Insurer says roof damage is wear & tear not storm

Aubrey_Thicket

Hi all

Before I go any further I'd like to let you know that this is for a friend who is very upset at the decision by his insurer to reject his claim for roof damage. The guy is not tech savy or computer literate. He has no family and feels backed into a corner. Therefore I decided to help (if it is actually possible or warranted). I told him that I have no knowledge of roofing etc but I had some friends (that's you guys by the way) who knew more than me. I also told him I would be able to speak to some folk (again, this is you lot) who had possibly experienced similar experiences.

Just in case the company is indeed in order and we have to accept what the company says I will refrain from naming any commercial entity or individual in this post. At the end of the day it wouldn't be fair naming them if they have acted in order.

So the story goes that my friend bought a house 6 months ago. The building society insisted on a survey. Bare in mind that this was 6 months ago and that survey says....

An inspection within the roof space reveals the roof to consist of the original timber framing, clad with slate.

The form of construction is traditional, with rafters supported by timber purlins which span between the party walls. The are two purlins between front and rear pitches, making four in total

There is no evidence of any significant sagging or deflection to any of the four purlins. However, the lower rear purlin has a substantial split, running along the majority of its length. This does not appear to have occurred recently.


So, a couple of weeks ago, my friend came out of his house to find roof slates in his garden and two house bricks on the grass. He looked up at the chimney and thought he noticed damage to the chimney and surrounding bricks. He asked me what he should do and i advised him to call his insurance company which is what he did. He actually told me "I rang the insurers and they didn't seem bothered and told me it was wear and tear so that was it". He told me that was the end of the matter. I told him "Rubbish. How can somebody in a call centre tell you what is wear and tear without it never being inspected recently. You must call them back and tell them that you believe that the slates & bricks have fallen from the chimney and 1) you are concerned about falling slates damaging other property or hitting somebody. 2) You want a professional opinion. So, he did this and rang the insurer again. He did as I told him and demanded an inspection to which the insurer then readily agreed. So, fast forward a few days and the insurer sent a third party building company (from Birmingham to Manchester) to inspect the 'damage'. From this inspection they then produced a report which I have copied and posted here..........

Dear Mr *****
Insurance Claim – Storm – 10th February 2018

Following my recent inspection I can advise that the builders do not consider that there is any risk of immediate collapse of the chimney but it is in a badly weathered condition and immediate maintenance works are required.

As I explained at the time of my visit in order to have a valid claim under the policy you have to be able to demonstrate that the repairs arose solely as a consequence of an insured event, such as a storm. There have been no storms of late in your postcode area and it is clear to me that the chimney has simply deteriorated gradually over time and that the works now needed are purely of a maintenance nature, which is outside the scope of policy cover.

I am sure the original chimney can be refurbished although you might wish to consider following the lead of several of your neighbours and have it reduced in height somewhat since these days it only serves the gas fire in the living room – which I believe currently is redundant in any event. If it is your overall plan not to have the gas fire anymore within the living room, then you could even consider having the chimney removed completely.

Concerning the main roof, there are places where there is no longer completely weather tight and it is clear that the batons holding the slates in places are beginning to deteriorate at an increasing rate and many of the nails retaining the slates will now be very much weaker than when they were first installed – accordingly you are quite likely to find that in the coming months and years you will have to spend a fair bit of money replacing slates from time to time. As such, I feel the roof is close to the end of its effective operational life and you should seriously consider having it replaced with a modern concrete tiled roof, which will be the most economical option although you could have most of the original slates retained and refitted on new batons with the damaged and broken ones being made up by re-claimed slates if you wanted to retain the original character and appearance of the property.

When we were in the roof space I pointed out the flashings around the chimney at the front are no longer weather tight and the water staining within the roof space will probably become worse if repairs are not undertaken in a timely way and before long this will result in damage to the internal ceiling plaster etc.

In the circumstances I am unable to recommend any payment to the Underwriters and unless you have any further queries I will now close my file.

Yours sincerely

Mr ***** ***** ACII FCILA FUEDI-ELAE

So, my friend (rightly or wrongly) is upset and confused because given the nature of this damage he thinks such damage should/could/would have been picked up on the original survey when he bought the house 6 months ago. Or, on the other hand, if this damage wasn't evident then... (6 months ago) surely this damage IS the result of bad weather. Now, as I said at the start of this thread I know nothing about roofing. However, what i am certain of is that we certainly HAVE had severe weather in the Manchester area since Christmas and especially in the last 3 - 4 weeks. Most of the flipping UK has! That alone leads me to think something may not be right and he is being fobbed off. Now, it may well be that the comments of the company (who describe themselves as a preeminant global loss adjusting and claims management company) are correct and my friend has no option but to put up and shut up. However, there's no harm in asking you guys on here.

PS...How can we also check previous bad weather locally?

