Roofing nightmare

roofmare

Hello.

I hope someone can help us.

Around 18 months ago, we had a high-tech membrane installed on the flat roof of our new house. All seemed okay until a few months after we moved in. We woke up one morning to see a large wet patch above one of the downlights in our bedroom!

We quickly noticed that there was another leak in the bathroom several metres away. Both leaks were immediately adjacent outlets in the parapet wall above.

We'd had leaks in these areas during construction, but the roofing company wasn't able to identify the issue, and there were other unfinished interfaces that they thought might have been the source of the leaks.

In any event, we got in contact with the roofing company. They came out and had a look. While they couldn't figure out exactly what the problem was, it was clear that it related to the outlets, and probably to the joint between the outlets and the membrane. It took several months, but eventually they replaced all of the aluminium outlets with PVC equivalents. They told us that they couldn't see how the outlets had failed, but that the new ones seemed not to have the same problem.

After waiting a while to allow the internal roof timbers to dry (and to await a few storms to make sure the leaks had been fixed), we got back in contact about restitution for new insulation, boarding, plastering and painting. They asked for three quotes, which we got.

They agreed to one quote but also asked us to sign an indemnity form. To my non-legal eye, it looked like an attempt to absolve them from all liability that ever arose in the future from these leaks, irrespective of whether it was related to something we could have seen to date. I queried this and they said that if we wouldn't sign that then they'd need to claim via their insurers.

I heard nothing for several weeks, so I sent a reminder. They said they'd told their insurer weeks ago and would follow up. Two days later I got a brief email from Aviva saying that they'd heard we had a loss allegedly due to their client and that I'd need to provide details and evidence. I had a bit of time that morning so put together a detailed timeline of what had happened, including photos, dates, and confirmation that their client had repeatedly admitted liability. I sent that off about three hours after the email arrived.

I again heard nothing so sent a reminder about a week later. Still nothing, so I called and left a voicemail message. I got an email later that day saying that they'd received my email and that it would be looked at "in date order" (bear in mind it's now six weeks since this claim was first raised with the insurer). I replied asking for a rough indication of how long that might be but, of course, received no reply.

Another few weeks pass and today I get an email from the insurer saying:

"It appears that to date you have not provided any evidence into the cause of the leaks. You have only provided pictures of the damage and your assumptions of the cause of the leaks.
You have not provided an independent expert report to confirm the cause of the leaks.

Our Insured states they don’t know what caused the leaks from the aluminium outlets but don’t feel it was an installation error. They state it could have been caused by many sources.

The onus is upon you as the claimant to prove your claim.

I look forward to receiving expert evidence from you."

I have four separate emails in which their client admits that it's the outlets they supplied and installed that have caused the problem. Perhaps I should have included them in my initial reply, but it seemed pretty clear to me based on their client's behaviour that fault had been admitted.

So, on to the questions!

- My current thinking is to submit the emails where the installer admits fault and see what they have to say. Is there any point in doing this now or do I really need to get an expert involved?
- If I do get an expert (and assuming they confirm the fault is the installer's), can I claim back the cost of the expert?
- What costs can I reasonably expect to claim back? To date, we've only asked for the direct cost of having the damage repaired. I didn't claim for the three days I spent up a ladder removing sodden cellulose insulation, nor to 20+ vacuum cleaner bags we went through cleaning up, nor for the year we've now not been able to use our bedroom, nor for the extra heating costs caused by having a large section of our ceiling uninsulated throughout most of two winters. I wasn't that fussed about any of these additional costs, but since they seem intent on making me jump through hoops, I feel I may as well claim for everything that's reasonably owed!
- At what point, if any, would small claims court make sense? A guy I know expressed surprise that the insurer is talking to me directly rather than me going via the installer (and them claiming on the insurance).

One thing I don't understand is the insurer's statement that "Our Insured states they don’t know what caused the leaks from the aluminium outlets but don’t feel it was an installation error." They supplied and installed the outlets, and the membrane that seals to them. In the end, four out of the five outlets that they installed ended up failing (in fact, they told me about one of the failures of their own accord - we hadn't noticed a leak from that one yet!) In any event, what difference does it make whether it's the product or the installation that's at fault? Given that they supplied and installed both, shouldn't they be responsible for the failure whether the product or installation was at fault?

Sorry for the long first post (I've actually left a lot out!), but hopefully a reasonably full story is better than one that leaves you asking questions.

