subsiding garage insurance company won't cover it.

stacey777

Furts wrote: »

It is not helpful to OP but detached garages were not subject to Building Regulations forty years ago. If it is an integral garage, with a room above, it would be subject to the Regulations. Even then there were flat roof projections that were poorly built and the felt covering was not subject to the Regulations, IIRR. The felting did become subject of NHBC Regulations, but that is a different matter.

I suspect the crux will be, or is, the standard of maintenance and construction of the roof. There may have been storm force winds, but if the roof was dodgy before these winds it will probably not be covered.

The question is over the construction of the foundations not the roof.

The wind blew the roof off, there was wide spread storm conditions that day.

My garage might just be in the time frame of building regs (according to building control I will hear more tomorrow) and either way if there were no regs then insurance companŷs can't argue poor construction. My solicitor has told me if I have an engineer it will be impossible to refute a claim as it will be obvious that the damage is caused by wind to the roof, then what the other problem with the cracked walls are.

Iv just remembered that a friend of my husbands is an engineer. I'll keep you posted once he checks it out.

blackshirtuk

It is possible they could come back at you with,

"the roof blew off the garage due to being weakened by the poor building standard of the garage that is subsiding....the wind was not the cause but the symptom"

or words to that effect. I would be scrutinising the policy wording with regards to outbuildings.

phill99

I find it quite amazing that so many home owners assume that insurance is their 'Get out if Jail free' card.

OP. Your neighbour may well have had their garage rebuilt, but you are not comparing apples with apples. It was most likely a completely different insurance company and the policy wording (ie the contract between insurers and homeowners) may be completely different.

Many detached garages (mine included) are built without planning permission or building regs. Even if Building Regs were applicable, don't assume the home owner applied for them.

Gloomendoom

I think I'd be more worried about the implications of them them adding the "S" word to my file.

Biggles

thescouselander wrote: »

You might well do but the OP is talking about a garage, not a house - different standards will apply.

My point was really that any brick-built structure that wasn't standing after 40 years was badly built.

Doozergirl

Most garages still aren't subject to building regulations!

thescouselander

Biggles wrote: »

My point was really that any brick-built structure that wasn't standing after 40 years was badly built.

I don't think it's clear that it has been badly built. Custom and practise at the time was to not use foundations on buildings like garages so it could have been built quite well in accordance with the design and the building regs of the day (if applicable). Whether or not that design was appropriate is another matter.

My point is that poor workmanship usually shows up pretty quickly and problems will have been noticed well before now. The issue is more likely to be to do with the foundationless design which is nothing to do with poor workmanship.

stacey777

what a day it has been Iv learnt a few things about dealing with insurance people they are underhand, tell lies and are unprofessional. Anyone deals with them record the conversation if you can at all. Expect them to try and trip you up for them not to admit they are lying to your face and they will not admit to one piece of liability and will just lie change the subject or preened there phone is going funny.

brightontraveller

"Loss adjusters" employed and paid by the insurance company to represent their interests "the shark that works for them"


"Loss assessors" work for YOU, (policyholder).independent professionals who are employed by you to protect your interests some on % of claim some charge "the shark that works for you"

You might want to check them out some are good at getting insurance to pay out but check there charges first :rotfl:

stacey777

brightontraveller wrote: »

"Loss adjusters" employed and paid by the insurance company to represent their interests "the shark that works for them"


"Loss assessors" work for YOU, (policyholder).independent professionals who are employed by you to protect your interests some on % of claim some charge "the shark that works for you"

You might want to check them out some are good at getting insurance to pay out but check there charges first :rotfl:

I was onto the ombudsman who says they work on what's fair and reasonable no matter what clauses or squirming out of it techniques they use. :T:T

Iv thought of a loss assessor too just not sure at which point I go down that line I suppose it should be now?