Subsidence claim refused - any help please?

mumlady1

Well, just as the title suggests, we've had a subsidence claim refused by our insurance company. Quick back story
1. Small extension (approx 4m x 7m) completed December 13
2. Extension is now subsiding & pulling away from the main house
3. Insurance company have said that the ground is not suitable for building on (we have peat under the extension)
4. They've said this should have been picked up by the builder or engineer and have rejected the claim on the grounds of faulty workmanship or design.
5. Our ground was tested prior to the foundations being built and a raft foundation was specifically requested by building control
6. All plans etc were submitted for planning consent & building control and signed off by them so I'm really surprised that this claim has been rejected as everything was submitted and signed off before the ground had even been broken.
We did everything required of us at the time so I'm puzzled as to how this claim is being rejected now.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How did you handle it and what was the outcome?
Also posting this on the Insurance board in the hope of getting some help
Thanks

phill99

You need to escalate this through your builder. Did his construction adhere to BC requirements?

Doozergirl

It sounds like it should be a professional indemnity claim against whoever designed the raft foundation, if it isn't fit for purpose.

Your team have to design their way out of this problem.

DoctorFoster

Doozergirl wrote: »

It sounds like it should be a professional indemnity claim against whoever designed the raft foundation, if it isn't fit for purpose.

Your team have to design their way out of this problem.

Wouldn't the first step be to establish it was constructed to design specifications first?

If it wasn't their insurance won't be liable.

jc808

mumlady1 wrote: »

Well, just as the title suggests, we've had a subsidence claim refused by our insurance company. Quick back story
1. Small extension (approx 4m x 7m) completed December 13
2. Extension is now subsiding & pulling away from the main house
3. Insurance company have said that the ground is not suitable for building on (we have peat under the extension)
4. They've said this should have been picked up by the builder or engineer and have rejected the claim on the grounds of faulty workmanship or design.
5. Our ground was tested prior to the foundations being built and a raft foundation was specifically requested by building control
6. All plans etc were submitted for planning consent & building control and signed off by them so I'm really surprised that this claim has been rejected as everything was submitted and signed off before the ground had even been broken.
We did everything required of us at the time so I'm puzzled as to how this claim is being rejected now.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How did you handle it and what was the outcome?
Also posting this on the Insurance board in the hope of getting some help
Thanks

If this was a thirty year old extension I would say you have a case.
An extension less than a year old... no chance.

Sorry to say but I think your builder has screwed up.

Doozergirl

DoctorFoster wrote: »

Wouldn't the first step be to establish it was constructed to design specifications first?

If it wasn't their insurance won't be liable.

If it's been signed off by building control then it's confirmed to have been built to spec. Whoever designed it should be inspecting it to decide what's gone wrong for themselves.

I'd expect them to be fully co-operative. It's not a case of bypassing them and going straight for the insurer. Like I said, the 'team' needs to design the route out. Cost can then be dealt with whatever way is appropriate.

Furts

You are in charge of the Building Regulations on your home. Hence, I would ask did you engage a professionally qualified and insured Structural Engineer to design, oversee and sign off the raft?
If the answer is yes than discuss matters with him. If the answer is no then you have a potential problem, because what was the builder working to? Further, you were fully aware that you were undertaking a specialist, and potentially dodgy, piece of work.

But bear in mind a few key points. First it will be impossible to establish if the raft is correctly constructed without removing some of it for investigation. Second, I have come across many rafts which have not been correctly designed, and perhaps none that have been well constructed. Third, it is to beexpected that the new build will part company with the existing structure - this is what rafts do. This is overcome, to most extents, with detailing the design and with careful construction. Fourth, it there are drains or services within your raft then you may have more cause for concern than you are aware of.

Forget going after Buiding Control - your current strategy is are you accepting responsibility for what has happened, or is it a matter for the builder or Structural Engineer.

Hope this helps.

Hintza

mumlady1 wrote: »

we have peat under the extension

I think this will be the killer, I would have thought the peat should have been dug out and foundations laid or at least compacted hardcore if using a raft.

Did you ask for the cheapest option?

Furts

Hintza wrote: »

I think this will be the killer, I would have thought the peat should have been dug out and foundations laid or at least compacted hardcore if using a raft.

Did you ask for the cheapest option?

Yes, you are thinking along logical lines. There should be compacted hardcore under the raft and extending past the raft. The raft should be reinforced with steel reinforcement and designed to suit the conditions.

In essence the raft will be built off the peat and it may tilt or move. But if you consider a house, built off a one piece raft, it does not matter if it tilts (let us say by perhaps 20mm.) The crux is to have suitable services to accept this - for example this could fracture a gas service, or cause drains to backfall.

The problem is when a raft is built abutting an existing buiding - movement is inevitable, and in OP case it appears that is it is noticeable. The question is was this risk made clear to OP (or did OP ask?) and what was done with design and construction to alleviate it?

huckster

Furts wrote: »

Yes, you are thinking along logical lines. There should be compacted hardcore under the raft and extending past the raft. The raft should be reinforced with steel reinforcement and designed to suit the conditions.

In essence the raft will be built off the peat and it may tilt or move. But if you consider a house, built off a one piece raft, it does not matter if it tilts (let us say by perhaps 20mm.) The crux is to have suitable services to accept this - for example this could fracture a gas service, or cause drains to backfall.

The problem is when a raft is built abutting an existing buiding - movement is inevitable, and in OP case it appears that is it is noticeable. The question is was this risk made clear to OP (or did OP ask?) and what was done with design and construction to alleviate it?

If a structual engineer is appointed to report on the extension, how will they know whether the raft foundation was built correctly ? Presumably they would have to excavate a part to have a close look.

Would building control have inspected the raft work and signed it off, before the rest of the work was done ?

Or do building control simply say a raft foundation is needed, a structural engineer then provides a plan of what is needed and a builder completes the extension ?

There was a very similar case of one the Dominic Littlewood programmes, where it became an argument between all the different parties. Meanwhile the house owner was not getting the help they needed. Which is why I have suggested on the Insurance page, that if they don't get anywhere with any surveyor/archietect and builders used for the extension, that they get help from a Solicitors. Otherwise the might be given the runaround.

mumlady1

Thanks to everyone who replied. To answer all your questions
Furts - I fully understood my obligations before starting the project. The plans were drawn up by an architect & the structural designs by a structural engineer. One of the problems we have is that we allowed the builder to work as our agent so in most cases we didn't get to speak to these people directly. Hindsight is a wonderful gift!!

Hintza - no, I didn't ask for the cheapest option. I did, in fact, pay extra to have the raft foundation built as this was deemed (by the structural engineer) to be the most appropriate foundation for the build.

We have a dispute running with the builder regards an earlier problem. He is not responding to any correspondance either from me or my solicitor. He seems to be under the impression that if he ignores the problems for long enough, they will go away!

We have a solicitor on board (legal expenses paid through husbands work thankfully) but the legal process will apparently take a minimum of 12 -18 months with no guarantee that either the builder or engineer will admit liability and either repair the damage or pay for the remedial works hence my post here. I know it's no substitute for proper legal advice but I'm just looking for helpful suggestions from anyone on here who may have been in a similar position or who may have knowledge in this field.