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

All the best
roofmare (not my real name :rotfl:)

Agricolae

This is an interesting one.

It's in the insurer's interest to defend the roofers because if they can do that successfully they won't have to pay out. So it's natural they're giving you a bit of push-back.

I don't think I can answer your questions about your consequential losses as I wouldn't know how you'd quantify them, and I think we'd be getting into territory where some professional advice might be wise.

If you get an expert's report then I would say you can claim that back as that's an expense you've gone to in proving your claim. What exactly an expert will be able to tell you now it's all been fixed is another issue entirely...

I'm assuming the insurer doesn't know about the emails in which the roofers admit fault. If the emails drop them in it and there's no reason you can't send them, then forwarding them over might strengthen your case and avoid the need for an expert's report which could be of dubious value.

naedanger

My inexpert views:

roofmare wrote: »

- My current thinking is to submit the emails where the installer admits fault and see what they have to say. Is there any point in doing this now or do I really need to get an expert involved?

Agreed and make your point that you believe their clients are liable regardless of whether it was the installation or the outlets themselves that were at fault.

I would also add a complaint about the length of time they have taken and ask for a copy of their complaint procedure. (When you get that procedure see if you have the option of taking the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if you are ultimately unhappy with the insurer's final response. If you do have that option it will be an alternative to legal action.)

- If I do get an expert (and assuming they confirm the fault is the installer's), can I claim back the cost of the expert?

Yes.

- What costs can I reasonably expect to claim back? To date, we've only asked for the direct cost of having the damage repaired. I didn't claim for the three days I spent up a ladder removing sodden cellulose insulation, nor to 20+ vacuum cleaner bags we went through cleaning up, nor for the year we've now not been able to use our bedroom, nor for the extra heating costs caused by having a large section of our ceiling uninsulated throughout most of two winters. I wasn't that fussed about any of these additional costs, but since they seem intent on making me jump through hoops, I feel I may as well claim for everything that's reasonably owed!

Not sure what you can legally claim. However I don't see any harm stating that you intend claiming for these costs if the matter is not settled promptly. (I believe the Financial Ombudsman looks at costs differently from the legal position, and can be less generous in some cases.)

- At what point, if any, would small claims court make sense? A guy I know expressed surprise that the insurer is talking to me directly rather than me going via the installer (and them claiming on the insurance).

Not before you have exhausted the Financial Ombudsman Service if that option is available. If you are unhappy with FOS you can still take legal action, but if you even start legal action then FOS will not get involved.

One thing I don't understand is the insurer's statement that "Our Insured states they don’t know what caused the leaks from the aluminium outlets but don’t feel it was an installation error." They supplied and installed the outlets, and the membrane that seals to them. In the end, four out of the five outlets that they installed ended up failing (in fact, they told me about one of the failures of their own accord - we hadn't noticed a leak from that one yet!) In any event, what difference does it make whether it's the product or the installation that's at fault? Given that they supplied and installed both, shouldn't they be responsible for the failure whether the product or installation was at fault?

I agree with your thinking. I think your next step is to make that point to them.

PS I am not sure FOS will cover your situation.

Agricolae

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the kind of thing covered by FOS. I say that because he's not Aviva's customer.

However if he originally paid the roofers on a credit card or with a loan arranged by the roofers then he might be able to claim his consequential losses off the finance company (Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act).

roofmare

Thanks for the feedback.

Yes, it seems that I don't have much chance of punishing Aviva for their frankly risible performance. I don't imagine they care much anyway.

We've been, I think, hugely patient with the roofers. At least a couple of these leaks have already been repaired once during construction. I then raised concerns about the quality of the repairs, which were dismissed by the roofer and the company that provides the membrane and warranty (I got them onsite to independently look at the work).

It's a small company, and although they've sometimes been slow to respond, they have genuinely tried to solve the problem. However, after a year of being jerked around, and now being fobbed off by the insurance company based on feedback that they gave about the leaks, I've now officially reached the end of my tether.

I'm going to call the consumer helpline to see if I can get any more clarity on the way forward. I'm done with communicating with Aviva if I can avoid it, and will instead focus my attention back on the roofer. I'm also going to demand a reduction in price paid for the work given how many times we had them back to fix it (plus having lost the use of parts of our house for a year as a result).

If anyone has anything else to add, especially on what I might reasonably claim for consequent damages and costs, I'm all ears.

Thanks again
roofmare