Third subsidence claim

instantink

Hi all,

I would like to get opinions and advice on the following.

We have had subsidence repaired in 2014 and 2016. 2016 was a repeat of the subsidence from 2014 and was 'repaired' using 'stronger' methods, we have never been underpinned.

The subsidence has returned yet again in exactly the same way and the same damage.

This will clearly have an effect on the value of the property when we come to sell at retirement, opinions suggest a  loss of upto 20% and that will likely be to a cash buyer as mortgage companies will be reluctant to help buyers purchase.

We have considered ignoring it, (the subsidence has always been classed as 'light') and literally papering over the cracks so to speak, but we realise that probably isn't sensible.

In our minds the longer the time elapsed between the subsidence and selling the better for buyer confidence, hence our reluctance to emabark on what is a painful and stressful process to get it rectified.

With all this in mind, I firmly believe that the insurer, (who has not changed and now charges over £130pm) should now be held liable and should not only be repairing again but should now be paying us compensation, for distress, upheaval and ultimately the damage that has been done to the property value. I could understand no compensation after the first instance, and with a longer period between repair and sale the devaluation might well be less, but now with a third occurence who realistically is going to want to offer anywhere near market value?

It is for that reason that I am considering a no win no fee insurance loss assessor to fight our side and get us the compensation I think is due.

If anyone can offer any insight, experience, advice or recommendations I would be most grateful.

Thankyou,

J

Sandtree

Just remember that no win no fee does mean a fee if they do win and this normally is higher than the fee of a regular engagement model (they obviously have to cover the time on cases they don't win). Also be very clear on what "winning" means as you clearly want the event to be treated as a complaint on the workmanship of the 2nd repair rather than a new claim.

I've never dealt with subsidence claims so unfortunately cannot give much insight, I have dealt with warranty issues on repairs in other circumstances but by the nature of them they were much closer to the repair date however its understandable that subsidence damage doesnt show over night (excluding sink holes)

TELLIT01

Do you have legal expenses cover on your insurance policy?  If so you might want to go that route in the first instance.  They tend to be external to the insurer, despite being paid by them. 

instantink

Sandtree said:

Just remember that no win no fee does mean a fee if they do win and this normally is higher than the fee of a regular engagement model (they obviously have to cover the time on cases they don't win). Also be very clear on what "winning" means as you clearly want the event to be treated as a complaint on the workmanship of the 2nd repair rather than a new claim.

I've never dealt with subsidence claims so unfortunately cannot give much insight, I have dealt with warranty issues on repairs in other circumstances but by the nature of them they were much closer to the repair date however its understandable that subsidence damage doesnt show over night (excluding sink holes)

Valid points Sandtree, thankyou.

I will treat it as a complaint / continuation of the previous instance. In fact the second was treated as such ref the first.

It annoys me no-end that having 'fixed' the subsidence and issued the Certificate of Structural Integrity thye then started ramping up the premiums, either you believe you have fixed it and removed the cause (a local authority tree) and therefore all is well in which case it won't happen again and there is no need to raise the premium or you don't.

Having negotiated, argued, stressed and dealt with the last two claims I do not have the strength to do so again so will be quite happy if there is a payment to a third party who has negotiated a claim.

instantink

TELLIT01 said:

Do you have legal expenses cover on your insurance policy?  If so you might want to go that route in the first instance.  They tend to be external to the insurer, despite being paid by them. 

I hadn't thought of that TELLIT01, I will check, although the conspiracist in me finds it hard to believe that a legal team instructed by the insurer can be truely neutral.

Sandtree

instantink said:

TELLIT01 said:

Do you have legal expenses cover on your insurance policy?  If so you might want to go that route in the first instance.  They tend to be external to the insurer, despite being paid by them. 

I hadn't thought of that TELLIT01, I will check, although the conspiracist in me finds it hard to believe that a legal team instructed by the insurer can be truely neutral.

Not all insurance companies write Legal Expenses insurance, if I look at my old home insurance policy tthe buildings/content insurance is underwritten by Aviva but the Legal Expenses  was with DAS.

I personally have grown to have other issues with legal expenses insurance attaching to home insurance.

dacouch

TELLIT01 said:

Do you have legal expenses cover on your insurance policy?  If so you might want to go that route in the first instance.  They tend to be external to the insurer, despite being paid by them. 

They almost always exclude disputes with your Insurer

dacouch

Have you commissioned your own Structural Survey?

Annemos

In my policy, legal expenses related to Subsidence were especially excluded from the legal cover in the insurance policy. 

I agree with dacouch. I think you would need to get a Structural survey done, but the problem might be finding one that is expert in Subsidence. A Structural Engineer or Civil Engineer might be the best one to do this for you. 

The Financial Ombudsman's cases say that Subsidence repairs must be Lasting and Effective. So if this has happened again due to the same cause as before, then one could hardly say the former repairs had been lasting and effective? So the Insurance Company should presumably do more investigations again to see what the ongoing problem is. (But it would be good to have a second opinion from one's own expert, too.)

Are there other trees? Is the soil not rehydrating? Did they monitor the cracks for a sufficiently long period last time, to make sure the building had stabilised? 

I understand that these days they do not go straight into an underpinning, because they worry about a weakness between the part of the building that was underpinned and the part that was not underpinned. So I think the Insurance Companies are allowed to try less invasive repair measures first. But they would need to take another look at it, if there is still a problem. It is really stressful (I know!) but this seems to be the way it operates these days. I have always preferred that they do not underpin straight away, as underpinning can add to insurance difficulties. 

When you say "stronger repair methods" were used, do you mean for example the use of the metal helifix bars? If so, were they installed correctly do you know....for example to crack-stitch? Here are the instructions if you need to try and check into this. If bars were used, do the bars map correctly onto the original cracks? 
https://www.helifix.co.uk/uploads/pdfs/Helifix-Crack-Stitching.pdf

paddyandstumpy

Diminution of value is normally excluded following subsidence related claims. 

I agree the insurer should re-open the previous claim rather than start a new one, but you should not get compensated for loss of value. 

instantink

paddyandstumpy said:

Diminution of value is normally excluded following subsidence related claims. 

I agree the insurer should re-open the previous claim rather than start a new one, but you should not get compensated for loss of value. 

It won't surprise you that I disagree with the compensation.

I understand that loss of value is not covered, and that would be fine if they had fixed it first time allowing us to build a good period of time between the fix and selling which shows it has been fixed and is sound. I told them when they did the last repair that it would not hold (I am not a structural engineer, but I am an aeronautical engineer and common sense told me that what they were doing was woefully insufficent, helifix for the record, then a beefed up version), but they didn't listen and I was right.

Now I find myself in a position where in 5-8 years I will want to sell and I will have to disclose three lots of subsidence, by then there will only be 5-6 years since the last occurance is repaired.

I ask you, would you rather buy a house which had subsidence 13-15 years ago and has been sound since, or a house where the the same company had repaired it 3 times with the last only being 5 years ago, and what effect would it have on your offer?

They have been negligent in their actions and the fact they have increased my premiums by 400% tells me they know it was likely it would happen again.

Why should I bear that burden alone, the stress and upheaval to my family is grounds enough I think.