Subsidence claim for out building, negligence?

argonought

I built a new garage at the end of the garden 4 years ago.

I had a chartered architect design it at the same time he designed a two story extension on my house.

I carried out the work and dug the foundations for the garage to the same depth as the extension 1m. The drawing for the garage said dig to suit ground conditions and the extension plans said 1m.

The building inspector was paid to inspect all work and has since passed it all, including coming to inspect all foundations.

I started to get subsidence on the garage and got the insurance company involved who paid for a survey that said some trees to one neighbour and another were causing it and the foundations are incorrect. They advised to remove the trees and make good the cracked parts.

Then the insurance told me they would not cover me under bad workmanship.

The legal cover have told me they do not go after the building inspector.

The architect is saying I did not ask for foundation guidance on the garage, which I think is incorrect and there is no evidence of this.

The trees are since gone now except for one lilac tree.

The insurance company have put my premiums up and I cannot get quotes elsewhere.

I am unclear as to who is to blame, me, the architect or the building inspector.

Also am I going to have future issues when selling even if I make the repars necessary?

Help!

martinthebandit

Seems pretty clear to me, its the bloke who didn't dig the foundations to suit the conditions.

InsideInsurance

Yes, you are missing person who is possibly to blame, you, given you did the foundations.

You say you had an architect design it but then dug the foundations as per the design for the extension and not the garage. Why?

It sounds like you have simply decided to mirror the foundations you had designed for one on to the other and thus didnt actually have any professional advice on the foundations for the garage from the architect and so no grounds for complaint there.

I am surprised you even want to consider blaming the building control chap. Its their jobs to ensure you are complying with building regs and wont go to the Nth degree of ensuring that the foundations for a garage are 1000% resistant from subsidence caused by trees etc.

huckster

Yes I agree with the other comments.

Unfortunately, the foundations should have dug to a depth to take into consideration the ground conditions. If there were trees nearby, then these should been considered. If you had employed a decent surveyor, they may have commented about the trees.

I doubt the Insurers will remove the claim from the records and you are faced with sorting out the repairs to the garage at your own expense. Then in terms of being able to arrange alternative cover elsewhere in future, you will have to speak to Insurers or brokers about the subsidence to the separate garage.

argonought

O.k, thankfully the neighbours are allowing me to remove the trees and I am going to repair the cracks as advised in the report.

This done and no signs of subsidence:-

1. Am I in the clear? or will I always be blacklisted due to a history of subsidence?

2. Will that affect me if I decide to sell

3. As it is a seperate building can I omit this from the insurance as it does not affect my house or does it always become linked as it is part of the same property?

Quentin

The subsidence ia always going to be part of the property's history.

You won't be able to hide it.

rs65

Argonought wrote: »

survey that said some trees to one neighbour and another were causing it and the foundations are incorrect. They advised to remove the trees and make good the cracked parts.

Sounds like the foundations are still incorrect too.