Jump to content

DESAMAX

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi everyone we had a escape of water claim settled by L V insurance company. All was well until about 6 months later we noticed cracks appeared in our lounge extension walls. We believed this was caused by the contractor using kango or pumatic equipment to raise the damaged wooden flooring. The contractor cited thermal movement, our surveyor reported the movement was caused due to the stress of the works. The insurance co advise us to start a new subsidence claim, they said if the damage was proven to be related to our previous claim it would be dealt with under that. We had a video call with the loss adjusters surveyor who was of the opinion “that the damage may be attributable to the original escape of water which you have recently had resolved. Insofar as the water may have affected the soils underlying the foundations to the rear elevation wall. However, this will only be able to be confirmed upon receipt of the information from the site investigations” The site investigation (cutting out part of the flooring 60x60cm and digging down about 1m) the loss adjustors surveyor confirmed his theory that the movement was caused by the escape of water not being fully dried out under the extension subfloor where it had seeped to causing the cracks to appear because of slight movement. The cracks have stayed the same since appearing (no further movement) According to the loss adjusters surveyor the area has apparently now dried out. The insurance want us to pay the excess and deal with this as a new subsidence claim, we are not happy with this as they had previously dried out the floors before reinstatement. They also guaranteed the works for 2years. We feel this damaged should come under the previous claim and guarantee and not be classed as subsidence, or indeed should we be liable to make a further claim and pay the excess. We only wanted the walls repaired under guarantee, but they chose to cut and lift our new floor. There is no evidence whatsoever of subsidence, the escape of water cause the movement in the loss adjusters experts opinion, our surveyor disputes this. I hope this makes sense. Any advice of how to deal with this would be greatly appreciated. TIA My comments are in Red Loss adjusters first letter after video call.......... Further to my recent inspection, I am writing to summarise my view on the cause of damage and confirm the next step in dealing with your claim. 1. Assess We are now managing this phase 2. Mitigation We will manage this phase 3. Repair We, or you, will manage this phase On the basis of our recent video survey, I am of the opinion that the damage may be attributable to the original escape of water which you have recently had resolved. Insofar as the water may have affected the soils underlying the foundations to the rear elevation wall. However, this will only be able to be confirmed upon receipt of the information from the site investigations What happens next? The ground investigations will be carried out by **** who will make contact in the next few days to make the necessary arrangements. Accepting the claim Once all of the investigations have been carried out and the results received, I will review the information and make a decision about the precise cause of damage. We will then send you a further report confirming this and outlining the future direction of your claim. A claim accepted under the subsidence section of your policy will be subject to an excess payment of £1,000.00. Continuation / 2 Repairing the property 1. Assess We will manage this phase 2. Mitigation & Monitoring We will manage this phase 3. Repair We, or you, will manage this phase If the claim is accepted and once we are satisfied that the repairs may proceed, we will instruct, a sister company, to administer the remedial works to your property. will appoint a contractor approved by your insurer. Alternatively, you may wish to utilise your preferred contractor or consider a cash settlement, subject to your insurer’s agreement. It is not anticipated that the damage or the repairs will make the property unsuitable for living in. Consequently you should not need to vacate the property during the claim. To clarify, we do not consider a valid claim for alternative accommodation should arise in the circumstances. However, please inform us immediately if the situation changes so we can provide you with guidance and assistance. Payment of your policy excess Under the subsidence section of your policy you are required to pay an excess of £1,000.00 as part of an accepted claim. This will be required prior to repairs commencing. Here to help We trust that the information given to you during the visit along with this letter and the accompanying notes has provided a helpful overview of how the claim is now likely to progress.. Engineers report...... INSURANCE CLAIM CONCERNING SUSPECTED SUBSIDENCE ENGINEERING APPRAISAL REPORT This report is prepared on behalf of ** for the purpose of investigating a claim for subsidence. It is not intended to cover any other aspect of structural inadequacy or building defect that may otherwise have been in existence at the time of inspection. Date: Continuation / 2 Our Ref: @&&& INTRODUCTION The technical aspects of this claim are being overseen by our Building Consultant in accordance with our Project Managed Service. 1.1. Description of building The main property is a Semi detached house constructed circa 1930 in a residential estate location on a plot that is considered generally to be level. The property also has a single storey rear extension to the kitchen which is the subject of the claim. 