House insurance claim and structural problems
Discussion
So we bought a house last year, on the homebuyers survey it flagged allsorts of nasties, potencial subsidence, cracks and movement, he said he couldnt provide a valuation and reccomended a structual engineers advice.
After the structual engineers visit he explicity said no subsidence and no signs of ongoing movement, the only movement is from ground slab settlement and all cracks just required raking out and redecorating.
He also mentioned and photographed a very faint crack in the cement on a back wall between bricks and said no signs of structual distress and would require repointing works.
We then got a valuation, mortgage approved and moved in, it was our dream house in a dream area.
Fast forward a few months after moving in and us getting a proper look at the property which we hadnt since the initial viewing and hadnt seen it after the homebuyers survey or the structual engineers report.
I noticed the things the original survey had pointed out, some door frames very out if square and obvious signs of movement, i trusted the structual engineers advice but was concerned looking at the extent of the movement.
I said to the Mrs that prior to decorating it may be worth getting a 2nd opinion rather than getting everything plastered anf painted and having to re do it all again.
The 2nd engineer visited and basicaly advised that the movement wasnt ground slab settlement but was due to the floor joists on the 1st floor being inadequate for the weight of the block wall built on them and that 3 joists under the wall would need "sistering" and seating in a supporting wall next to the existing joists. i'm somewhat handy so annoying as it was, thought i'd be able to do it myself.
We were expecting our 3rd child so wanted to wait until she was born before tearing the house apart so sat on it for a few months before getting started.
After lifting up the floorboards, it turns out that the joists arent sat on a supporting wall and that the wall isnt supporting anything and that the joists are fixed to a wall plate which is floating above the wall and fixed to joists either side of the staircase.
Far bigger job than i was willing to take on fixing.
So i called back structual engineer #1 who looked at the setup and basicly denied what was obviously infront of him, made some promises to go and speak to his insurance and engineer #2. A week later i phoned him and asked what everyone had said, he said he spoke to his insurance and they told him not to speak to us any further, structual engineer #2 wanted a further £500 to look again and give a report, we already paid this for his first visit so was relectant to pay again so went away and spoke to solicitors.
We spoke to 2 solicitors that wanted aprox 5k to review all the information and decide if the case was worth us pursuing, we dont have that kind of money sat around and one of the solicitor's suggested checking if we had legal cover on our insurance policy as they may pursue the engineer on our behalf.
We swapped the home insurance over the day after we moved in and upgraded the policy to include legal cover purely by chance, the policy on our old house apparently didnt have legal cover. After checking with the insurance the fact that the policy that was in place when we made our contract with engineer #1 didnt include legal cover means we arent covered, even though we hadnt even bought or moved into the house at the point and when we dod the policy was changed we werent covered.
So i though maybe we can claim off the current policy then for the repairs and see if they would then either rectify or pursue engineer #1.
This is where my concerns start, caught up in moving abd swapping insurance, my partner ticked no when asked if the house had any obvious cracks in walls specifically outside walls, we thought the fact we had a structual engineers appraisel saying the house was fjne meant they were irrelevant and that we would be redecorating like he suggested meaning there wouldnt be cracks.
In the process of claiming they have just sent us lots of snippets of both the homebuyers report and engineer #1 reports showing cracks and aslkng why we didnt disclose them when asked. in all honestly at the poimt of moving into a house that had just had a full emgineers appraisel amd good bill of health we didnt give it a 2md thought, we certainly werent trying to deceive anyone as there was nothing to gain or loose, the house was sound (to the best of our knowledge at that time)
We have responded by saying the emginnwr had said they were superficial and only reauired redecorating and that we planned to then attached all the reports.
We're cooked arent we? I assume they will not only refuse the claim but also void the insurance because we have "lied" without meaning to or even giving it a second thought.
This could turn into a nightmare that not only doesnt help this situation but could haunt us forever when trying to take out insurance due to the "have you ever had insurance cancelled or declined" question.
What are your thoughts?
Be gentle its a tough time!
After the structual engineers visit he explicity said no subsidence and no signs of ongoing movement, the only movement is from ground slab settlement and all cracks just required raking out and redecorating.
