Subsidence claim rejected - help!

houseimprovementnewbie

I have a conservatory on my house which was pre-existing when we bought the house 10 years ago which is sufferring from subsidence.

we do not have any paperwork for building control or planning, but i understand that for a conservatory, this is not necessary. However at some point after the conservatory was built, the doors between it and the house have been removed (which i understand is against code)

The conservatory is on 450mm foundations on clay subsoil which has shrunk potentially due to nearby trees. The insurer have had investigations done to confirm this, but have rejected the claim because they are categorising the conservatory as an extension due to their being no doors between the conservatory and the house.

I contend that as the back wall is a dwarf wall with windows to the roofling and a polycarbonate roof, it is clearly a conservatory, just one that does not meet buildings regs due to the lack of doors, however the lack of doors would not cause subsidence therefor i feel that they are trying to use this fact to wriggle out of their responsibilities - do i have any kind of a case (in which case how do i go about challenging their position), or do i need to accept that it is my responsibility and engage a structural engineer to advise me how to resolve the issue?

Thanks!

Toby

Doozergirl

What would be their reason for not covering an extension? What does the policy say?

I would have thought a proper extension would be more likely to be covered than a conservatory.

Even if for building regs purposes there is a difference between an extension and a conservatory (outbuilding), it is an extension of sorts because it's been added to the house and it's counted as an extension by building control too because of the lack of doors.

If I ran an insurance company, I wouldn't be covering conservatories. There is no quality standard.

houseimprovementnewbie

thanks Doozergirl, 
To be clear, in my policy conservatories are definitely covered for subsidence, however the insurer is stating that it is an extension (because of the lack of doors) and therefor using the 'defective design' clause to reject the claim.

My point is that as its all UPVC with dwarf wall and polycarbonate roof, it is clearly a conservatory (despite the fact that it has no doors and of course fails building control becuase of that) in that case, the design of the foundation is not defective and they are just using the lack of doors to get out of their obligation which i think is unfair.

Doozergirl

Okay... 
but extensions are surely covered as well under a separate clause or something?  

Is it a case then, of 'computer says no' and just claiming it is an extension instead?
 

Or just putting the doors back where they should be (and reducing your heating bill 😬) and saying it's a conservatory again. 

As far as building regs go, the doors are the exact difference between a conservatory and an extension.  What you presently own is, indeed, a substandard extension.