Home subsidence

S

salaried

Registered User
Messages
340
hello,i am a first time poster ,i hope somebody can help me on this,i have water escape on my property as verified by an engineer and subsidence specialist company,we were also told we had subsidence but the insurance companies accessor told us not only do we not have subsidence but the fact we are now aware of water escape it is up to us to get the problem sorted at our own expense,or they will not cover us for subsidence in the future,i cannot understand how we do not have subsidence when 10 out of 12 houses on our block have been underpinned,and the 11th house which is attached to ours is being done in the next few weeks ,our house is pebble dashed and we had the inside plastered in the past 2- 3 years making it harder to see how bad some cracks are,but some are visible to me just not to the accessor,and the step outside our door has a bad enough crack going across it,i am at a loss if ,anybody has had a similar fight on their hands i would appreciate your input,thanks.
 
if you don't have subsidence cover, then you have no claim. It is up to you to either fix the problem or let house collapse.
 
salaried
The accessor works for the insurance company not you. You can engage your own accessor to act on your behalf. Also ask your neighbours how they approached the problem. 11 out of 12 houses underpinned...thats a very high percentage. You also have professional surveys to back up your claim. Don't be put off by the insurance company after all we are not talking about the repair of a broken window here.

Ravima I don't understand your comment about the OP not having subsidence cover?
 
Was the insurance company's assessor an employee of the company, i.e. a claims inspector, or a member of one of the loss adjusting firms? Although supposed to act independently loss adjusters fees are paid by the insurance company and some therefore tend to interpret things more to the benefit of the insurer than the policyholder.

If the 'subsidence specialists' have the appropriate credentials, have given you a written report and are prepared to stand by their assertion that the property has been damaged by subsidence then tell your insurer to deal with the claim within the terms of your policy or, failing to do so will leave you no option other than to take the matter up with solicitor/insurance ombudsman.

The fact that so many houses in the area have had to be underpinned is prima facie evidence that subsidence has caused the damage to your property. I have no doubt that the insurers will arrange for a consulting engineer to examine the damage.
 
ANNE1 - OP said that insurance company told him/her that s/he did not have subsidence. I was interpreting this that s/he did not have subsidence INSURANCE cover. Maybe I am wrong in this interpretation.
 
If the OP has demonstrated to the Loss Adjuster that there is a direct relationship between an escape of water at the property and movement and subsequent damage of the house then, on the basis that there is no policy exclusion and no restriction in cover, the Loss Adjuster should and would be advising the Insurers that a policy liability arises and payment is warranted.

If this has not happened on this occasion, then there is a reason as to why the Loss Adjuster is not instructing insurers to accept liability. It is of no relevance whatsoever that other houses in the area have had problems. Each claim is treated on its merits and insurers will not accept that because there is a problem in the area, that this property automatically has the same problem. Also, in my professional experience, cracks from subsidence are plain to see, and are very obvious. I would be concerned that the Adjuster seems to have a problem seeing them. Either he/she chose not to see them ( which i would find extraordinary), or they are not readily identifiable.

If the OP has identified and proved that there is a clear connection between an escape of water and damage to the property, then i would suggest that the OP ask for the matter to be signed off by insurers and instruct that the case be referred to the insurance ombudsman for a ruling.

I would also advise that these types of claims are very difficult from both sides. It is often the case that extensive investigations need to be carried out, including cctv surveys of drains, probe holes to expose leaking pipes and allow examination of foundations, engineering analysis of the loadbearing capacity of the subsoil beneath the foundations to name but a few. It is not sufficient from insurers perspective for a "subsidence expert" to say that this should be covered by a policy, without proving that this is the case( obviously i don't know if this in the case in this matter, but i do believe that if the case had been proven, insurers would be paying this claim). Also, the policyholder has a duty to maintain their property, otherwise, insurers will place restrictions on cover or withdraw cover completely.
 
As 11 out of 12 houses requiring underpinning are in the same block, not just in the 'area' it appears logical that op's house is subject to the same problem if new cracks are appearing. If the escape of water within the terms of the policy is the cause of the subsidence then op would be expected to have cover regardles of whether there is subsidence cover or not. However, the onus is on the imsured to substantiate the cause and extent of his/her loss.

'Subsidence specialist' is not a qualification I have previously come across and that is why I referred to the 'proper credentials' i.e. consulting engineers with relevant expertise, and a full report, after investigation, being submitted. The insurers will not accept a report from contractors who specialise in rectification of this type of problem.

I am half suspecting that the insurer sent out a claims inspector rather than a loss adjuster in this instance. I feel a loss adjuster would have been a little more forthcoming on what the op would need to do to substantiate a claim without committing the insurer to any liability.

I know from experience that insurers hate 'subsidence' claims for a number of reasons and resolution is normally a protracted process as a substantial amount of investigation has to be carried out.

There is obviously a history in this block which may well obviate the amount of investigation that would need to be carried out. I suggest you talk to your neighbours and see if the same engineer was involved in a number of cases which might simplify matters.

It would be interesting to know if your insurer was involved in any of the other 11 cases.
 
thank you very much for your input,i understand from your replies i should have been more specific ,first of all we have cover for subsidence,when i said a subsidence specialist ,what i meant was the same engineer that inspected some if not all of my neighbours houses,he sent correspondence saying we had water escape,when the loss adjuster came he showed me the damaged drains as we had to have holes dug out for the engineer previously,then to be told that now you are aware of the problem it is your problem and if i did not replace the drainage at my own expense i would not be covered for a claim for subsidence in the future,on threatening the ins co with legal action and demanding a copy of our policy we went from being told we were not covered for escape water to we were covered in under 5 minutes ove the phone, after we had all the relevant tests that claimsman mentioned,there are genuine cracks showing but what is annoying me is the fact my neighbour showed me around his house and mine actually looks worse than his and he is getting the work done and we are living next door ,i dont mean to sound flippant but if i bought my neighbours house and broke through to make a bigger house how could i have subsidence on one side and not on the other,by the way we have a different insurance co. than my neighbour,our engineer told us in the past week if we were to approach the ombudsman it would cost us serious money,is this true as it is something we are seriously thinking of doing,i really appreciate all your help so far ,you are all making more sense than the jibberish i have had thrown at me in the last few months,thanks .
 
There seems to be a lack of communication!!! If you have leaking pipes, the cost of repairing these is not necessarily covered by your policy,infact, it probably isnt.( the damage caused by the escape of water from the pipes is what is covered by the policy) It is important that these pipes are repaired asap as failure to do so may result in additional or indeed new damage. As previously outlined, as you are now aware of the damage to these pipes, you do have a duty to repair these even if it is at your own cost.

Reading your latest post, it does seem that insurers have accepted that you are covered for damage caused by an escape of water??? If this is the case and your engineer has demonstrated that there is a direct link between the escape of water and cracks to your house, i simply cannot understand why you are having a problem on your claim. Unless of course, your engineer is relying upon the fact that adjacent properties are damaged and has not fully demonstrated that there is a direct cause and effect.

Please be clear that it will not cost you a fortune to have the ombudsman consider your case. Infact it wont cost you a cent.It is simply a case of asking insurers to pass the file to the ombudsman who will make a ruling on the basis of the information available. You will not be charged for this. If your engineer has proven that a policy liability arises, then he/she should be more than happy to have the case go to the ombudsman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top