Insurer refusing to accept building regulation certificate as proof extension built to code

endOfMyTether_2025

Hi all,

We are currently going through a bit of a battle with our home insurance with regards to a potential subsidence claim we currently have in motion.

We purchased our property in 2021/2022 and have had no issues until recently. We had a homebuyers survey conducted during the purchase process and we were provided with all relevant documents relating to approval and sign off of extensions that were built in the roof of the property and to the back and side of the property (single storey extension).

The issue we currently face is one of the sides of the single story extension seem to be exhibiting cracking and damage from what looks to be potential subsidence. The ground our house is built on is London clay and whilst the original part of the house is solid and had really really deep foundations (almost 10-15 metres) the extension itself appears to have been dug between 0.9 - 1m when constructed. 

As I mentioned we have a building regulations certificate that was issued for the work when it was fully conpleted and signed off which is date 2015 (the original work was approved 2009/2010) but during my conversations with the insurer and their assigned acessors they keep stressing that "If the extension wasn't built withing the regulations of the time then my claim won't be valid". However, I keep insisting we have the building regs certificate which should indicate this but I've been told by them that a building regulations certificate is basically worthless and means nothing. 

How can this be the case when it is a legal requirement in order to sell an extended property? 

I effectively need some guidance as to what I can do if the insurer goes down this route and rejects the claim on the false pretences that the building regs certificate means nothing. Can I go to the ombudsman?

My wife is currently pregnant with our first child and this is causing a huge amount of stress for us both as whilst we have quite a lot of savings, a rebuild or remedial work to address the root cause of this issues is not going to be something we can afford to address without the insurance covering the cost.

Any advice of where we can go or how we might be able to appeal / fight an incorrect decision would be greatly appreciated as we were even told that whilst we had a warranty on our homebuyers survey that's still valid (within 5 years) that we wouldn't be able to claim on that either. 

user1977

endOfMyTether_2025 said:

during my conversations with the insurer and their assigned acessors they keep stressing that "If the extension wasn't built withing the regulations of the time then my claim won't be valid". 

Have they clarified how they arrived at that conclusion? Were you asked when you took out the insurance whether it was built in accordance with the regulations? It isn't a normal question on proposal forms, so I would doubt it's a reason to reject a claim.

MyRealNameToo

endOfMyTether_2025 said:

We are currently going through a bit of a battle with our home insurance with regards to a potential subsidence claim we currently have in motion.

We purchased our property in 2021/2022 and have had no issues until recently. We had a homebuyers survey conducted during the purchase process and we were provided with all relevant documents relating to approval and sign off of extensions that were built in the roof of the property and to the back and side of the property (single storey extension).

The issue we currently face is one of the sides of the single story extension seem to be exhibiting cracking and damage from what looks to be potential subsidence. The ground our house is built on is London clay and whilst the original part of the house is solid and had really really deep foundations (almost 10-15 metres) the extension itself appears to have been dug between 0.9 - 1m when constructed. 

As I mentioned we have a building regulations certificate that was issued for the work when it was fully conpleted and signed off which is date 2015 (the original work was approved 2009/2010) but during my conversations with the insurer and their assigned acessors they keep stressing that "If the extension wasn't built withing the regulations of the time then my claim won't be valid". However, I keep insisting we have the building regs certificate which should indicate this but I've been told by them that a building regulations certificate is basically worthless and means nothing. 

How can this be the case when it is a legal requirement in order to sell an extended property? 

I effectively need some guidance as to what I can do if the insurer goes down this route and rejects the claim on the false pretences that the building regs certificate means nothing. Can I go to the ombudsman?

My wife is currently pregnant with our first child and this is causing a huge amount of stress for us both as whilst we have quite a lot of savings, a rebuild or remedial work to address the root cause of this issues is not going to be something we can afford to address without the insurance covering the cost.

Any advice of where we can go or how we might be able to appeal / fight an incorrect decision would be greatly appreciated as we were even told that whilst we had a warranty on our homebuyers survey that's still valid (within 5 years) that we wouldn't be able to claim on that either. 

Not a building regs expert but thought the minimum depth for high shrinkage soil like London Clay is 1m and deeper if there are near by trees etc? If that is the case and yours are at 90cm then it wouldnt have passed regulations at the time. The fact that the inspectors didnt see the foundations arent deep enough for regs doesnt change the reality of their depth and their compliance/non-compliance. 

Ultimately you would need to complain to the insurer and if you are unhappy with their response to your complaint you can then take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman. 

There are many subsidence claims on the FOS' website with disputes on foundation depths. Your main problem is that your case is relatively modern, the ombudsman is more likely to uphold cases when the original extension was done in the 80/90s when regulations were different. 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN7245612.pdf is an apt example, dispute how deep the foundations were exactly but given clay soil and nearby trees a depth of 1.6m was deemed appropriate and the policyholder wasnt claiming they were anywhere near that deep.