Subsidence and Foundation Depths

JulieW_1964

Hiya, I would like to ask you lovely people for some advice.
My husband and I having been going through a nightmare with a subsidence claim.
The insurance company sent someone round to do a trial pit to see how deep the foundations were and check the type of clay soil.

A few months ago they rejected our claim because the foundations are not deep enough (by 50cm)  and doesn't meet NHBC building standards.
But when we were going through some paperwork recently, we found some paperwork from when we bought the house saying that the foundations were inspected by the council's building control and signed off. We also have the NHBC 10 year warranty (since expired).

So my question is could they have measured the foundation depths incorrectly? They only measured one point by our back door into the garden. Is it worth getting a second opinion?

thanks
Juju
xxxx

user1977

Even if they didn't meet NHBC standards - what would be (legitimate) grounds for rejecting the claim? You presumably weren't asked on the proposal form about any of these specific matters (or could reasonably be expected to know about the foundation depth).

DullGreyGuy

user1977 said:

Even if they didn't meet NHBC standards - what would be (legitimate) grounds for rejecting the claim? You presumably weren't asked on the proposal form about any of these specific matters (or could reasonably be expected to know about the foundation depth).

Presumably the OP has movement/settlement issues and the insurers are looking to reject the claim on the basis of substandard workmanship. It's a very common problem when it comes to conservatories as it's a bit of a Wild West of builders that were knocking them up in the 80s/90s. The ombudsman does deny complaints on the grounds of foundations even though the insured is clearly not going to have known the issue.


What type of soil do you have? How deep are the foundations? When was the property built? 
It's then some detective work to find out the requirements back when it was built as sometimes mistakes are made on looking at more recent standards which have higher requirements than there were back in the day. 

JulieW_1964

Hiya, They said it was because the house is of faulty design materials or poor workmanship and pointed to an exclusion in their policy wording. my husband and I can't find anything to say we should have known. If anything all of the documents we found say it was up to standard.

Juju
xxxx

JulieW_1964

Our 3 bed semi has no extension or conservatory. It is on clay soil. From the regulations they stated and what documents we found they match. It is the measurements they found from the trial pits that don't seem be right.

Juju
xxxx

Annemos

 Please see attached case JulieW. Does it help you at all? 

This one would have subsided anyway, even if foundation was deeper. They also looked at the fact that it had stood for years without any problem.  And they also considered what would have been good building practice at the time it was built. 


https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN5342656.pdf


(From my collection, DGG!) 


And another one 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN9738552.pdf

JulieW_1964

Hiya Annemos. Thank you so much for posting the two articles. They sound very similar to the situation we are going through and are a great help.

Juju
xxxx

Annemos

Found another recent case, for anybody who reads this discussion. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4196750.pdf