He also mentioned and photographed a very faint crack in the cement on a back wall between bricks and said no signs of structual distress and would require repointing works.
We then got a valuation, mortgage approved and moved in, it was our dream house in a dream area.
Fast forward a few months after moving in and us getting a proper look at the property which we hadnt since the initial viewing and hadnt seen it after the homebuyers survey or the structual engineers report.
I noticed the things the original survey had pointed out, some door frames very out if square and obvious signs of movement, i trusted the structual engineers advice but was concerned looking at the extent of the movement.
I said to the Mrs that prior to decorating it may be worth getting a 2nd opinion rather than getting everything plastered anf painted and having to re do it all again.
The 2nd engineer visited and basicaly advised that the movement wasnt ground slab settlement but was due to the floor joists on the 1st floor being inadequate for the weight of the block wall built on them and that 3 joists under the wall would need "sistering" and seating in a supporting wall next to the existing joists. i'm somewhat handy so annoying as it was, thought i'd be able to do it myself.
We were expecting our 3rd child so wanted to wait until she was born before tearing the house apart so sat on it for a few months before getting started.
After lifting up the floorboards, it turns out that the joists arent sat on a supporting wall and that the wall isnt supporting anything and that the joists are fixed to a wall plate which is floating above the wall and fixed to joists either side of the staircase.
Far bigger job than i was willing to take on fixing.
So i called back structual engineer #1 who looked at the setup and basicly denied what was obviously infront of him, made some promises to go and speak to his insurance and engineer #2. A week later i phoned him and asked what everyone had said, he said he spoke to his insurance and they told him not to speak to us any further, structual engineer #2 wanted a further £500 to look again and give a report, we already paid this for his first visit so was relectant to pay again so went away and spoke to solicitors.
We spoke to 2 solicitors that wanted aprox 5k to review all the information and decide if the case was worth us pursuing, we dont have that kind of money sat around and one of the solicitor's suggested checking if we had legal cover on our insurance policy as they may pursue the engineer on our behalf.
We swapped the home insurance over the day after we moved in and upgraded the policy to include legal cover purely by chance, the policy on our old house apparently didnt have legal cover. After checking with the insurance the fact that the policy that was in place when we made our contract with engineer #1 didnt include legal cover means we arent covered, even though we hadnt even bought or moved into the house at the point and when we dod the policy was changed we werent covered.
So i though maybe we can claim off the current policy then for the repairs and see if they would then either rectify or pursue engineer #1.
This is where my concerns start, caught up in moving abd swapping insurance, my partner ticked no when asked if the house had any obvious cracks in walls specifically outside walls, we thought the fact we had a structual engineers appraisel saying the house was fjne meant they were irrelevant and that we would be redecorating like he suggested meaning there wouldnt be cracks.
In the process of claiming they have just sent us lots of snippets of both the homebuyers report and engineer #1 reports showing cracks and aslkng why we didnt disclose them when asked. in all honestly at the poimt of moving into a house that had just had a full emgineers appraisel amd good bill of health we didnt give it a 2md thought, we certainly werent trying to deceive anyone as there was nothing to gain or loose, the house was sound (to the best of our knowledge at that time)
We have responded by saying the emginnwr had said they were superficial and only reauired redecorating and that we planned to then attached all the reports.
We're cooked arent we? I assume they will not only refuse the claim but also void the insurance because we have "lied" without meaning to or even giving it a second thought.
This could turn into a nightmare that not only doesnt help this situation but could haunt us forever when trying to take out insurance due to the "have you ever had insurance cancelled or declined" question.
What are your thoughts?
Be gentle its a tough time!
Edited by Cakey_ on Friday 30th October 19:32
It will come down to the specifics of the questions and how they were answered.
You are not an expert. An expert has said it was fine.
It will also depend on the cracks. All houses even a brand new one will have some cracking on plasterboard as it dries out so there are cracks and there are cracks running up outside walls etc.
I would simply be truthful and see what happens. If they remove cover you can goto the ombudsman but I have used the ombudsman of various services ( legal / investment / insurance ) and lost each time.
You are not an expert. An expert has said it was fine.
It will also depend on the cracks. All houses even a brand new one will have some cracking on plasterboard as it dries out so there are cracks and there are cracks running up outside walls etc.