1.2. Discovery of damage The policyholder and homeowner, first discovered the damage in September/october2021.approvimately 3 months after the completion of the renovation works for an escape of water claim cracks were noted to the walls and window reveals in the extension. As soon as the cracks were noticed a surveyor was engaged to determine the cause. Upon attending the surveyor suggested that insurers were contacted for potential subsidence. (Not correct no surveyor attended or advise to make a subsidence claim) 1.3. Nature and extent of damage Description and Mechanism: The main area of damage is to the rear extension. This pattern of cracking indicates a mechanism of downward foundation movement towards the rear elevation of the extension and the original rear elevation of the property. Significance: The BRE Digest 251 - Assessment of damage is Category 1 slight. Onset and Progression: Mr [email protected] has advised that damage first commenced in September/october2021. We consider that the damage has occurred recently and will cease now that the cause has been rectified. 2. SITE INVESTIGATIONS A site investigation was carried out by Auger Ltd on 26th July 2022 to confirm the cause of damage/extent of mitigation. The investigation comprised of two trial holes – one located at the rear elevation of the extension and the second at the opening of the original rear elevation of the property and a CCTV survey of any drainage in the area. (To the best of my knowledge only one hole was dug at the opening of the original rear elevation ) The results of the site investigation confirm that, the foundations of the original rear elevation consist of a 500mm thick concrete foundation founded on soils at a depth of 1.2m below ground level. The foundations to the extension consist of a 100mm thick concrete foundation bearing on soils at a depth of 650mm below ground level. The underlying soils are classified a moist orangy brown clayey sand with irregular stone inclusions. The drain survey revealed that there was no underground drainage in the area but the rainwater downpipes located at the rear of the property dispelled directly to ground. (The rain water down pipe is over a drain hole not noted in this report there is underground drainage adjacent to the rear of the property) Continuation / 3 Our Ref: ......... 3. MONITORING We do not consider monitoring to be required on this occasion 4. CONCLUSIONS Cause of Subsidence We can confirm that the cause of the subsidence is a washing away of the fines from the sandy soils underlying the foundations Recommendations We recommend that the rainwater downpipes are diverted either into the drainage system or to a soakaway located a minimum of 5m from the property. Mitigation: Mitigation has already been completed by repairing and replacing the faulty copper pipes which were discovered to be allowing an escape of water into the floor slab and beyond (previously) Repair: A schedule of works to encompass superstructure repairs and redecorations is to be prepared to reinstate the property. The accompanying letter from the loss adjustor. Subsidence investigations completed Building Insurance claim accepted Following the recent site investigations, I now know the foundation and subsoil details for your home. This has enabled me to make a final diagnosis on the cause of damage and confirm the next step in dealing with your claim. On behalf of your insurers I can now confirm that your subsidence claim has been accepted and a policy excess of £1,000.00 is applicable. You will be asked to pay any policy excess balance before settlement of your claim. As can be seen in the attached Engineering Appraisal Report, it is my view that the damage has been caused by settlement of the foundations due to the weakening of the underlying soils caused by the water washing away the fines of the sandy sub-soils. This conclusion is based on my knowledge of the ground conditions in the area and your comments concerning the timing of damage I have prepared draft Repair Scope Sheet outlining the areas of damage caused by the subsidence. It is not anticipated that the damage or the repairs will make the property unsuitable for living in. Consequently, you should not need to vacate the property during the claim. To clarify, I do not consider a valid claim for alternative accommodation should arise in the circumstances. However, please inform us immediately if the situation changes so we can provide you with guidance and assistance. 1. Assess 2. Mitigation We will manage this phase We will manage this phase 3. Repair We, or you, will manage this phase Mitigation is not required as the cause of the subsidence has already been addressed
  2. Although this appears to address the manufacturing issue, it doesn't seem to make any comment at all on how the material was stored before it was supplied to you and installed. Their report specifically mentions storage and makes it clear that it is not possible to ascertain the storage conditions. In my view this is an important point because the process of sterilising the wood might well kill off any woodworm infestation which was already present that would not be able to prevent any subsequent infestation. This message appears to repeat the earlier message that the material has been properly treated but once again it doesn't address how it has been stored since then. Fri 09/08/2019 14:55 Dear dwf We are taking advice, and for your information we are in the process of instructing our own independent flooring expert. Who we will be using as an expert witness for our claim. Kind regards Desamax Fri 08/20109/9 15:58 Thank you for your email. If you wish to forward us a copy of your report once you have received this, we can then discuss the outcome further. Kind Regards, DWF Direct Wood Flooring
