Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Richy_m_99
    • By Richy_m_99 8th May 18, 10:57 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Richy_m_99
    Cavity wall claims. Potentially another new scam
    • #1
    • 8th May 18, 10:57 AM
    Cavity wall claims. Potentially another new scam 8th May 18 at 10:57 AM
    Last year, several home owners in our street (including myself) were approached by a company signing up claimants for compensation with regard to inappropriately installed CWI.

    The majority of my immediate neighbours and myself pulled out early on, seeing the potential for a scam. One neighbour, however, decided to continue with the claim to see what happened, on the basis of assaurances that the claim would cost him nothing anyway.

    He has now received correspondence that indicates that he has been offered a settlement figure of 20,000+. BUT, he will receive none of that, as the sum will go towards allegedly rectifying the initial improper installation and replacing it.

    The work would be done by a company, named by the solicitors, who have very poor reviews which, when coupled with the solicitors slice of the settlement award, swallows up the entire settlement award.

    HOWEVER, they go on to say that he would not be able to sell is house without getting the work done, and that the work will be done at no cost to hm, but a charge will be placed on the home for the cost of the work, which must be repaid if the home is ever sold or inherited.

    This sounds like a new twist on old scams to me for the following reasons.

    1. If the settlement was compensation for the reduction in value to his home, whi is he not being given the option of taking the money and making his own arrangements.

    2. The original claim was on the basis of the property being unsuitable for CWI. Yet the estimate for the work includes 6000 for putting in new CWI. Why put in CWI to a property that you know is not suitable.

    3. If he was really not able to sell his house without having the work done, how have other houses in the street, which also had CWI installed, been successfully sold?

    4. My own suspicion is that the solicitors have got into bed with a disreputabe builders, who are trying to get home owners to take out a loan to pay for work to be done at hugely inflated costs, which at some point will have to be paid back and this is not a genuine settlement at all.
Page 1
    • Furts
    • By Furts 8th May 18, 11:36 AM
    • 4,450 Posts
    • 2,887 Thanks
    Furts
    • #2
    • 8th May 18, 11:36 AM
    • #2
    • 8th May 18, 11:36 AM
    There is no reduction in house value because of CWI. This is because millions of homes have CWI and perhaps not one of these has been correctly surveyed, correctly installed and correctly maintained. Which means the house sale price, in effect, recognises that the CWI house is an average house, built and maintained to average standards just like any other house. Put matters another way - should my home be "devalued" because it has CWI. Likewise my neighbours houses? The answer is no because nobody cares about this. Our homes will sell for whatever market conditions dictate they are worth and CWI does not come into this.

    Looking at your home and your street your argument is flawed. Every home should receive an individual assessment on suitability for CWI. This can be different to those along the street, and it has nothing to do with what is built along that street.

    CWI is a complex area and it seems to be a growth area for scams. Here it is difficult to have much compassion because those getting sucked in are being drawn into the "compo" culture which exists today. When CWI was installed home owners wanted something for nothing. Now it is claimed to be going wrong they again want something for nothing, namely compo.
    • stator
    • By stator 9th May 18, 10:58 AM
    • 6,601 Posts
    • 4,441 Thanks
    stator
    • #3
    • 9th May 18, 10:58 AM
    • #3
    • 9th May 18, 10:58 AM
    Sounds like a complete scam.

    I had one of these knock on my door last year, told me some lies about a "government compensation scheme". I told him to jog on.

    Try and get the names of the companies and solicitors involved
    Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.
    • usefulmale
    • By usefulmale 9th May 18, 4:18 PM
    • 2,451 Posts
    • 4,509 Thanks
    usefulmale
    • #4
    • 9th May 18, 4:18 PM
    • #4
    • 9th May 18, 4:18 PM
    So, to summarize, work will be carried out that will only become payable upon selling the property.

    Its probably all just one company, with one desk for the 'solicitors', one for the 'installers' and an empty desk for 'complaints'
    Last edited by usefulmale; 09-05-2018 at 4:20 PM.
    • Furts
    • By Furts 9th May 18, 6:25 PM
    • 4,450 Posts
    • 2,887 Thanks
    Furts
    • #5
    • 9th May 18, 6:25 PM
    • #5
    • 9th May 18, 6:25 PM
    OP has made three posts on the forum, the second being last September when the question asked was about CWI claims companies being dubious. The responses given were is it was all a scam area. Consequently to post six months later saying people have been scammed is a statement of the obvious. It is simply telling forum folks what they already know. And what they have consistently been preaching.

    Then bounce matters around. With the warning from this forum did OP pressure their neighbour to withdraw from the scam? If not why not? Alternatively, if pressure was applied by OP then how can one feel sorry for the neighbour when good advice, given in good spirit, was rejected?

