Subsidence claim rejected

walesdave

Hi All
Just had a conservatory subsidence claim rejected because the foundations are only 40cm deep so the insureres are saying it is poorly designed and built.
Conervatory is 15 years old and was surveyed when we bought the house 3 years ago and again when we re-mortgaged a year ago and neither reports mention subsidence. I have photos going back two years showing the conservatory in good repair.
I'm disputing the claim rejection on a few grounds:

• If there was bad design or workmanship then the conervatory should have subsided before 15 years - I think anything that lasts >10 years without problems can't be said to be poorly designed
• The subsidence would have occured even if there foundations were 60cm , 80cm or 1m deep as it was due to tree roots shrinking the ground (this ha been identified as the most likely cause but not 100%) FYI: all nearby trees were removed last year
• As the conservatory was not subject to building regulations who can say what foundation depths were considered 'good practice' back in 2005 - maybe 40cm was a standard design and build back then

Anyone think I'm on the right track?
Cheers

MIC_78

It's hard to comment without knowing the full circumstances as there are multiple factors at play with subsidence, but to be honest 40cm foundations don't sound particularly deep if there were trees nearby. Ultimately though the depth requirements will depend on the type of trees, how far away they were and the type of soil (whether it's high plasticity/clay content). There will have been design standards developed over time (since at least the early 90s off the top of my head) and these will likely have advised on minimum foundation depths for certain situations - e.g. where trees are close by with clay type soil, they should be a minimum of 1 metre.

In terms of the length of time the structure stood without issue, I can see where you're coming from but I'm not sure that would necessarily be enough to demonstrate the design wasn't poor or inadequate. Whilst it may not have suffered issues previously, again there are many factors that influence subsidence and it can take years for a problem to emerge (for example weather cycles being repeated over time causing gradual movements)

If you're going to challenge the insurer I think your best bet would be to ask for evidence of what regulations they're depending on to prove the design was inadequate, such as the building standards for the relevant period, along with their evidence of any tests conducted on the soil and foundations. You could then compare whether their conclusions are consistent with the applicable standards from the time - so for example if they've found the soil is low clay content and the trees were a relatively large distance from the conservatory, the design standards may advise that foundations of a minimum 25cm should be adequate in those circumstances - in which case it would seem unreasonable to conclude the conservatory were of defective design.

Sandtree

walesdave said:
 who can say what foundation depths were considered 'good practice' back in 2005 - maybe 40cm was a standard design and build back then

Anyone think I'm on the right track?
Cheers

You do realise that was only 15 years ago? There are plenty of people that can say what standards were 15 years ago, we've got subs surveyers that have been doing the job 25 years or more and when they started they obviously had to learn about the standards that preceded them (they arent able to only work on new builds).

Similarly surveys for mortgages are a simple quick look around, if you had a full inspect then they go poking into corners more etc but its still a visual inspection only, they cant lift carpets to see the standard of the floors or dig down to measure foundation depth.

So just to confirm, conservatory was fine for 14 years, you then take the trees out and then within 1 year there are signs of subsidence? There is certainly some forms of subs that will happen no matter the depth but there are others that will be prevented by appropriate foundations... if that weren't the case we wouldn't bother with foundations at all.

You either need to do some digging, no pun intended, on the best practices at the time or it may be worth considering if employing your own claims assessor would be beneficial, though those with the skills to deal with subs are notably more expensive than a person that deals with thefts/escape of water etc.

TELLIT01

It's not true to say that the depth of foundation wouldn't have made a difference.  Broadly speaking, deeper foundations will be more stable than shallow ones.  There would certainly appear to be a direct link between the removal of the trees and the subsidence, therefore it's no surprise that there was no problem as long as the trees remained in place.

dunstonh

Conervatory is 15 years old and was surveyed when we bought the house 3 years ago and again when we re-mortgaged a year ago and neither reports mention subsidence.

That is strange.  Most people do not pay for a structural survey or surveyors report on a remortgage.    What made you do that? (something must have triggered it)

Or are you mistaking a mortgage valuation report as being a survey? 

walesdave

dunstonh said:

Conervatory is 15 years old and was surveyed when we bought the house 3 years ago and again when we re-mortgaged a year ago and neither reports mention subsidence.

That is strange.  Most people do not pay for a structural survey or surveyors report on a remortgage.    What made you do that? (something must have triggered it)

Or are you mistaking a mortgage valuation report as being a survey? 