  3. An update to where we are at.... Hello Desamax Please find attached a copy of the Independent Inspection report. As you will see from the report, the inspection has confirmed that this issue is not a manufacturing fault with the flooring. Please let me explain that during the manufacturing process, this wood is essentially cooked in a large oven for 28 days to cure the wood. During this process, any traces of woodworm would be removed. It would not be possible for any of our products to enter your property containing any traces of live woodworm. Due to this, the only way for the woodworm to enter the wood would be from an external source. Although all of our wood does come with a warranty, this warranty is to cover manufacturing defects only. As the report has confirmed this is not a manufacturing defect, this issue would not be covered. I appreciate this may not be the outcome you had hoped for. Kind Regards, DWF Dear DWF In response to your recent comments and your inspection report. I must stress that we have had oak flooring for many years prior to having to replace because of ingress from a burst pipe in 2014. There has never been any evidence of woodworm anywhere in my home until this recent episode. The main infested part is on a concrete subfloor. We can only assume that the parasites were present in the wood prior to delivery giving the time frame that it has taken for the infestation to break out. You have also overlooked the main problem of the planks drying out on many of edges causing the wood to die. You may recall we reported the flooring had not been properly sealed this we noticed when fitting was complete. This is a clear issue with the finish of the product as it is drying out in many areas. On further close examination its starting to break up. The flooring is not fit for the purpose or indeed has not lasted an reasonable amount of time. The Antique Oak flooring is not of satisfactory quality. the flooring is drying out on edges of fitted planks. This is leading the planks to break up. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with Direct wood flooring that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less than 6 years and a previous attempt at repair or replacement has also failed, I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be replaced at no further cost to me. Kind Regards Desamax Hello Desamax Thank you for your email. Please be assured that we have taken your complaint seriously. We have raised an inspection that has come back as no manufacturing fault. As I have advised, the planks are treated with chemicals to rid any wood worm and then baked at 200 degrees for 28 days. It would be impossible for any Lavea to be alive or dormant after this process. As a company we stand by the inspection report which has come back as no manufacturing fault. If you do have wood worm, this must have come from another source in the house. With reference to the edges of the boards drying out, with this being an oiled floor, the floor will need to reoiled periodically, depending on usage and foot fall. The lighter edges of the boards are sap which are part of the product. Although the inspection has come back as no manufacturing fault, simply as a goodwill gesture, we have a number of options available to resolve the complaint, see below: A partial refund of £100.00 10% discount off a future order Oil to reseal the floor. Please let me know if any of the above options are suitable for you and I will make the necessary arrangements. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards, DWF Dear dwf We are taking advice, and for your information we are in the process of instructing our own independent flooring expert. Who we will be using as an expert witness for our claim. Kind regards Desamax Thank you for your email. If you wish to forward us a copy of your report once you have received this, we can then discuss the outcome further. Kind Regards, DWF Direct Wood Flooring
  4. Thanks Bank Fodder, The cost of the flooring in 2014 was £1707.00 thats without fitting ect i believe fitting/ripping out took 3-4 days we had new skirting fitted as well as paint work.
  5. @BazzaS HI The insurance contractor under our instructions ordered and paid for the flooring, i will contact insurance co and independent inspections (who we know work for the DWF) for advice thanks. @BankFodder Thanks ill look into finding an expert I attach the DWF independent report Manufacturing Report.pdf
  6. Hi we had to replace our oak flooring in 2014 because of ingress from a burst pipe. This was done via an insurance claim. We went back to our original supplier and asked the insurance contractor to order a similar floor to the one we had. The contractor fitted it professionally. After a few days we gently wiped the flooring and noticed the oil had dissolved, we reported this to DWF who sent a contractor to re oil the whole floor. Over the years we noticed the planks were getting lighter mainly on the edges. Then this year wood worm appeared mainly on planks over a concrete subfloor. We reported this again to DWF who said the flooring was treated and heated before coming to the uk and all parasites would have been killed. They sent an “Independent” floor specialist to inspect. The chap said to us as we had had wood flooring for almost 20 yrs with no sign of woodworm anywhere it could have got contaminated in storage but DWF would never admit to this. On inspection of the drying out planks it was noticed the wood had dried and is about to break up. We have maintained the flooring. But it has not lasted and now needs replacing. DWF say their “Independent inspector” say it’s not a manufactures defect either the woodworm or the drying of the wood. I have ask for replacement under consumer law, they have point blanked refused. Can anyone tell me my options thanks.
