Input appreciated

Blotto17

I raised a claim with the insurance company that holds the warrantee for my house regarding potential water ingress at my patio doors. The concern is that the external patio slabs have been laid at the same level as (and in places higher than) the internal finished floor and door threshold, meaning there appears to be no 150 mm clearance below the damp-proof course (DPC) as required under their Building Regulations/ Technical Standards. This is considered a fundamental damp-protection issue rather than a maintenance problem.

Their findings:

Following an inspection, they rejected the claim. Their investigation concluded that the issue was not related to the DPC or external ground levels, but instead attributed any risk of water ingress to degraded or missing mastic sealant around the patio doors, which they classed as a maintenance issue rather than a construction defect.

I feel like even if it is the sealant that may be the issue, how can they say that the DPC is not the overall issue and might be contributing to said sealant being eroded. Is it worth continuing to push back and ask them to further investigate or reconsider?

Woodstok2000

It sounds like they've maybe only looked at whether the damp proof issue could have caused the ingress, and decided against it. You can always query that decision, and also request a specific remedy to the damp proofing even if it hasn't caused the current issue?

It does sound like theres a primary maintenance aspect too though, so I would get that sorted ASAP.

TELLIT01

The OP refers to the insurance company which olds the warranty for the property.  I'm guessing that means it's a comparative new build.  Does the OP know who installed the patio much higher than it should have been.  If the original builders I would have thought they still have liability.  If the OP hasn't owned from new, and the work done by previous occupants I doubt they would have a valid claim.