Internal defect - part buy/part rent property

peter_p_5

Dear MoneySavingExpert Team,
I would much appreciate your advice on a matter that has been going on for far too long (25 months!):

- In June 2011 I purchased a flat through a shared ownership scheme [I’ve purchased a 25% equity share]; the property was sold with the benefit of a NHBC Buildmark Choice Insurance [cover start date: 02 June 2008]. Before I became the leaseholder, the flat had been occupied under a “rent to buy” scheme.

- In December 2011 I started to have problems with the floor covering [made of Tarkett timber laminate]: peaking, buckling/warping, and gapping, squeaking noise and “bouncing effect” are some of the problems affecting the entire floor of the flat [mainly the living/dining room, the bedroom and the hallway].

- I reported the faults to the Housing Association in February 2012, but reminded by the Building Surveyor that “laminated flooring is categorised as floor covering and it is outside the defects period, therefore it becomes the responsibility of the leaseholder.

- I then sought advice from the solicitor who undertook the legal work of the buying process; he never responded to my emails (3 or 4 in total) nor returned my phone calls [perhaps a couple].

- The property is “out of defects” and “sold as seen” but I try my luck with the NHBC. In July 2012 I get in touch with them.

- In years 3 to 10 of the Buildmark warranty floor coverings are not listed as part of the home for which cover is provided, and therefore my claim could not be progressed. Essentially only structural problems are considered; my floor has to be about to fall in for my claim to be accepted!

- The NHBC required providing evidence of the defect; I sent a picture [how very unrealistic and simplistic way to assess the nature or the entity of the fault]. Their verdict: “from the evidence provided [a picture] the problem with my floor does not appear to be a structural issue therefore there would be nothing more NHBC could assist with”.
Additional evidence is needed, i.e. local builder could look at this and if the problem is confirmed to be a structural problem, the report could be submitted to the NHCB also stating the cost for repair. [The NHBC website states that an investigation meeting with the leaseholder and the builders can be arranged; they confirmed they are can’t do that].

- Recently, the buckling/warping got worse as a result of moisture and water coming from the subfloor [likely to be a water escape that could have been going on for years!]; that in turn has caused the splitting of some of the floorboards.

- I have submitted a claim through our building insurer. After inspecting the floor they have decided not to progress my claim since the problem is with the underneath layer that is not levelled. I see the insurer has a priori excluded the theory that the water leak could have been happening for years and therefore be the cause of the buckling or warping [these are in fact almost always the result of water damage].

My questions are:
a) Was the conduct of my solicitor fair and professional by ignoring my requests for advice?
b) What are my rights [everyone is running away from the problem]? Do I have a case under any piece of legislation such as the Defective Premises Act 1972?
c) Can the report issued by the building insurer be submitted to the NHBC?
d) Is legal action against the freeholder or the building company (or both) my last option?
Thank you in advance for your precious advice.
Regards,

Peter

jacques_chirac

Can I clarify - is the insurer stating it is a structural fault? If so, have you taken this information back to NHBC?

phill99

You need to find the source of the moisture. If it is a leaking pipe, then it's the service charge insurer (freehold insurer) that has a liability. If its poor workmanship as at result of the original build eg ground water rising through a sub floor, then it will be NHBC. However, the source of the moisture is critical.

Where at you based?

cattie

Unless you spoke to the solicitor you wrote to beforehand & agreed to retain him for advice, I can understand you receiving no response. Solicitors tend to only act on your behalf when they know they will be paid for their expensive time. However, you said he returned a couple of your calls, so in that respect did give you some no-charge time at least.

As it's a flat you live in, are any other leaseholders/tenants suffering the same problems as you?

peter_p_5

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Can I clarify - is the insurer stating it is a structural fault? If so, have you taken this information back to NHBC?

Hi, thanks for reply. I am still waiting for the letter with the feedback from the building insurer.
I will certainly submit it to the NHBC

peter_p_5

phill99 wrote: »

You need to find the source of the moisture. If it is a leaking pipe, then it's the service charge insurer (freehold insurer) that has a liability. If its poor workmanship as at result of the original build eg ground water rising through a sub floor, then it will be NHBC. However, the source of the moisture is critical.

Where at you based?

Thank you. It is impossible for me to find the source of the water escape as it has stopped soon after it happened. I can only assume it’s in area by the kitchen sink, as that has been the most affected/damaged (water came through the floor board). However the buckling/warping has become evident in several other parts of the floor. The building insurer referred to poor workmanship as issues with the underneath layer not being levelled. Because of this my claim has been deemed not valid (regardless of any water escape or water damage). The final report from the building insurer has not been received yet.
The source of the moisture could be condensation, a problem that many other residents have experienced and reported to the Housing Association.
The property is in the London Borough of Ealing.

peter_p_5

cattie wrote: »

Unless you spoke to the solicitor you wrote to beforehand & agreed to retain him for advice, I can understand you receiving no response. Solicitors tend to only act on your behalf when they know they will be paid for their expensive time. However, you said he returned a couple of your calls, so in that respect did give you some no-charge time at least.

As it's a flat you live in, are any other leaseholders/tenants suffering the same problems as you?

Thank you. I appreciate what you say, but why was not the solicitor to tell me that. Of course he would have been paid for his advice, but reading and not replying to my emails, also not returning phone calls (when I was told somebody would have called me back) is a conduct that is anything but professional.
What I wrote in my post is “he never responded to my emails (3 or 4 in total) nor returned my phone calls [perhaps a couple].”
There have been several other properties with floor issues, due to water escape and/or poor workmanship. Those who had the issue within the first 2 years of the NHBC Policy had the floor replaced by the builders; some others have successfully claimed it through the building insurer (they had no underlying problem like in my case); a few others have replaced the floor at their own expenses, exhausted by the constant rejection of help and accountability from all third parties involved.

peter_p_5

Hi guys,
Could you please advise on what one should do next?
- the building insurer declined my claim.
- it has been noted a section of "the laminate floor around the sink appears to have been affected by water attended there was no sign of an on-going leak or evidence of the same"
- it was confirmed that "the floor was buckled in various locations due tio obvious defects caused by the poor installation of the floor and sub floor"
- the insurer decided that "the only plausible explanation for this damage is for it to have been substained during domestic cleaning or washing up".
- the building insurer will require a copy of the repairs invoice for the escape of water. While I understand the need for that, I repeatedly told them the leak appears to have stopped and in order to establish its source it might be necessary to taking up the floor for a closer inspection. The leak might have been going for years (it happened to another property within the building)
- I have submitted the letter with the decision from the building insurer to the NHBC, however they will not re-consider my claim.

Thank you for your precious advice.

Regard,

Peter