I would simply be truthful and see what happens. If they remove cover you can goto the ombudsman but I have used the ombudsman of various services ( legal / investment / insurance ) and lost each time.
Not an expert but I agree with your assessment- you have a significant problem where the insurance is concerned.
From the description you were asked if there are cracks in the outside walls, not are they significant or have they been assessed, there are cracks and you answered no and now they are the route of a claim so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the insurer refuses any claim related to them.
From the description you were asked if there are cracks in the outside walls, not are they significant or have they been assessed, there are cracks and you answered no and now they are the route of a claim so I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the insurer refuses any claim related to them.
Jamescrs said:
Not an expert but I agree with your assessment- you have a significant problem where the insurance is concerned.
From the description you were asked if there are cracks in the outside walls, not are they significant or have they been assessed, there are cracks and you answered no and now they are the route of a claim so I wouldn t be at all surprised if the insurer refuses any claim related to them.
They may also cease cover due to the incorrect statement or at the very least increase the premium in the light of new evidence.From the description you were asked if there are cracks in the outside walls, not are they significant or have they been assessed, there are cracks and you answered no and now they are the route of a claim so I wouldn t be at all surprised if the insurer refuses any claim related to them.
A few thoughts that may or may not be helpful.
You seem to be conflating a few things and I think it might help to separate them.
1. You have a potential insurance claim for remedial works. Your insurance policy may or may not cover this.
2. You have a potential claim for damages arising from incorrect professional assessment from an engineer. If your insurance policy in (1) didn't cover this then potentially this claim is also for the remedial works. You would presumably have behaved differently if they had advised you correctly, including perhaps getting correct insurance or paying less for the house, and the damages are whatever you have lost as a result.
3. You need a means by which to pursue (1) and/or (2), which might be your insurance, legal cover, a solicitor, or doing it yourself.
Not a lawyer but a lot of practical law outcomes reside in how a reasonable person would have behaved, what they should have known, etc. Jeremy's advice is good.
Practical question: do you have legal cover via anything else, like a trade union?
You seem to be conflating a few things and I think it might help to separate them.
1. You have a potential insurance claim for remedial works. Your insurance policy may or may not cover this.
2. You have a potential claim for damages arising from incorrect professional assessment from an engineer. If your insurance policy in (1) didn't cover this then potentially this claim is also for the remedial works. You would presumably have behaved differently if they had advised you correctly, including perhaps getting correct insurance or paying less for the house, and the damages are whatever you have lost as a result.
3. You need a means by which to pursue (1) and/or (2), which might be your insurance, legal cover, a solicitor, or doing it yourself.
Not a lawyer but a lot of practical law outcomes reside in how a reasonable person would have behaved, what they should have known, etc. Jeremy's advice is good.
Practical question: do you have legal cover via anything else, like a trade union?
Edited by trashbat on Saturday 31st October 08:20
Regardless of whether you filled in the questionnaire right, I don't think this is an insurable fix. Insurance covers events, and no event has occurred, you just bought a house that wasn't built very well.
I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
5lab said:
Regardless of whether you filled in the questionnaire right, I don't think this is an insurable fix. Insurance covers events, and no event has occurred, you just bought a house that wasn't built very well.
I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
It's a fair point, but you might argue the event is the manifestation of damage as a result of not being built very well. The damage would have to be emergent and recent though. Newly discovered at the very least.I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
trashbat said:
5lab said:
Regardless of whether you filled in the questionnaire right, I don't think this is an insurable fix. Insurance covers events, and no event has occurred, you just bought a house that wasn't built very well.
I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
It's a fair point, but you might argue the event is the manifestation of damage as a result of not being built very well. The damage would have to be emergent and recent though. Newly discovered at the very least.I recon you just have to pay to get it fixed and maybe throw an MCO claim at the first surveyor on your own
There’s no insurance claim to be had here only a negligence claim against the engineer.
If you don’t want to throw money at this, my first action would be to get a quote to fix the issues flagged by the surveyor. With knowledge of the potential value of the claim you can then assess how you want to proceed.
Where in the country are you, I can recommend a Building Surveyor who acts as an Expert Witness in negligence claims?
