House not constructed properly!!

Myrr

Hello everyone, I don't post much - just read as I don't know an awful lot about some of these issues.

I am in need of some advise though. My house roof was damaged in the recent storms - thankfully not too badly, the ridging is gone, a few tiles and some damage to the wall of the house.

I called my insurance and the builder assessor finally called out today and within minutes told me I did not have a claim as my house hadn't been constructed properly. I was a bit upset to put it mildly so didn't take in everything he said but it was something to do with the wrong mortar being used in the ridging or it being put on wrongly or something but it is an ex council house, it was surveyed twice before we got our mortgages how can it be constructed wrongly and why hasn't it been picked up before.

He went on to say I could replace the broken tiles etc myself by going to a builder shop - I'm physically disabled and the last place my family would allow me to go is up on the roof but when I told him we couldn't afford that kind of thing he said our personal circumstances weren't his problem.

Thankfully my mother in law has stepped in and said she will pay for someone she knows to do the immediate repair but she is in her 60's and should be spending the money on herself not baling us out.

I suppose my concern is does this mean this will be used every time I try to claim, what the heck is the point of having insurance in the first place anyway?


This company did something like this to me last year, our house was flooded and no one got back to me after several hours so I had to evacuate the family to a hotel and was later told I wasn't covered as I had acted without authorisation however I had no light or heating and had two young children to cater for at 8pm at night.

I think at the very least I need to be finding myself a new insurance company but maybe they are all the same?

jzimelstern

I would query what he means by the roof not being properly constructed. It is very likely that this is sweeping statement to avoid payment rather than honour the policy.

The Ombudsman service will use what they call teh 'But For' test to help identify whether the failue of the roof is a fualt in construction or not. Thsi will go somehting like this: But For th estorm would the roof be in its pre-loss condition? If so you can demonstrate that the storm caused the damage. Att he same time once teh insurance copnay have told you what the faulty construction is, you can apply the stame test i.e.: But for the "Defect" would the roof have weathered the storm.

I hope this helps.

lisyloo

No they are certainly not the same.
I am with a very good insurer (Hiscox), but then I pay quite a lot for my insurance compared to others (about £700 I think).
I can't comment on the first case, but the second case sounds completely unreasonable. Did you make a formal complaint? they tend to have calls recorded these days, so can check.

mikey72

It may not be too late to make a complaint about the flooding.
Write a formal letter of complaint about both claims, and then refer it to the FOS if your insurer dismiss then again.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/index.html


It's worth a phonecall now to discuss if you have grounds, and what your chances are. It's a free service to yourself.

olly300

OP if you do send in a letter make sure you put a title "Formal Complaint" on it and send it to the insurance company be recorded signed for post so the insurance company can't claim that they didn't receive it.

Myrr

re Dangermac quote - the insurance is very reasonable but I guess they can afford to be if they don't pay out. I got a discount via my union.

Thanks for the advise, the builder accepted that the storm caused the damage but said there were three grounds we had to meet the last being the house was in a well maintained condition, he said because of the mortar thing this invalidated the insurance. However the roof has been there for many years, we've been here seven and it has survived worse storms than earlier this weeks so it worth bearing that argument in mind.

I hadnt thought we could go back to them about the flooding, again because there was no damage to the house the investigator said we had no claim/ that and that they hadnt authorised us going into a hotel. The house just had to be allowed to be dried out but it took 24 before the electrician felt it was safe to turn on the electricity, as a result we lost everything in the freezer and had hotel costs to pay out. We left it because the claim would only be 40 pounds once the excess was taken into account. The annoying thing is the insurance company had told us to evaluate things and take photos which I did but nothing came of it.

mikey72

Myrr wrote: »

re Dangermac quote - the insurance is very reasonable but I guess they can afford to be if they don't pay out. I got a discount via my union.

Thanks for the advise, the builder accepted that the storm caused the damage but said there were three grounds we had to meet the last being the house was in a well maintained condition, he said because of the mortar thing this invalidated the insurance. However the roof has been there for many years, we've been here seven and it has survived worse storms than earlier this weeks so it worth bearing that argument in mind.