Yep just a homebuyers report. But the chap doing it stood right outside the conservatory and gave it a once over and didn't notice any subsidence. The claims management company tried to cause problems from the start saying that there 'must' have been subsidence when we bought the property so we should have noticed it then! I claimed two 'surveyors' had been to the property and even a basic report would mention obvious subsidence if it was visible; claims management complany disagreed and said the home buyers / re-mortgage reports would be discounted; I had a 'chat' with the insurance company directly....and they sided with myself that even a basic report would have captured visible subsidence and as (both) hadn't the claim would be dealt with as thought he subsidence was a new thing. 

walesdave

Here's the email I received. The email finished by saying they had closed the claim - no option to discuss or diagree and no information how to complain or refer to the Financial Ombudsman etc. Basically, 'here's our rejection, please go and do one!'. Another call to the insurers directly and the claim was re-opened and will be reviewed, unfortunately by the same claims management company that have just rejected it :-)

Trial pit / Borehole One (Mid-point of right-hand elevation to conservatory)

There is a concrete foundation, bearing at a depth of only 0.35m below ground level upon a dense clayey made ground (clayey, silty gravel and brick), overlying a sandy, silty clay with roots at 1m.

Borehole closed at 1.03m due to an obstruction and noted to be dry on completion.

The clay at 1m is of high plasticity, demonstrating the onset of desiccation.

Unfortunately, insufficient cells for root identification, and not alive.

Trial pit / Borehole Two (Rear right corner of conservatory)

There is a concrete foundation, bearing at a depth of only 0.4m below ground level upon a dense clayey made ground (clayey, silty GRAVEL and BRICK), overlying a silty, sandy clay with no roots.

Borehole closed at 1.03m due to an obstruction and noted to be dry on completion.

The clay at 1m is of high plasticity, in the normal range.

CCTV /Drainage

No defects were found.

Conclusions

There is a shallow foundation, high plasticity clay, the onset of desiccation and dead roots, with no drain defects.

We consider that conservatory has primarily failed due to its inadequate design (foundation is not deep enough) and therefore it has inevitably suffered vegetation induced clay shrinkage subsidence, primarily prior to purchase, and even in the absence of vegetation, the onset of desiccation is still noted and due to the shallow foundation depth,  the structure will continue to be prone to seasonal fluctuations in ground moisture content, hence the noted continued recent progression.

We note you removed your vegetation approximately 2 years ago and the neighbour removed theirs within the last few months, so there is no further mitigation required. That said, as initially reported the damage is already done and the structure is beyond economical repair and would need to be rebuilt on an appropriately designed  foundation.

We note that the mortgage valuation didn’t record subsidence but the physical evidence shows it was present, as evidenced by the patch repairs to the brickwork that were not undertaken by yourself and so have clearly been missed by the mortgage valuation survey.

Unfortunately, as the foundation is considered inadequate,   a valid claim does not arise and therefore, your insurers are therefore unable to be of any financial assistance on this occasion.

In accordance with best practice a foundation should be at least 1.5m deep in a high plasticity clay soil with vegetation present, especially coniferous trees which have a high water demand, and so they may even need to be deeper and/or engineer designed. The ground and site conditions clearly haven’t been accounted for in the design leading to the inevitable excessive movement and subsequent levels of damage to the conservatory structure.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with a few things in the email. The chap doing the bore holes told me while he was closing the holes back up that he had hit bedrock at 1m - the report claims 'an obstruction', also they 'recommend' a foundation of '1.5m' - to me this is excesive and when bedrock is at 1m a 1.5m foundation isn't possible.
If the cause is 'vegetation induced clay shrinkage subsidence' then why didn't this happens years ago and how can they say , 'primarily prior to purchase?' when I hav photos from the last couple of summers that show the conservatory in good condition (the claims complany have been given copies) and two valuation reports have both 'missed' any subsidence?  

Sandtree

You dont have an issue with his comments on there being evidence of previous patch repairs that would be indicative of subsidence repairs?

walesdave

Sandtree said:

You dont have an issue with his comments on there being evidence of previous patch repairs that would be indicative of subsidence repairs?

Yes I do. The repiars to brickwork are at the other end of the conservatory to the subsidence and to my eye look like lateral movement to the brickwork rather than cracking due to subsidence.

dunstonh

Yep just a homebuyers report.

A homebuyers report is barely with the money you pay for it.   Indeed, it is possibly the worst option. A valuation report barely does anything but you know that is the case.   A survey goes into good detail, with photos and descriptions and warnings.   A structural report goes heavily focused on the area in question.   The homebuyers report is meant to fit between a mortgage valuation and a survey but you usually find they are far too generic and not specific to the property.  They generally miss most faults apart from the bleedingly obvious.    As such, I consider them a waste of money as a full survey often does not cost much more and has some liability on the surveyor. 

walesdave

'apart from the bleedingly obvious.' - that's my point. The claims management company expect me to believe two different valuation reports, two different people doing them, two years apart - any NEITHER 'noticed' the conservatory was suffering serious subsidence. Afraid I don't agree; if there was serious subsidence then the mortgage company would have been very interested in NOT lending me the money to buy / remortgage the house....