Concrete panel falling away above window

GDB2222

Let’s not get fixated about the legal niceties, anyway. I’m sure the op doesn’t want anyone to be hurt, so he needs a builder to make this safe ASAP. What is the quickest way to achieve that?

eddddy

ciderboy2009 said:

eddddy said:

But it's nothing to do with the insurers.

It might be if the OP has got Legal Protection as part of their policy.

Some interesting non-sequitur comments and partial quoting.

Some posters are suggesting that there is an imminent a danger to life. Contacting your legal protection insurers about a potential claim some months into the future probably isn't a priority.  Addressing the danger to life would be a priority.

user1977

JJR45 said:

user1977 said:

JJR45 said:

user1977 said:

ProDave said:

Contact your house insurance and tell them it is an emergency. Let them deal with it and decide who is liable.

Though bear in mind that involving the insurer means (irrespective of whether they end up paying for it) they're likely to bump up your premium in future years for having made a claim.

I think in this case, the safety for pedestrians may outweigh the possible minor increase in premiums.

Probably still quicker and cheaper to make your own arrangements for a temporary fix and/or protect the area below.

Only if they are able to in decent time. By the sounds of it, the OP isn't. (recent stomach surgery).

By "making your own arrangements" I wasn't suggesting the OP had to personally shin up a ladder.

RS2OOO

eddddy said:

Gettingeven said:

ProDave said:

That is very seriously dangerous in that state.

If that concrete panels falls out it would kill anyone it falls on.  That area in front of the window should be fenced off and if it fall the window would likely go, so I would not be using that room.

Contact your house insurance and tell them it is an emergency. Let them deal with it and decide who is liable.

Hi, yes, I contacted my home insurer via email yesterday.

TBH, that was probably a bad idea. It's best to check your policy to see if you're likely to be covered before contacting your insurer.

This won't be covered by your buildings insurance.

And your insurers might record this on the CUE database as an 'incident that may or may not have led to an insurance claim'.  The CUE database is shared by all the main insurers.

So your own insurer might increase your premium at renewal as a result of you reporting this 'incident' even if you make no claim, and you might need to declare it if you what to change insurers - resulting in increased premiums.

Regardless, a condition of insurance is that you tell them anyway.

A typical question when obtaining insurance quotes usually covers the following caveats;

"Have you or anyone at the property suffered any loss, damage, injury or liability whether insured or not?"

stuart45

Even if someone pushed it back and got a few folding wedges in it would help a bit as a tempary measure. Could be around 150 lb of brickwork ready to fall on someone.
I would say that to do a proper job it needs removing, inserting a lintel under the tray, and rebuilding the masonry with wall ties from the inner skin.

Section62

stuart45 said:

I would say that to do a proper job it needs removing, inserting a lintel under the tray, and rebuilding the masonry with wall ties from the inner skin.

I've never had to deal with a situation like this one - but rather than rebuilding the masonry would it be possible to part-fill the void with insulation, suitable boarding+mesh and then render over the top?  Does it need to be rebuilt with masonry for any reason?

Just wondering whether using a lightweight infill would give the same external appearance without the need to fit a lintel.  I'm assuming the arch is doing the structural work here?

stuart45

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

I would say that to do a proper job it needs removing, inserting a lintel under the tray, and rebuilding the masonry with wall ties from the inner skin.

I've never had to deal with a situation like this one - but rather than rebuilding the masonry would it be possible to part-fill the void with insulation, suitable boarding+mesh and then render over the top?  Does it need to be rebuilt with masonry for any reason?

Just wondering whether using a lightweight infill would give the same external appearance without the need to fit a lintel.  I'm assuming the arch is doing the structural work here?

That could well be an easier solution.  My mind always seems to think in masonry terms instead of other methods.

Section62

stuart45 said:

That could well be an easier solution.  My mind always seems to think in masonry terms instead of other methods.

FWIW I'd probably have done the same and replaced like-for-like.  It was only that I started to get curious why the original infill was masonry that I wondered whether there was a technical reason why it had to be done that way?

For the panel to fall out there was apparently no bonding, so did they use masonry in the original build just because they had bricks to hand and it was easier to do it like that? Wouldn't there be a fair bit of cutting and shaping to do though?

JJR45

GDB2222 said:

JJR45 said:

user1977 said:

JJR45 said:

user1977 said:

ProDave said:

Contact your house insurance and tell them it is an emergency. Let them deal with it and decide who is liable.

Though bear in mind that involving the insurer means (irrespective of whether they end up paying for it) they're likely to bump up your premium in future years for having made a claim.

I think in this case, the safety for pedestrians may outweigh the possible minor increase in premiums.

Probably still quicker and cheaper to make your own arrangements for a temporary fix and/or protect the area below.

Only if they are able to in decent time. By the sounds of it, the OP isn't. (recent stomach surgery). Protecting the area underneath with some cones should be possible though.
At least contacting the insurance avoids any claims of negligence if anything did happen. 

Quite the reverse, actually. The op goes on the record that he knows the situation is highly dangerous, but doesn’t do anything to fix it, apart from contacting his insurance company, which doesn’t generally fix things. 

His excuse is that he’s in no fit state to fix it himself. Fair enough, but if he’s well enough to call his insurance company he’s also well enough to call a builder to make this safe.

Really, a friend or family could put out a bin or two to keep people out of the danger area.

But will hold the OPs public liability, they would want to know if there is a potential liability issue. It is the correct thing to do, to inform them. If they have someone to come out and deal with it, bonus. If not they will advise the OP the best steps to take.

stuart45

Section62 said:

stuart45 said:

That could well be an easier solution.  My mind always seems to think in masonry terms instead of other methods.

FWIW I'd probably have done the same and replaced like-for-like.  It was only that I started to get curious why the original infill was masonry that I wondered whether there was a technical reason why it had to be done that way?

For the panel to fall out there was apparently no bonding, so did they use masonry in the original build just because they had bricks to hand and it was easier to do it like that? Wouldn't there be a fair bit of cutting and shaping to do though?

Normally the Tympanum is a decorative feature with a relieving arch over it. Often done with a decorative bond such as shown below. The masonry purists say that you shouldn't mix different materials in the same wall, as they move as different rates. Having wall ties on the inner skin is essential. n th