Subsidence on my conservatory - my insurance won't pay

phill99

So you moved in Jan 2013 and 0ver 6 years later think that the Surveyor who did your survey may be at fault? If the structure was sound at that date, then he reported the truth. He isn't able to predict the future.

Thrugelmir

isabelle_B wrote: »

I moved in in January 2013 and noticed the first cracks in the brickwork after last year's hot summer.

When was the conservatory built?

isabelle_B

The surveyor instructed by my insurance company has confirmed that it is subsidence due to the tree roots which would have caused shrinkage. However, they are getting out of it by claiming poor workmanship as they found the foundations to be inadequate for the clay soil the conservatory is built on. People on this forum have said that the depth of the foundations wouldn't have been checked during a structural survey unless there had been signs of subsidence at the time of the survey and therefore how can I be held responsible for something I have no knowledge of? And how can the foundations be inadequate if there are no building regulations for conservatories?

Cakeguts

isabelle_B wrote: »

The surveyor instructed by my insurance company has confirmed that it is subsidence due to the tree roots which would have caused shrinkage. However, they are getting out of it by claiming poor workmanship as they found the foundations to be inadequate for the clay soil the conservatory is built on. People on this forum have said that the depth of the foundations wouldn't have been checked during a structural survey unless there had been signs of subsidence at the time of the survey and therefore how can I be held responsible for something I have no knowledge of? And how can the foundations be inadequate if there are no building regulations for conservatories?

You did have knowledge of it. You knew from lots of research that you did on conservatories before you bought the house that they don't have to meet building regs and that they have a limited life span. You also knew that some of them are very cheaply built because this is all the kind of research that you do before you buy a house. Just as you would have known if the kitchen was old and might need replacing in the future or the house needing a new boiler.



You conservatory had reached the end of its lifespan based on the fact that it is not well built and was probably very cheap. That doesn't mean that your insurance company will pay for it to be replaced just as your insurance company won't pay for a new kitchen.

isabelle_B

Well cake guts, you obviously work for an insurance company and for your information, I didn't know any of what you mention below until my insurer announced this morning that they wouldn't cover the repair and I then had a look into whether I could appeal and posted this thread!

pinkteapot

Cakeguts wrote: »

You did have knowledge of it. You knew from lots of research that you did on conservatories before you bought the house that they don't have to meet building regs and that they have a limited life span.

Not always true. Conservatories DO have to meet building regs if they're over a certain size, aren't separated from the rest of the house by an external door, or have a radiator that's on the house's central heating.

Just correcting for anyone referring to this thread in the future. Irrelevant for OP as we don't know what their conservatory is like, and even if any of the above applies it's so old that the council aren't going to care at this point.

davidmcn

isabelle_B wrote: »

how can I be held responsible for something I have no knowledge of?

Just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it isn't a valid exclusion from your insurance cover.

Cakeguts

isabelle_B wrote: »

Well cake guts, you obviously work for an insurance company and for your information, I didn't know any of what you mention below until my insurer announced this morning that they wouldn't cover the repair and I then had a look into whether I could appeal and posted this thread!

I don't work for an insurance company it is just the normal checks that anyone would do before buying a house to check that they know what they are buying. Cheap conservatories are not expected to last a long time they are like kitchens. This is common knowledge. You can buy a conservatory to erect yourself from a DIY store.

lincroft1710

Any building or structure should have foundations of sufficient depth to prevent said building/structure from collapsing or moving. Whoever built the conservatory appears not to have paid attention to this.

It is not the insurance company's fault the foundations are inadequate. Also it makes no difference whether you were aware the foundations were inadequate or not. When you buy a house, you take on the responsibility of the plot of land and all that stands upon it, other than perhaps some of the fences. If something fails it becomes your responsibility to fix it, insurance will only cover certain aspects such as fire, flood, accident damage. With subsidence, most insurance companies have exclusions. My insurance company for example wouldn't cover fences or walls unless the actual house suffered subsidence.

Although posters on here understand your concern, we can offer few crumbs of comfort. Your insurance company does not seem to be acting unfairly.

Finally I doubt that many people who bought a house with a conservatory attached actually checked the depth of the conservatory foundations!

Doozergirl

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Finally I doubt that many people who bought a house with a conservatory attached actually checked the depth of the conservatory foundations!

I doubt that anyone would be pleasantly surprised if they did.

Just checked some for clients. They were making noises about 'improving' their conservatory. I did warn them. 25 centimetres.

If that didn't put them off, the £18,000 quote for those equally dubious roof tiles did. Not my quote!