Subsidence repairs: workmanship guarantee versus Lasting and Effective

Annemos

Has anyone come across this particular issue. 
I am getting to the end stage of a very unpleasant insurance process for Subsidence due to trees. The trees have now all been removed. 

The Loss Adjustor company is taking charge of all the repairs. I am taking no cash settlement. The repairs team are installing helibars to strengthen the 2 walls. There is various repointing taking place. Inside, the living room will be redecorated when plaster becomes available again. 

The Loss Adjustor of the Insurance Company has said to me in a letter: "The repairs carry a workmanship guarantee of 2 years". 
But I have seen many Ombudsman's discussions and cases which say that Subsidence repairs must be Lasting and Effective and Durable. By that, the Ombudsman means that the repairs cannot be a quick fix and they must last many years. 
So there seems to be a conflict here. Loss Adjuster is saying 2 years, Ombudsman is saying many years. 

Supposing the repairs were to fail after say 4 years? What does the above actually mean?

Could it be that the builder company would be liable if something went wrong within 2 years, for example if the repointing failed or the new artex fell off the ceiling!?
But that after 2 years, the Loss Adjustor (Insurance Company) would be liable for any failed repairs..... and then it would also have to be looked into to see if the actual repair method recommended by the Loss Adjustor was sufficient to stabilise the structure? 

Thank you very much indeed anyone for your advice and experience. 

TELLIT01

This looks like something you need to take up with the insurance company and get anything from them writing.  There would seem to be a difference between a fixed 2 year guarantee and 'Lasting, effective and durable'.  I'm not a builder but I would expect underpinning / subsidence rectification to carry a longer guarantee than 2 years.

Annemos

Thank you very much for your advice. I am finding that if something does not feel right, then it usually is not right, with insurance claims. I am onto it now TELLIT01

rs65

Isn't a guarantee in addition to, not instead of, your statutory rights?  Might be best asking in the consumer rights part of the forum.

Annemos

Oh interesting point. Shall try that as well. Many thanks.