Subsidence

Alex0857

Hi, I fall into a very unfortunate situation and would appreciate if anyone could kindly advise me what to do.
I am going through the process of insurance claim for my house which is damaged by subsidence. As I have never made any sort of insurance claim before and this first ever insurance claim in my life involves a lot of money I appointed an loss assessor on my behalf. Insurance company have taken site investigations and evidence in the report shows that subsidence was caused by the trees next door over the fence in the boundary of a big superstore. In fact I did try to talk to this superstore (one of the biggest in UK) in amicably way before my insurance route but they ignored me. Insurance company talked to superstore and superstore agreed to cut down their trees. Now the site monitoring team reported the ground has gained stability so the insurance company tell my loss assessor that they will forward repair options to me. Here comes another problem, my loss assessor suddenly presented me a set of contracts asking me to sign to appoint a chartered surveyor (whom I never known). I asked what is going on and loss assessor answered this surveyor of their choice will assess the damage and manage the repair work. Loss assessor will then carry out the repair work and receive all the payment from insurance. My house is in Essex and this surveyor is based up North. I thought the insurance company would appoint a reputable subsidence specialist to properly restore my house? I am confused now and I doubt my loss assessor is really acting to my best interest? 
Not only I suffer years of stress dealing with this damage caused by third party, I also incurred financial loss hiring an independent engineer to investigate when I first suspected subsidence. I pay an agent to deal with insurance hoping to take some stress off but it looks like, if not paying due care, I might end up having a house badly repaired and without any monetary compensation at all. My insurance premium will increase and my house will worth signification less.
What shall I do now and what are my rights? Any help and advice is highly appreciated .
Many many thanks

dunstonh

What does your insurance company say when you query this with them?

Sandtree

Did the claims assessor you appointed claim to have specialist subsidence claim knowledge/experience or are they a generalist?

Insurance claims can be settled in one of two ways, the insurer does all the work with their own suppliers and you pay them your excess (and pay your adjustor if you've chosen to appoint one). Alternatively you can do all the work and your insurers pay you net of your excess, for large works they may pay you out net of VAT until the VAT invoices are supplied.

Your adjustor appears to be suggesting you go down the second route and that they, in conjunction with a surveyor, will manage the repairs for you. What you would need to be fully clear on is what elements will be covered by the insurance claim (eg the surveyor) and which you will have to pay for (eg the assessor). You also need to ensure you understand if its a "should" or "will".

In principle there is little issue going down this route, you already knew you'd be paying for the assessor, however be aware that if your contractors do the job (or yours via the assessor) then there is no comeback on the insurance company if the repairs are poorly done etc. 

Unfortunately because of how fees are charged there is always a moral risk with these arrangements, it is the same for an insurer who often uses outsourced adjustors/surveyors... they're there to mitigate the losses for the insurer but they get paid more if the claim is a higher value. 

Alex0857

I am not sure if insurance company would reply to me directly as they communicate with my agent the loss assessor all the time. Yesterday I asked them directly what are my repair options and I am still waiting for their reply.

Alex0857

Sandtree said:

Did the claims assessor you appointed claim to have specialist subsidence claim knowledge/experience or are they a generalist?

Insurance claims can be settled in one of two ways, the insurer does all the work with their own suppliers and you pay them your excess (and pay your adjustor if you've chosen to appoint one). Alternatively you can do all the work and your insurers pay you net of your excess, for large works they may pay you out net of VAT until the VAT invoices are supplied.

Your adjustor appears to be suggesting you go down the second route and that they, in conjunction with a surveyor, will manage the repairs for you. What you would need to be fully clear on is what elements will be covered by the insurance claim (eg the surveyor) and which you will have to pay for (eg the assessor). You also need to ensure you understand if its a "should" or "will".

In principle there is little issue going down this route, you already knew you'd be paying for the assessor, however be aware that if your contractors do the job (or yours via the assessor) then there is no comeback on the insurance company if the repairs are poorly done etc. 

Unfortunately because of how fees are charged there is always a moral risk with these arrangements, it is the same for an insurer who often uses outsourced adjustors/surveyors... they're there to mitigate the losses for the insurer but they get paid more if the claim is a higher value. 

Thanks Sandtree, my assessor is just a generalist. I appointed them because my friend used them in their fire claim and they are happy with the compensation deal. It was done in a rush as I have lost some time before trying to talk to superstore and waiting for engineer's report to confirm it is a subsidence. Now my assessor tell me that my case will be different to fire case as insurance will not pay me any money, they will only pay the contractors to repair. My assessor suggests they would waive their fees if I appoint them to do the repair job. This seems to be the most beneficiary to them which worries me my agent is not acting in my best interest. 

