Subsidence Claim Rejected - Advice welcomed 27 February at 1:07PM in Insurance & life assurance 11 replies 423 views

billybrag

Hi All,

We had a subsidence issue with an extension that was added to our property back in 2009.  It started after the mega drought last year.

We started a claim through nationwide who then pushed us to Crawford & Co to survey etc.  6 months after the claim they came back to us last week to say they were rejecting out claim due to inadequate foundations.

Further to previous correspondence I am pleased to confirm we are now in receipt of the site investigation results.

Unfortunately, the recent investigations have revealed the foundations of the Extension have not been constructed in accordance with good building practice relevant at the time of construction and therefore specific exclusions apply.

So we only moved in 18 months ago so were slightly alarmed that we had missed this.  But, looking at the information we have about the extension we also have a document from the Building Control Partnership in Feb 2009 that states that

we enclose the final certificate required by Building (approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations 2000, as amended, which relates to the proposed work at the above address.

Now I understand that a certificate doesnt mean the actual work was done correctly but Im just trying to figure out what to do and who to contact next.  With the information I have given, which I know isnt much, should the certifcate mean it was checked and should have been done and if so what does that mean?  Its such a stressful process and any help is appreciated so much!

thanks 

Mike

huckster

No easy solution. You need to

1) Get another qualified opinion from structural engineer

2) Get legal opinion. (But look through all house purchase information and surveys first to see what you we're told about extension works). Is there a basis to take legal actions against seller or the surveyors who reported on property prior to purchase ?

Insurers would be correct to decline claim based on construction being poorly done and not in line with industry standards.

billybrag

Thank you huckster.

So I spoke to our original conveyancing solicitors today and they stated that the original building control certificate and planning permission confirmation were the only things they needed to be satisfied with the quality.

We only had a homebuyers survey so it didn't have any reference.

It is starting to feel like the certificate isnt worth the paper its written on!

user1977

So are they saying it was built in accordance with the building regulations which applied at the time, but that still didn't amount to "good building practice relevant at the time of construction"? Or are they saying it didn't even comply with regulations despite the certification saying it did? And have they detailed exactly what they think was wrong with the construction?

Have you had anybody else inspect it?

DullGreyGuy

I'd ask for sight of the site investigation report so you can see what they have reported that the foundations are and compare this to the appropriate standards of the day. 

It may be worth commissioning your own report but if it concurs with the report done by the loss adjusters then its going to be an extra cost/loss to you. 

Whilst building control sign off etc gives a level of comfort they ultimately arent no site all day every day and so dont get to see absolutely everything. 

Johnsrogerson

Thanks for sharing this and very helpful as I am in a similar situation!

billybrag

thank you all. so the current situation is that: 

• Our insurers (via the surveyors) have said we have no claim as the foundations are not built to code.
• The Building Control Partnership Ltd (who signed it off and issued building regs certificate) - have come back and said even though they signed it off its not their responsibility - blame the builder
• the local council have said its Building Control Partnership Ltd
• I havent found out who the builders were yet, but Im guessing their response is going to be "well it was signed off"

I really dont understand the point of building regs sign off if it doesnt count for anything!

The certificate even states: 

with this certificate is the declaration signed by the insurer that a named scheme of insurance approved by the Secretary of State applies in relation to the work to which the certificate relates

surely this means something!

So sickeningly stressful

DullGreyGuy

It ultimately comes down to the builders but you don't have a contract with them so even if you did find out who it was they can legitimately tell you to go away. 

Do you have or are you getting a copy of the insurer's report? 

If you do get it then 1) have they been thorough enough and 2) how far off regs is it? If its 1mm out it could be if you dug the trenches in different places it could be fine

billybrag

so I have been back and forth with them as there were quite a few inaccuracies with the report - ie wrong dates and quoting regs after it was finished.

It seems as though the crux of it is that the main house was built on 700mm foundations and the extension 750mm, but they are saying it should have been 2m due to the type of soil underneath - they say:

·       The site investigations show that the foundations of the main house are founded at a depth of 700mm below ground level, to underside.
·       The foundations of the Extension are founded at a depth of 750mm below ground level, to underside.
·       The foundations of the main house bear onto a subsoil of wet stiff brown gravelly CLAY fill material – known/described as made ground.
·       The foundations of the Extension bear onto a subsoil of damp stiff brown silty fine to medium gravelly CLAY. 
Roots were recovered

Based on the standards in 2009 the foundations for the Extension in a HIGHLY shrinkable soil should have been at least 2m deep to withstand the effects of the nearby vegetation, which was present prior to the Extensions construction.

huckster

Might be worth contacting FOS on this one.  As a home buyer you were advised that extension was built in line with building Regs and it was reasonable to rely on this.  So should expect the Insurance to cover the risk that was subject to building Regs.

It would not have been reasonable to have excavated to find out depth of foundations and take soil samples etc to come to some hindsight conclusion on adequacy of building works back in 2009.

DullGreyGuy

huckster said:

Might be worth contacting FOS on this one.  As a home buyer you were advised that extension was built in line with building Regs and it was reasonable to rely on this.  So should expect the Insurance to cover the risk that was subject to building Regs.

It would not have been reasonable to have excavated to find out depth of foundations and take soil samples etc to come to some hindsight conclusion on adequacy of building works back in 2009.

Ultimately little to lose but the FOS has many rejected complaints where they agree with the insurer its defective workmanship because of inadequate foundations. 

Personally I'd be want to better armed when going to the FOS as at present we've no idea if it was a fractional or a massive fail.