 Norwich Union.
Hello.
The following is a letter I sent in September.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XX/SEPT
Lord Sharman of Redlynch
Aviva Plc,
St Helens,
1 Undershaft,
London
EC3P £DQ
Dear Lord Sharman.
It is with much regret that I now find it necessary to address the following complaint to you as the Chairmain of Aviva, the parent company of Norwich Union Insurance.
I am the freeholder of the property, which consists of one semi-detached house divided into two flats. the house was built of brick faced random rubble in about 1880. i live in the ground floor flat. Mr X X XXXX is the leaseholder of the first floor flat, The building was built on a cut and fill site: my house is on the fill part of the site.
We the insured (policy No xxxxxxx) feel that we have cause to complain to you in respect of the way in which a number of subsidence claims have been dealt with. I have already addressed our complaint to the C E O of Norwich Union, but eventually to no avail. A claim for subsidence to the gable end wall was submitted in November 1990. Abby Builders carried out the work with W H Thomas and Partners as Engineers and Mclarens as chartered Loss adjusters; Mr Hyde being the person representing Mclarens. there was a dispute between Mr Hyde on the one hand and the Builders and Engineer on the other as to whether the front elevation should have been rebuilt at the same time. It was the Engineer and Builders contention that it should have been. however, since then it is my contention that the gable end is subsiding again. It is about 100 millimeters out of the vertical, it leans out by this amount, and cracks have appeard on the inside upstairs. Vertical cracks in the adjacent wall and parallel cracks in the ceiling. The ceiling has been in situe for more than 40 years, therefore the cracks can not be put down to the usual shinkage that can happen in a new ceiling. The gable end wall was rebuilt of the wrong materials. Metric common bicks were used ( common bricks should only be used inside or where a wall is to be rendered) 9" imperial facing bricks should have been used. The use of metric bricks makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to tie the two walls in together, particularly as the adjacent walls are basically rubble. The whole thing stands out like a sore thumb.
The second subsidence occurred in 2001. this involved, what is referred to as an annex to the property; that part of the house that is attached to the rear of the main part of the house. This was with by under pinning the exterior wall and the wall at right angles to it. This internal wall forms part of the chimney. Scimitar Constuction Ltd carried out this work. Bradley Associates were the Engineers and the loss adjusters was Crawfords. Mr Steven Copstick being Crawfords represenmtative. The work carried out by Scimitar was of a very high standard and highlighted the poor quality of the work that had been carried out on the gable end wall. However, there is is a problem, which still exist about the floor not being properly done.
In October 2003 yet another claim was submitted for subsidence. This time to the kitchen extention to the annex and to subsidence damage to the party wall. Cunningham Lindsey Bristol was appointed as Project Managers Mr.Adrian Cook being their representative. In the light of experience regarding the 1991 occurence we decided to engage an Engineer. Thus Mr Peter Chapman, a Consulting Civil and Structural Engineer was engaged. After some considerable time in which nothing happened I made a complaint to the CEO of Norwich Union expressing our disatisfaction with Cunningham Linsey. A Mr Michael Boyes, Cunningham Lindsey's Area Engineering Manager came to the house to have discussions with myself and Mr Peter Chapman. Mr Boyes did not think it was apropriate to underpin the party wall but suggested that Helli Bars were used instead. He also decided thet the cracks over the rear door and the inner door were to be filled with resin before replastering, the ceiling and coving were to be replaced. A schedual of work was drawn up for the work to be carried out . Cunningham Lindsey appointed Uplands Retail Limited to carry out the work. None of the work was carried out as per the schedual. Instead of employing Heli Bars on the party wall Uplands used chicken wire held in place by three metal straps. Chicken wire is no subsitute for underpinning. No resin was injected into the cracks in the walls in the kitchen and nothing was done to the ceiling and coving. No redecoration was carried out in the kitchen or in the area of the work done to the party wall. The cracks in the party wall is a classic example of where the annex of a victorian house is coming away from the main body of the house. There are several other areas of damage that also indicat this.
When the claim for susidence was submitted in 2001 damage to the front elevation was my main concern. This is the wall that was the subject of dispute in 1990. I insited that Mr Boyes took a fresh look at it and it was agreed that a claim for water damage caused by the ingrees of water should be submitted. This was done and was accepted. Claims for ingrees of water are dealt with by Cunningham Lindsey's Cardiff office. A Mr Locke came to asses the damage. he was stongly of the oppinion that the ingrees of water was the result of susidence, something that I have claimed from the start. Mr Locke said that he would return to his office and deal with things there. The only thing that has happened is the Cardiff office has phoned me to enquire if the work has been completed. It has not even started. This has left me with a room that is uninhabitable.
In July 2006 I received a letter from Mr Michael Boyes saying that he understood that it was my late wife who was the freeholder and that I had no interest in the property in 1990. This is true, but ,it ignores the fact that Mr XXXX did and still does have an interest. As I am the freeholder it is incumbent upon me to press this matter.
It is hope that it will not be necessary for me as a shareholder in Aviva to raise this matter with you at an annual general meeting of the company. Also I am aware of the fact that I must exhaust all avenues with the company before referring the matter to the Financial Services Ombudsman. It is also hoped that it will not be necessary for me to take the matter up with the Comsumer association, of which I am a member. I would also appreciate it if you would note that I spent three years at university studying Construction and Design. I say this as I have formed the distinct impression that assumed ignorance is being taken advantage of.
It is surely only right that these matters are dealt with properly and that the faults are put right. as things stand the property is blighted and the reason for this is the consistent failure of your company to act in a fair and equitable manner.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXX
CC file
This was sent in September. Result ---- NOTHING --- not a squeak
Any comments welcome
Incidently Michael Boyes is wrong about my not having any interest in 1990. See Berwick V Berwick HL 1966
Last edited by BADGER 69; 4th December 2007 at 18:22.
| 