Alex0857

What are my rights against the superstore? Their trees damaged my house and they have done so far is just to cut down the trees. I suffered financial loss as a result of that. My insurance premium will increase in unlimited future years and house price dropped with history of subsidence.

Sandtree

Look at https://www.bishopandsewell.co.uk/2018/10/15/neighbour-disputes-am-i-liable-for-tree-root-damage/ 

You have to prove it was foreseeable that the tree would cause damage, it mentions one case where the case was won with a 10m tall cyprus hedge 0.5m from the building but subsequent cases where the courts have decided its not.

Annemos

Good evening. 
Here are some things I have learnt from my own Subsidence claim, that is now nearing a conclusion after 3 years. (It should have taken 2 years!) Mine was two Council Trees. 

I was also asking all the same questions as you. So here goes with a quick summary. 

1) There is a Zurich case that said a Council could not be held liable if the damage was not foreseeable. As far as I can tell, that means that unless another property (or other properties) have been hit by the same trees (or nearby trees), close to you, then the Council can say your damage was not foreseable. (Your Tree Owners would be in the same position as my Council, I suppose.)

The case revolved around the fact that
a) They don't know which property will be hit next until it happens.
b) If they dealt with all trees that are close to properties, we would be living in a desert. 
c) They don't have the funds to do investigating. 

So unless someone else has been hit in your close vicinity, you are left with the Insurance Company picking up the expenses and not the Tree Owner. I was the first property on our triangle to be damaged by the trees and so I could not go after the Council for costs and damages. But they did end up having to take the trees down.

If they had not taken them down and there was further damage ot me or other properties, then they would have been liable. (They wouldn't be able to use that a) reason any more.)

I hope that makes sense. 
I will give some more pointers in the next post, as that was long. 

Annemos

2) Once we have had Subsidence, we should fight to stay with the same insurer. (Useful if something else was to happen.... you would not have a wrangle between insurers as to who should be dealing with it).

Also, it is better to have the Insurer do the repairs, because then the insurance-wide agreement is that the Insurer that did the repairs should continue to cover you. This is useful, as I believe it is not that easy to get insurance with another provider, after one has had Subsidence, 

Annemos

3) The repairs..... this is where I had great difficulty. My Insurance Company had passed me over to a Claims Validation Company. 

That Claims Validation Company Engineer had been monitoring the property. After the trees were removed the ground recovered and the cracks closed up. So no underpinning needed to be done. (They don't underpin very much these days. They hope everything recovers once the cause of damage has been removed. Monitoring showed that mine was all stable now and would not need underpinning.) 

So like me, you should have their Engineer reviewing your property, I should think there should be monitoring perhaps, to see if movement has stopped. And then that Engineer should be deciding how best to repair your property. (As I say, mine was the Claims Validation Company's Engineer on behalf of the Insurance Company). 

For the reasons in 2) I then allowed their contractors to come in and do the repairs to the brickwork. (The Insurance company is then liable, not you, if something goes wrong....and it did!) I will not go into details, but the work was utterly appalling and negligent and did even more damage to my property. 

I ended up in a huge Complaint situation and luckily the company that was handling the complaint saw that something dreadful had happened and they took over and the repairs had to be completely removed and then re-done. 

So it is a bit of a problem, to say the least. For the reaons in 2) you should not be using your own contractors, but if you use theirs, well...... something bad can happen. 

It is so difficult for us to vet their contractors. I would say get proof of who is actually going to be working on your property (not just the company). And ask for proof that those people have actually worked on Subsidence properties and ask to see photos! Also try and do your own research into the repairs that they suggest. (I ended up training myself to be a builder/Helifix Bar installer!) 

I do wish you all the very best. 

Annemos

4) Last things I can think of.... you should be indemnified. That means put back into the position you were before the Subsidence claim happened. That means your building should look like it did before. Make sure they do such things as match the repointing properly! 

Also the insurance repairs have to be Lasting and Effective. The outside repairs should last for years. So if they prove not to be, you would be able to go back to the insurer that did the repairs. 

I cannot tell you how many Ombudsman's cases I had to look at during my claim, as all these issues kept arising. 

You seem to have had a better time of it than I did, at the start, because your trees have been taken down without any argument. 
A small bit of comfort for you, perhaps. 

Also if you have a water meter.....just watch it every 2 weeks and make sure it is not spinning. Ground movement can shift the pipes, too!