I hadnt thought we could go back to them about the flooding, again because there was no damage to the house the investigator said we had no claim/ that and that they hadnt authorised us going into a hotel. The house just had to be allowed to be dried out but it took 24 before the electrician felt it was safe to turn on the electricity, as a result we lost everything in the freezer and had hotel costs to pay out. We left it because the claim would only be 40 pounds once the excess was taken into account. The annoying thing is the insurance company had told us to evaluate things and take photos which I did but nothing came of it.

For £40 I wouldn't bother tbh.

I haven't looked at my roof in years, it looks fine from the ground, that's what most people would expect.
Poor state of repair suggests missing tiles, ridge tiles missing, mortar dropped out etc.

Myrr

mikey72 wrote: »

For £40 I wouldn't bother tbh.

I haven't looked at my roof in years, it looks fine from the ground, that's what most people would expect.
Poor state of repair suggests missing tiles, ridge tiles missing, mortar dropped out etc.

well there is now - all of that - after the storm not before hand lol, it looked perfectly fine to me. I am not a roofer mind you.

My mum has just been on the phone telling me a few of her colleagues at work are having the same problem with insurance companies coming up with various reasons for not paying out. Doesn't stop them collecting my money each month or upping it last year because of the increased demand on them.

She also told me my house was built in the 50's and the roof is about 20 years old - there have been worse storms than this weeks in recent memory. If the damage is about construction surely it would have happened before now.

Gra76

Myrr wrote: »

Thanks for the advise, the builder accepted that the storm caused the damage but said there were three grounds we had to meet the last being the house was in a well maintained condition, he said because of the mortar thing this invalidated the insurance. However the roof has been there for many years, we've been here seven and it has survived worse storms than earlier this weeks so it worth bearing that argument in mind.

I've highlighted the most important part, and the person who came to see you is correct in what they said. I carry out surveys for insurers on a regular basis and roof reports constitute part of what I do. Insurers will usually state somewhere in their policy that you are expected to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair. This includes your roof. How do you keep your roof in a reasonable state of repair? If you really want to cover all the bases you have a local roofer inspect (maybe once a year) and carry out any minor repairs required. You'd keep the reports/receipts they supplied you with and this would show the insurers that you maintain your roof to a reasonable standard.

Who does that though? No-one I've met in 11 years of doing the job is who, so the surveyor has to base his decision on what he can see.

Any decent surveyor with enough experience should be able to see the difference between a well maintained roof and one which hasn't been maintained. If the roof looks like it's not seen a roofers touch in years and is in pretty poor condition then it's fair to say there's a good chance the claim may be repudiated. He has to make the decision based on whether or not your roof would have sustained the same damage had it been in a reasonable state of repair. If your ridge tiles have been blown off but everyone elses on the street are still on it's not unfair to assume that there was some maintenance required for instance.

Your roof is open to wear from the elements all year round and just because it has survived worse storms in the past doesn't mean it's in the same condition as it was back then. At points in it's lifespan the roof will need some maintenance to keep it in a reasonable state of repair. Some of it will be more obvious than others, loose ridge tiles aren't always easy to see (although getting a roofer to get up there and take a look once in a while solves this problem, not that people do it of course!) It's only when they come off and highlight the problem that it becomes clear there might have been a problem to start with. At this point it's usually too late anyway of course.

If the person who came down to inspect it has decided that the roof hasn't been maintained and this is the root cause of the damage then unfortunately they were right to turn it down.

Myrr

Gra76 wrote: »

If the person who came down to inspect it has decided that the roof hasn't been maintained and this is the root cause of the damage then unfortunately they were right to turn it down.

What I think he said was that the wrong mortar was used when the ridge tiles were put up or that they were blobbed on or something?

We are the worst damaged in the street but that is because of where our house lies, we are exposed to the wind coming directly from a park, other houses however are damaged in some way.

Myrr

oh yeah our last survey was 2 years ago, no problems were highlighted then.