The point we are trying to argue is that structual engineer #1's report superveeded the survey.
The "emergence" of the problem is when structual engineer #2 said about it, prior to that we couldnt have reasonably known.
Infact we had a structural appraisal saying everything was fine and the house was sound, most other houses in the street don't have that.
The "emergence" of the problem is when structual engineer #2 said about it, prior to that we couldnt have reasonably known.
Infact we had a structural appraisal saying everything was fine and the house was sound, most other houses in the street don't have that.
Mike Legerwood said:
Could you ask the first structural engineer who is at fault for his insurers details and deal with them directly?
He may not have given them the correct facts about his incompetence/failings.
He has refused to share them, only asked them to contact us which as of yet they havent if he has even asked.He may not have given them the correct facts about his incompetence/failings.
Edited by Mike Legerwood on Saturday 31st October 09:39
He has since retired and couldnt seem any less intrested.
Cakey_ said:
The point we are trying to argue is that structual engineer #1's report superveeded the survey.
The "emergence" of the problem is when structual engineer #2 said about it, prior to that we couldnt have reasonably known.
Infact we had a structural appraisal saying everything was fine and the house was sound, most other houses in the street don't have that.
That s not the case, you had a survey saying there were issues. You then got an engineer to say the issues flagged by the surveyor were not issues. You bought the house. Then you got a 2nd engineer to say the first was wrong and the issues flagged in the survey were issues. As such they were present at purchase. The "emergence" of the problem is when structual engineer #2 said about it, prior to that we couldnt have reasonably known.
Infact we had a structural appraisal saying everything was fine and the house was sound, most other houses in the street don't have that.
You need to make a claim against the 1st engineer. First, you need to notify your mortgage company and the Surveyor. Then you need to write to the 1st engineer (recorded delivery) and put them on notice that you are preparing a claim against them for negligence and demand details of their insurer. They will be under a contractual obligation to notify their insurer which will start the ball rolling. I d also be contacting the professional body of the 1st engineer and ask their advice.
Everything needs to be in writing, stop phoning people.
Edited by JQ on Saturday 31st October 12:16
Something that I can't see mentioned in any of the earlier responses; what age is the house? Is it the same design as other houses nearby, and if so do they have the same layout?
If it has had structural alterations these should have gone through BCO and you should find the plans on your local authority building control portal. If the house has not been altered and has these deficiencies then that's a latent defect (NOT a warranty issue) and the original builder should be held to account for rectifying it (and the other houses). Seems unlikely they would make such a cock up though!
It is entirely possible that the people you bought from have done some unsanctioned and incompetent knocking about of the house, in which case you could try asking them to pay to fix the original problems. If the house is quite old that might be difficult to prove, but Zoopla certainly used to show old property listings so you could look there and work out if the house has been knocked about under their ownership.
If it has had structural alterations these should have gone through BCO and you should find the plans on your local authority building control portal. If the house has not been altered and has these deficiencies then that's a latent defect (NOT a warranty issue) and the original builder should be held to account for rectifying it (and the other houses). Seems unlikely they would make such a cock up though!
It is entirely possible that the people you bought from have done some unsanctioned and incompetent knocking about of the house, in which case you could try asking them to pay to fix the original problems. If the house is quite old that might be difficult to prove, but Zoopla certainly used to show old property listings so you could look there and work out if the house has been knocked about under their ownership.
Easternlight said:
Do you have an idea of the cost to put it right?
If the legal cost get carried away it could be better to just pay to put it right.
This is the correct answer.If the legal cost get carried away it could be better to just pay to put it right.
Pay to put it right.
Move on.
Enjoy your home & family.
Or spend a lot of time (probably 10 years) and money (probably £50,000) arguing with the structural engineers and your legal expenses insurance company.
OIC said:
Easternlight said:
Do you have an idea of the cost to put it right?
If the legal cost get carried away it could be better to just pay to put it right.
This is the correct answer.If the legal cost get carried away it could be better to just pay to put it right.
Pay to put it right.
Move on.
Enjoy your home & family.
Or spend a lot of time (probably 10 years) and money (probably £50,000) arguing with the structural engineers and your legal expenses insurance company.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff