By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

A Home Insurance Question

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
ted hughes07/01/2017 19:09:07
avatar
466 forum posts

Not about modeling, but there is a lot of knowledge on this forum.

I'm having my house refurbed following a fire.

The conservatory was completely destroyed.

The builders have noticed the original conservatory base was un-suitable as it had inadequate damp-proofing. The base will need to be broken up and rebuilt.

The insurance company have said it is not their problem as was pre-existing.

The builders are saying it is pointless them putting a new conservatory on the existing base.

I don't have the £5k to build a new base.

How will the impasse be resolved, do you think?

Edited By ted hughes on 07/01/2017 19:09:42

onetenor07/01/2017 19:22:08
avatar
1901 forum posts

Suggest an injection DPC maybe

Piers Bowlan07/01/2017 19:34:19
avatar
2118 forum posts
53 photos

I am sorry to hear about your fire Ted, very distressing and something I fear as my house is mostly wood!

Have you considered getting a surveyor or structural engineer in rather than take your builders word for it. Is the base sound even if it does need a DPC. Might be possible to put a DPC in without starting from scratch if you see what I mean. How many square metres are we talking about?

kc07/01/2017 19:43:00
6411 forum posts
173 photos

If it wasn't a problem before why should it be in future?

5000 pounds seems huge. Get estimates for that item alone from other relaible ( small ) builders.

cymaz07/01/2017 19:47:11
avatar
9172 forum posts
1179 photos

Take it to the insurance ombudsman?? You might argue that if they are willing to pay for the conservatory it must be built to building regulations. They might wriggle but just don't take "no" for an answer.

I had a sewer drain subside. With only an internal camera inspection ( which showed nothing- I was there at the time and looked at the pictures myself), the insurance company told me that it was laid incorrectly and they wouldn't pay. It was not until I produced the building certificate issued by the council building control department that proved the drain was installed properly they paid up.

Tenancity is your friend.

ben goodfellow 107/01/2017 19:47:47
avatar
1069 forum posts
41 photos

put a dpc on top of the slab which is already there , then kingspan /cellotex on top ....... builders are very good at making easy jobs sound hard and expensive ....

Former Member07/01/2017 20:27:35

[This posting has been removed]

ted hughes07/01/2017 20:30:11
avatar
466 forum posts

I should have said originally, I want the existing slab broken up, as I want an extension rather than a conservatory and some drainage needs moving.

Also, don't feel sad for me- we were preparing to redo the bathroom and kitchen, now the builders a doing a beautiful job of both, far better than we could have afforded!

I just wondered what the outcome will be- will the insurers stand firm and possibly allow a sub-standard base be used?

ted hughes07/01/2017 20:33:13
avatar
466 forum posts

Percy, everyone has got wind of this being an insurance job- surveyors, loss adjuster, it's a bit of a farce. The more they all squeeze out, the more will be spent on me, as well.

I don't mind, as I say, I'm having some great work done!

Former Member07/01/2017 20:39:45

[This posting has been removed]

Piers Bowlan07/01/2017 20:42:35
avatar
2118 forum posts
53 photos

I can't see the insurance company paying to move drains just because you have the opportunity to build an extension. As far as the base is concerned it probably depends on how good at negotiation you are, or how tenacious.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/01/2017 20:46:56

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/01/2017 20:54:42

Allan Bennett07/01/2017 21:11:27
1648 forum posts
49 photos
Posted by ted hughes on 07/01/2017 20:30:11:

I should have said originally, I want the existing slab broken up, as I want an extension rather than a conservatory and some drainage needs moving.

....

It is my understanding that the insurers are only obliged to pay you to get back to where you were before the fire. When your conservatory was originally built it possibly didn't have to comply with most building regs because it was deemed to be a temporary structure, not for permanent habitation. I believe that's still the situation for conservatories less than a certain size so, to upgrade the slab to a suitable standard for a permanent extension instead of a conservatory is not the insurer's problem.

ben goodfellow 107/01/2017 21:31:14
avatar
1069 forum posts
41 photos

no planning or BR , under 30sqm . 70% glass , independant heating or trvs. external grade doors between it and house and over a meter from a boundary , and few other rules . thats what it was .. but planning has laxed a little bit of late..... i think you are pushing it a bit expecting them to pay for an extension . if you dont full fill all the regs for no planning or br , you are lucky there paying anything at all

Former Member07/01/2017 22:12:59

[This posting has been removed]

ted hughes07/01/2017 22:30:42
avatar
466 forum posts
Posted by Piers Bowlan on 07/01/2017 20:42:35:

I can't see the insurance company paying to move drains just because you have the opportunity to build an extension. As far as the base is concerned it probably depends on how good at negotiation you are, or how tenacious.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/01/2017 20:46:56

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/01/2017 20:54:42

The question is, they have to restore us to the position we were before the fire,i.e. with a conservatory.

Everyone agrees the existing slab is sub-standard either for a conservatory or an extension (the fact I want it broken up is a bit immaterial).

Since, in the restoration work, this substandard base is found, should the insurance company say to the builders: it is not our problem, rebuilt an expensive conservatory on a sub-standard base which will give problems.

Or will they say: okay, it is a problem, but we will rectify it to restore the insurees to their original position.

Or will they say: the insurees must find the money themselves for the refurb to proceed.

I will know the answer in a week or so, I just thought it interesting and wanted opinions, as it might end up costing me several thousands.

I will post the end result.

Martin Harris07/01/2017 23:32:26
avatar
9257 forum posts
245 photos

It seems to me that unless the floor was damaged by the fire or the rectification work that the insurance company are under no obligation to improve it. If you choose to have the conservatory rebuilt on the existing base then it is your decision - subsequent structural failings in the new conservatory proved to be due to the inadequate base would not be likely to be covered by your buildings insurance - you were aware of its inadequacy.

The only argument that I can see having any success is if you can get the insurer to admit that they would have covered damage to the conservatory caused by the base failing and re-laid it as part of any repairs. If so, would failure of the damp proofing have been considered to be caused by subsidence or heave? I'd suggest that's somewhere that you don't want to go!

Edited By Martin Harris on 07/01/2017 23:34:30

Mannyroad07/01/2017 23:32:40
avatar
185 forum posts
81 photos
Posted by ben goodfellow 1 on 07/01/2017 21:31:14:

no planning or BR , under 30sqm . 70% glass , independant heating or trvs. external grade doors between it and house and over a meter from a boundary , and few other rules . thats what it was .. but planning has laxed a little bit of late..

Ted, Percy Verance says it pretty much as it is. As the original conservatory probably didn't need building regs, presumably being under 30sqm, seperated from the living areas, etc etc. Many conservatories fall outside the regs and in these cases builders often simply build cheap, and ignore good practice. They often just build the new dwarf walls and pour a new slab directly over the original flags/conc that was once the patio etc. The only dpc that goes in is the one in the walls, not beneath the slab. Not good, but no-ones inspecting because its outside the regs. and the customer often just wants it doing as cheap as possible.

Once plans change and an extension is being considered, which does need building regs, then these issues cause problems. However, that's not the responsibility of your insurance company, as I'm sure you realise, who are contractually only obliged to reinstate to the point immediately pre-fire; less if they have a contractual reason to avoid paying out.. Be careful that your insurance policy doesn't contain contractual small print that releases the insurers from paying out if you don't want to reinstate back to the originally insured development, i.e the conservatory. I wouldn't put it past any insurer to use such contractual clauses to avoid paying out. I'm sure it won't be the case but I'd be wary of changing things until you know for sure, unless you're happy picking up the entire bill.

cymaz08/01/2017 04:42:14
avatar
9172 forum posts
1179 photos
Posted by ted hughes on 07/01/2017 20:30:11:

I should have said originally, I want the existing slab broken up, as I want an extension rather than a conservatory and some drainage needs moving.

Also, don't feel sad for me- we were preparing to redo the bathroom and kitchen, now the builders a doing a beautiful job of both, far better than we could have afforded!

I just wondered what the outcome will be- will the insurers stand firm and possibly allow a sub-standard base be used?

Sorry Ted, looks like the cheque book will have to come out.

Former Member08/01/2017 08:06:58

[This posting has been removed]

Martin Harris08/01/2017 11:55:56
avatar
9257 forum posts
245 photos

If it's any encouragement, it doesn't always work against the insured though. Some years ago, we erected a new garage for our club tractor and equipment which came with a "domestic" roller shutter door. Members of the less law abiding side of society decided they would like to remove some of our equipment and broke in through the roller shutter. We submitted an insurance claim, getting quotes for straight replacement and an industrial standard version at around twice the cost, expressing a preference to upgrade it - expecting to pay the difference. To our surprise and delight, the insurer said to go ahead and paid the whole cost (minus normal excess) of the claim. We can only think that they saw a benefit to themselves if the door was less vulnerable?

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Support Our Partners
electricwingman 2017
Sussex Model Centre
CML
Slec
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E!