Subsidence claim rejected

dunstonh

The claims management company expect me to believe two different valuation reports

This brings me back to the type of report.   You can pretty easily expect a mortgage valuer to miss it.    You say it was a homebuyers report but why would you pay extra for a homebuyers report in a property you already lived in? (you mentioned remortgage - so I take that to be you were already living there).  So, can we just clarify what type of report it was?  

A mortgage valuation typically comes at no cost (or if the lender does charge its about £50). The report is typically only 2-3 pages.   

The homebuyers report comes at additional cost and is usually around 10-15 pages.  Usually no photos and operates a traffic light style system of red, amber green for various sections.

Then you have the survey report. Costs can range from £500 to £3000.  Usually presented in a book like format with lots of photos of the property and descriptions of issues and suggestions on how to resolve.

Finally, a structural engineers report.  Often only several places and focuses on the areas of concern.  Typically only requested on expensive properties or properties with movement/subsidence histories.

walesdave

They were both mortgage valuations.

dunstonh

walesdave said:

They were both mortgage valuations.

In which case, you would expect them to miss it and not mention it.   it doesn't help you but equally the insurer cant reasonable base a decision on it either.

MIC_78

Given the type of soil that's present, sadly it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to decline the claim. The Building Regulations clearly detail the minimum depth of foundations where clay soils are present and unfortunately those in place clearly fall short of these:

"In clay soils subject to volume change on drying (‘shrinkable clays’, with Modified Plasticity Index greater than or equal to 10%), strip foundations should be taken to a depth where anticipated ground movements will not impair the stability of any part of the building taking due consideration of the influence of vegetation and trees on the ground. The depth to the underside of foundations on clay soils should not be less than 0.75m on low shrinkage clay soils, 0.9m on medium shrinkage clay soils and 1.0m on high shrinkage clay soils, although these depths may need to be increased in order to transfer the loading onto satisfactory ground, or where there are trees nearby."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429060/BR_PDF_AD_A_2013.pdf

walesdave

MIC_78 said:

Given the type of soil that's present, sadly it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to decline the claim. The Building Regulations clearly detail the minimum depth of foundations where clay soils are present and unfortunately those in place clearly fall short of these:

"In clay soils subject to volume change on drying (‘shrinkable clays’, with Modified Plasticity Index greater than or equal to 10%), strip foundations should be taken to a depth where anticipated ground movements will not impair the stability of any part of the building taking due consideration of the influence of vegetation and trees on the ground. The depth to the underside of foundations on clay soils should not be less than 0.75m on low shrinkage clay soils, 0.9m on medium shrinkage clay soils and 1.0m on high shrinkage clay soils, although these depths may need to be increased in order to transfer the loading onto satisfactory ground, or where there are trees nearby."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429060/BR_PDF_AD_A_2013.pdf

Yes but conservatories aren't subject to building regulations; the claims management company chap while just repeating what was in his email said a builder should refer t othe NHBC guidelines.....so I checked them and the 'Foundation depth tables' don't mention conservatories or non-permanent buildings at all.
Looking at a lot of conservatory and subsidence information onine tonight and something I hadn't thought of is whether this is subsidence at all or if it could be heave - there were two largeish trees removed from within 10 foot of the conservatory in the last two years. Heave hasn't been mentioned by anyone yet even though they were all aware of the trees.....

Sandtree

Building Regs provide a minimum standard, as you say they don't apply in some cases such as conservatories but that doesn't mean they are not still considered a highly relevant guide of best practice. 

The problem is a lot of conservatories, since being outside of building regs, have been done on the cheap with the logic being a) buyers pick the lowest bid and b) conservatories are light so unlikely to sink. Unfortunately the logic of B doesnt consider if the ground itself is what is moving. Historically a bare minimum level on stable soils was considered 45cm to deal with frost issues, even then if you had a moderate clay content this was then increased to 75cm with a strong recommendation of referring to the building regs tables for a more considered value if trees were near by.  Problem is this pushed up the price so people when with the other guys who did a pretty picture of what the above ground structure looked like and were 20% cheaper because they were happy to build it on jello.

By all means register your complaint with the insurer, and escalate to the ombudsman if you are unhappy with their response as is your right to do so but from what has been said to date you, as per your conservatory, are on pretty poor grounds.

Annemos

Re the Heave issue. With regular buildings, I think heave is a risk if the trees are older than the building. When that is the case, the ground was already dried out before the construction was built. And the construction was then built on the dry soil. So if you them take the trees out later and the water goes back into the ground, that is when heave could occur. 

With subsidence, if the trees are same age or younger than the building, the building was built on land that still had all its moisture in it. As the trees grow, they will start to take out the moisture. So one hopes if and when the trees get taken out later, your ground will never absorb enough moisture back into it again to exceed the moisture content it originally had. So heave is not likely. 

Just thought I would mention that...apologies if you all already knew that. 

unkle

Simply the conservatory was built with inadequate foundations for the soil type it was built on.

Thats not your insurers fault, nor is it their fault that surveyors you/the mortgage company employed potentially missed this. Unless you had a high LTV mortgage the value of the conservatory probably wouldn't have had an effect on the lending.

As an example, if you had a new roof fitted (or previous owner) and they used too heavy a tile making your roof sag, would you expect your insurers to pay for that repair?

I'm afraid you are highly unlikely to get anything here even if you go to the ombudsman, have you had quotes for the repair/work?

huckster

Only way to challenge the Insurers is to commission a structural engineers report at your cost and if it supports your case, to start a dispute with the Insurers. If the Insurers still refuse to assist you with the repairs, then it may be worth speaking to a Solicitors. Many offer a free half hour consultation.  I don't see the value in going to the FOS with this type of claim.

Annemos

Good evening walesdave. I just came across this Ombudsman case that you may find interesting. 
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/195729/DRN8138232.pdf