Buildings Insurance (subsidence claim 20 years ago)

dacouch

Its not uncommon for a house that has only been part underpinned for the other side to subside, this is because the underpinned side is stronger and can sometimes cause problems to the other side

EdGasket

Yes but in my case the underpinned part was a rear 'extension' (part of the original house) which had shallow foundations. The rest of the house is built over cellars with foundations 2m deep or more so I'm thinking the risk of further problems is v. small.

mattymoo

But then you get the problem of differential movement - where the foundation levels differ or the method of construction, parts of the building can move at different rates causing cracking to appear where they meet.

EdGasket

That's why when it was underpinned, the part with the problem was underpinned to the depth of 3m which is the same as the remainder of the house. The only possible other risk I can see is if there is a problem with a common sewer that runs over my property. But the water company have agreed that is their responsibility so presumably if it caused subsidence to my house they would be liable for that also. Anyway I don't feel inclined to pay an extra £500 for the subsidence cover where I would have to pay another £1,000 in the event of a claim and where there are so many exclusions, the insurance co. would probably never pay up anyway. Guess I'll just have to cover it myself. Life is a risk anyway !

dacouch

If you want a company that will provide you with a quote there are some specialist companies, they will charge you for a full structural survey (Circa £200) and will provide a quotation from the information this provides. They often come up with requirements such as the drains need to be cleaned or nearby trees need attention.

Their prices are generally about twice the market rate and they generally use Lloyd's Syndicates (Who are not always the greatest on claims).

There are a few companies such as Bureau http://www.bureauinsure.co.uk/

EdGasket

I decided to go for the cover without subsidence which means if there are any problems I am free to sort it out and pay for it myself without the hassle of chasing insurance companies. I realise this could prove a costly mistake but the house has stood for 120 years, the only part likely to subside has been underpinned quite well, and hey, I have £1500 towards any repairs already - £500 I saved on the insurance plus the £1000 excess I'd have to pay whether insured or not. Fortunately I'm not short of a bob or two if need be but i realise not everyone has that luxury and are stuck with paying high premiums after a subsidence claim.

dacouch

Do you have a mortgage on the property?

EdGasket

No, otherwise I would no doubt have to have taken the more expensive route which includes subsidence cover.

tillson

Hi EdGasket

I have just read this thread with interest as my circumstances sound very similar to yours. My house is about 120 years old and has a small single story extension to the front which was built about 30 years ago.

In 2003, I noticed some cracking to the wall of an extension and called in the insurance company. They appointed a firm of structural engineers who identified the cause as being clay shrinkage caused by nearby trees extracting water. They stated that all that was needed was to chop down the trees, the clay would re-hydrate “restoring stability to the ground” and then the cracks could be patched up. This is what they did and I am pleased to say there has been no hint of movement since. No underpinning or anything of that nature was required.

However, my insurance premium has been rapidly rising each year and I am now paying £1187 per year for my home insurance. I have contacted the insurance company, made no secret of who I am, or the history of the house and asked them what they could offer similar insurance for if I had not had the claim in 2003. The answer is an astonishing £285.

Even though they have always insured my house and they took complete control of the repairs, I am not allowed to transfer to the cheaper policy, so they are loading my policy by £902 per year.

Do you or anyone reading this feel that I have a case for complaint regarding the level of premium being charged? I believe that they know full well that I can’t move to another company and are using this vulnerability to rip the !!!! out of the situation.

My main contention is that the house is now repaired. I have saved extensive amounts of documentation from the insurance company stating that the remedial works will, “restore my house” and “will restore stability”. The definition of restore is to, “bring back to original state through repair”. With this definition in mind, if the house was in good enough condition to be able to obtain insurance at a sensible price prior to 2003, should it not be now that they have “restored” it? The bottom line for me is, if they don’t have sufficient confidence in the repair that they undertook to offer me insurance at market rates, then they haven’t done the repair properly. I would be happy for them to knock it down and re-build it as long as it is, “restored” as they promised, in writing.

Also, how long do I have to live with this? I don’t have a mortgage and don’t plan to move anytime in the next 10 years, but I may want to move one day.

Is there a period of time after which this can be looked at and taken for what it is? A tree caused a crack in a wall. The tree was eradicated many years ago and the house has not moved since. Problem fixed, move on?

I suspect that I am not alone here and the insurance companies have may customers shackled to them milking it for all they are worth.

I am currently in dialogue with the insurers trying to appeal to them to take a fresh look at things. We aren’t at the Ombudsman stage yet and I hope that we can resolve things.

Sorry for banging on for so long.

dacouch

You will have to declare the subsidence for ever.

It sounds to me like your Insurers could have a mistake in the software on your quote, they typically set a loading on the premium and have limit on the amount it increases in a year from the loading and any rate increase for your postcode (As they have paid out a "Subsidence" claim in your postal area it's not unusual for an Insurer to increase the rates for that postal code).

I would suggest you ring the Insurers and ask to speak to a superviser and explain the situation they MIGHT spot there is a mistake (If there is one) and correct it or they might just try and palm you off. The other alternative is to write a letter to the actual underwriting department and they may see sense (If there has been a mistake).

I've seen the mistake in capping premium increases with Aviva and Zurich on subsidence properties and it's a case of speaking to the right person (Politely) and they will sometimes correct it

Alternatively there are brokers with schemes such as Bureau Insurance and Subsidence Advisory Service who will require you to pay for a structural survey and they will normally provide a quote once they have seen this. Bear in mind their prices are expensive to start with before any loads, they also often request an aborculturalists report on any tress near the house (Any work recommended by them to be completed) and often a report from a drain company on the drains (Any work recommended to be completed).