the seller knew of the defect, remedy may be available to the purchaser. Our architect friends could argue that their investigations did not turn up the presence of mine workings or damage to the building and only subsequently came to their knowledge - a bit unlikely, I know.

There is a general rule that you cannot contract out of law, either accidentally or by intent. If there is a specific piece of legislation that makes the Coal Board liable for subsidence damage then that would hold good regardless. What that piece of legislation may be I personally have no knowledge however.
My point is that regardless of selling price which is a matter between the two parties then the potential liability would remain.

However, if the property had been sold for a ‘knockdown price’ then defendants in any subsequent action could use this as attempt to mitigate the value of the awarded damages.

---