    There is no such thing as a free lunch. So when door to door sales folks go promising "compo" one has to be savvy and tell them "on yer bike".
    • Oscar111
    • By Oscar111 12th May 18, 12:25 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Oscar111
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 12:25 PM
    • #6
    • 12th May 18, 12:25 PM
    I have just signed up here today as this place seems to get the most hits when searching for cavity wall claims ....
    I!!!8217;ve been dealing with a couple of companies !!!8220;I won!!!8217;t name !!!8220;. ... just yet
    But feel I may have just dodged a bullet
    !!!8220;Or not!!!8221;
    They!!!8217;re practices and doing some due difference it!!!8217;s obvious I!!!8217;ve had a lucky escape
    I now have a feeling they will try and send me a bill for any work they have carried out on my behalf !!!8220;over phone!!!8221; and they have sent 2 representatives round to my house both were cancelled and both still turned up but never gained entry ...also to note I haven!!!8217;t signed anything
    Anyhow I!!!8217;ve done a bit of digging but I will wait a month or two to see if any bill arrives before telling this board what to me looks very suspicious
    Send me a bill if you dare
    • VfM4meplse
    • By VfM4meplse 14th May 18, 9:15 AM
    • 26,723 Posts
    • 56,877 Thanks
    VfM4meplse
    • #7
    • 14th May 18, 9:15 AM
    • #7
    • 14th May 18, 9:15 AM
    When CWI was installed home owners wanted something for nothing. Now it is claimed to be going wrong they again want something for nothing, namely compo.
    Originally posted by Furts
    To be fair, energy efficiency was something that was heavily pushed by the government and funded by taxpayers. People accepted the offer in good faith and did not expect a government-backed scheme to wreck their homes.
    Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!

    "No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio

    Hope is not a strategy ...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...If in doubt, don't pull out... I love chaz-ing!
    • Furts
    • By Furts 14th May 18, 10:37 AM
    • 4,450 Posts
    • 2,887 Thanks
    Furts
    • #8
    • 14th May 18, 10:37 AM
    • #8
    • 14th May 18, 10:37 AM
    To be fair, energy efficiency was something that was heavily pushed by the government and funded by taxpayers. People accepted the offer in good faith and did not expect a government-backed scheme to wreck their homes.
    Originally posted by VfM4meplse
    Sort of so I go perhaps 50% with you. The reality was because it was free probably nobody did any due diligence on who was door to door knocking, nor who was installing or nor even who their contract was with. But all this area was witheld, or fogged over, anyway because the CWI industry was stuffed full of rogue characters and rogue companies. This meant that even when due diligence was applied there was no guarantee the right answers would crop up.

    But the fact remains almost no consumers did what they should have done. I tried here with best intentions and my installation failed because I was up against some absolute shysters so I know what it is all about.
    • garrysibbald
    • By garrysibbald 22nd May 18, 7:22 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    garrysibbald
    • #9
    • 22nd May 18, 7:22 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd May 18, 7:22 PM
    As a repointing company, I would say that over 90% of the damp issues we see have been caused by CWI getting wet.
    However, it would be unfair to immediately blame CWI installers, particularly where the CWI may have been installed a considerable time ago as the property may well have been in a sound condition then but has since had maintenance tasks overlooked which has resulted in it getting wet.
    My simple advice would be to check roof, soffit's, fascia's, brickwork and pointing are all in good nick as it's a lot cheaper keeping CWI dry than rectifying damp issues when it gets wet!
    • Furts
    • By Furts 22nd May 18, 7:53 PM
    • 4,450 Posts
    • 2,887 Thanks
    Furts
    As a repointing company, I would say that over 90% of the damp issues we see have been caused by CWI getting wet.
    However, it would be unfair to immediately blame CWI installers, particularly where the CWI may have been installed a considerable time ago as the property may well have been in a sound condition then but has since had maintenance tasks overlooked which has resulted in it getting wet.
    My simple advice would be to check roof, soffit's, fascia's, brickwork and pointing are all in good nick as it's a lot cheaper keeping CWI dry than rectifying damp issues when it gets wet!
    Originally posted by garrysibbald
    I second this 100%. There is a "but", unfortunately. Consumers, in general, have been woeful in doing due diligence before installing CWI. Checking, repairing, and making ready their homes to receive CWI came even further down the list of "must does". To then adopt the mindset that all cracks in render, all brickwork pointing and jointing and a multitude of other items must be carefully monitored and maintained for the next 25 years of the CIGA Guarantee is expecting the impossible. One has to be realistic here - it just ain't going to happen. Indeed, perhaps close to zero percent of consumers give any consideration to CWI failures being caused as a result of their own ineptitude.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

158Posts Today

1,227Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Watching Theresa May... seriously would anyone in their right mind truly want her job right now!

  • RT @thecheekypostie: @MartinSLewis Thanks to this, I have just skim read it. To those in Scotland - on page 548, Dounreay is mentioned by n?

  • Today's twitter poll: The 585 page draft agreement of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU has been published. A? https://t.co/8YLkPyzqYM

  • Follow Martin