Conservatory subsidence claim rejected - what to do next?

englandfan

I will try and keep this short.

We bought our house in 2007 – had a c.4mx3.5m Glass roofed Anglian Conservatory installed in 2008

Over the years we noticed the odd issue with the external doors not being able to lock in warm weather (OK in cold) etc…but nothing major….no cracks internally or anything like that….it was a great room.

Then last year I noticed some cracking to the external brickwork of the dwarf wall at the front of the conservatory – from the damp proof course following the mortar line in a step shape up to the window cill – and a further crack in the mortar running from the front around one side (at the damp proof course).

We instructed insurers – they had surveyors visit to take measurements, sank trial pits and examined drains, sent arborists to check the trees in the location (we have a large, well established Ash tree in a neighbour’s garden (with a TPO) which is probably 6-7m from the conservatory base).

Up until last week, the last time I had any contact from the claim handlers (instructed by my insurance company to handle the claim) was in April – I had emailed them in June and July politely asking for some sort of an update, only to be ignored. Last week I had had enough and emailed the insurer direct asking them for an update – low and behold, three days later I receive a response from the claims handlers rejecting my claim. The reasoning being;

“The conservatory’s installed foundation depth of 0.55 metres has not taken into consideration the shrinkable clay subsoils present and the ash tree.  In accordance with the National House Building Council Guidelines of Building Near Trees Chapter 4.2 the installed depth should have been at 1.50 metres, given the mature height of the ash, its distance from building and soil parameters.   The site investigation has also determined that the outer edge of the conservatory is founded at a lesser depth to what has been revealed adjacent to the main house, this will have created a ‘hinge’ to cause some differential movement between the depths.

We have completed a heave calculation and consider the risk of heave to a lightweight structure is too great to fell the tree, therefore artificial stabilisation of the conservatory may be considered, though it should be noted that the ash tree will be affected by Ash Dieback disease and in time die.

Due to the inadequate depth of foundation, we confirm on behalf of your building insurer, that your claim is declined under the defective design exclusion within the subsidence section of the policy.  The foundation should have been installed at a greater depth at the time of construction.

We appreciate that you will be disappointed with this outcome but the damage to the conservatory is minor and is only likely to worsen in times of drier weather and therefore you may wish to periodically complete repointing works and adjust doors/windows when required”.

Not being an expert on these things I am not really sure what I should do next and hope somebody on the forum may be able to offer some advice.

With my recent experience, I struggle to have trust and faith in the claims handlers – does what they say sound legitimate? If they are correct, even after so much time has elapsed since the original installation, would I get anywhere by complaining to Anglian?

Sorry if I have gone on…. just a little deflated at the moment.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Sandtree

Law of limitations under contracts is 6 years so your time to claim off of Anglian has long passed.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/294351/DRN-2159498.pdf - not upheld
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/272540/DRN9923628.pdf - not upheld
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/296712/DRN6102987.pdf - not upheld
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/files/280889/DRN-1240417.pdf - upheld

Unfortunately this is a very common complaint and one that often fails because conservatories aren't subjecting to building control etc and so are done on the cheap by having shallow foundations etc.

The main cases where complaints are upheld by the ombudsman is where either 1) the insurers investigations have been insufficient (eg in an unquoted case a rafted of 7mm steel was used in the 90s but the insurer only looked at the newer conservatory built on top of the older raft without considering the 90s guidelines nor the impact of a non-traditional foundation) or 2) where there is sufficient evidence that even if there were stronger foundations that the problem would still have happened.

[Deleted User]

delete 123