Thanks all

Furts

Many issues here ... First the survey - what type and how thorough? The original timbers and the damaged purlin are warning signs that the roof is, possibly, entirely original. There is enough warning, or doubt, here to warrant further asking an obvious - what condition are the slates and fixings? One could attack the surveyor here but it clearly states that the opinion was given from within the roofspace. Which puts the chimney in a grey area. To me it looks like the surveyor has, probably, covered their position. But the chimney is a concern.

Second, the chap visiting represents the insurance company and they do not want to pay out. The wording sounds fair, but the qualifications are unsuitable, For a verdict on a roof one should be asking a Chartered Building Surveyor. Here your friend has been stitched up - but that is to be expected. However I suspect had your friend engaged, at his expense, such a person the verdict might still be "the roof is worn out".

Third, inclement weather. The rule in the construction industry was always to go to the Met Office for records. This has always been for those such as Quantity Surveyors making a claim within construction contracts. Here it will be if the weather is outside the norm. Since Christmas has this been so? I do not live in Manchester but my intuition is negative.

Fourth, your friend can only challenge if he engages a professional. This will cost, but a FOC initial meeting might be possible. But first notify the insurers that they are being challenged - here the complaints and disputes procedure would have to be followed.

Aubrey_Thicket

Thank you Furts. So, these 'qualifications'. Could they argue they are appropriate?

Furts

Aubrey_Thicket wrote: »

Thank you Furts. So, these 'qualifications'. Could they argue they are appropriate?

I work in building and am not qualified in insurance. If you, or I, wanted a professional opinion on a roof we would not ask an insurer, or a loss adjuster. That is my point - any person would be asking a suitably qualified surveyor.

However all the insurers want is to protect their profits. So they ask insurance bods, who they fund, to find verdicts that minimise claims. Nothing new there, and a simple fact of life.

I do not know what the visiting person has studied, but my gut reaction is they are unqualified to comment on building matters. But challenging them will be fruitless if the roof, the slates and the chimney were worn out. It sounds like they were - but I have not seen them to give my penny worth here.

Aubrey_Thicket

Furts. Thanks for that. Definitely makes sense all that. However, how could we go about proving that Stirm damage could be to blame if this was in fact the case?

peachyprice

The last recorded storm was 23-24 Jan, is this when the damage occurred?

bris

Well to be fair storm damage usually has a lot of claims happening all at once. If this is a one off claim you should be able to see their point.


If there was no adverse weather in the area at the time then wear and tear is the obvious choice.


Is there any other damage in the area?

Doozergirl

You haven't answered the question about the type of survey your friend had. The survey findings from inside the roof are unrelated to the state of what sounds like a large chimney.

In fairness to whoever surveyed from the insurer, it's fairly easy to review and decide if a roof is in its original state or not and whether a chimney has been repointed etc. If the neighbours have all reduced the height of theirs, and you're one of the last then you can imagine that it isn't going to be in amazing condition. Chimneys are subject to a good old bettering up there and mortar deteriorates over time, destabilising them.

If your friend has a claim then it might be against the original surveyor if they said it was in good condition but we've not seen any report on the exterior condition of the roof and chimney. The type of survey is important in that matter.

The insurance problem appears to relate to the chimney causing damage to the roof anyway, hence the bricks on the ground. It sounds like the surveyor is just pointing out that the whole thing is old and hasn't been subject to any upgrading.

What exactly does your friend expect from the insurer? If the chimney is old and in a state of disrepair to need rebuilding/taking down then it's pretty obvious that it's not storm damage. It might be the straw that broke the camels back, but that doesn't make it the insurer's problem.

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Unless you have a lightning strike you would not expect even a severe storm to dislodge bricks from a chimney unless they were already loose, so I doubt there is any insurance claim here.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You say the building society insisted on a survey, what sort of survey was that? All building societies insist on a valuation which may involve a visual inspection but they can be a very quick once over.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If the building society insisted on a more detailed survey, why was that, what information did you give them that indicated the property may be in poor repair?[/FONT]

Aubrey_Thicket

Thanks everyone for your input. Judging by your sensible comments here I am also now of the opinion that unfortunately age & wear and tear has taken its toll here. I am going to collate all your points here and gave my friend the bad/sad news.

Thanks guys

littlerock

Firstly why should be remove the chimney? Better have it repaired.

Secondly when considering concrete roof tiles, unless he is replacing all the roof timber with new wood, he should be careful with concrete tiles as they can be too heavy for the supporting timber and cause the roof to sag. (A common problem when putting Redland tiles on an old timber roof.)

Thirdly I had a problem with the roof on my rear extension recently. Water had got in along the valley where the rear extension joined the front roof and had leaked onto the battens. The battens had in turn deteriorated to the point where they were bowing and this was causing the nails holding the tiles onto the battens, to become loose. There was a mighty storm and several tiles slid off the roof, revealing the problem.

So new roof? Check it will support concrete tiles and if not find alternatives. Also Repair chimney.

( I am assuming it is not in a conservation area of any sort, in which case your case your friend would need to keep external appearance the same as currently.)