  7. Thanks, I have been in contact with lease advisory service who I have another phone appointment with late next week. The freeholder company’s solicitor sent the s45 at the 11th hour it arrived via special delivery one the deadline day. I hope in their haste they might have made an error, i attach the referred part of the notice below. Before I respond to ask for evidence on how their valuer came to his valuation, I would also have liked to ask if the signature was signed by an authorised natural person, and their position in the company, Once this has been clarified I will consider my counter offer. I hope I make sense? thanks.
  8. The s45 admits my claim to an statutory extend lease, they don’t agreed with the premium offered. They have counter our offer with one 110% higher than ours.
  9. Slight up date, i have received a s45 counter notice (admitting claim) This has not been signed by a natural person, its signed ** **** real estates ltd, in pen. Would this be classes as a valid notice? Thanks again
  10. Thanks for the response Their request is only to asks for the evidence that we served the notice upon the Management co who was named on our lease along with the previous Freeholder.( we sent them a copy via 1st class mail) We carried out an online land registry search and the recent freeholders name is souly listed, that's who we served the notice to. We don't want them to throw a spanner in the works over this. We note the solicitors are NOT shall we say leaseholder friendly by their reviews, maybe we should have got proof of posting. By the solicitor also demanding 10% we hope this means they recognize that we qualify. We are armed with recent outcomes of other leaseholders outcomes on our development that show the cost to be between 6-8k to extend the lease. On receipt of their counter offer we will instruct a expert solicitor. If the offer is too high we will have to instruct a lease extension specialist. If we get it for under 9k we would have made a substantial saving on cost
  11. Hi we have issued a Sec42 notice (taken from a template) on our freeholder, who’s address we obtained from the land registry, Who were solely listed as the freeholder..We have received a response dated 28 days later requested further information . The information requested is for evidence that our S42 was served on the Man co, we did send them a copy by first class Mail on the same day as the notice. We note, mainly the bold part .... “ Once the notice has been submitted, a strict timetable comes into effect: (i) The date of submission is considered to be the “Valuation Date”. So, however long the process takes, only the value of the lease extension on the valuation date will be considered as relevant to this application. It also freezes the length of the lease for assessing the premium. This fixed date is very important for leaseholders who want to avoid being on the wrong side of the 80 Year Rule. As long as you have submitted your application before the 80 Year deadline, you are safe. *(ii) The landlord may request further information, which they must do within 21 days of receipt of the Tenant’s Notice. The leaseholder must respond to this request within 21 days.* (iii) The landlord now has 2 months to respond with his own offer. This is known as the “Landlord’s Counter Notice” or “Section 45 Notice”. The landlord’s response might be: (a) To deny that you qualify. This is unlikely to happen if proper checks are carried out prior to the application. (b) If they recognise that you qualify, they can demand a deposit of 10% of your offer or £250, whichever is the greater. Remember that the leaseholder is liable for their own and also the landlord’s reasonable valuation and conveyancing costs (but not for the hearing or any negotiations). The landlord may then submit their counter offer. If their offer is unacceptable, your valuation surveyor can respond to it and negotiate on your behalf.” As the freeholder request for information was past the 21 day timeline, are we within our rights to ignore this request, and just send the deposit? we are currently looking to appoint a lease extension expert to take on our case, as it seems more complex than we first thought. But we have to respond soon and would like some advice. Thanks in anticipation
  12. It’s now not an exit of any description as it been blocked off as described above. We now have no means of escape over that part of the building, although we have doors leading onto it. We ultimately would like to know If the wording in our lease allows us access to escape this way. Thanks for your kind help and advice.
  13. 4K pa is just the Management fees charge. We are meeting and are all looking and seeking advice. So we can prepare to move forward on this. We are in a mixed use building so our rights are limited. This forum is a great source of advice. Thanks.
  14. We are not looking to use the roof for any recreational use, our expectations are we would only like it as a means of exit/ entrance as needed. . The freeholder has blocked the stairs with OSB board and also boarded up the back door. We hope our lease confirms this use. Thanks
  15. This report is a good read even if you just read the recommendations at the end. Commhold works in Scotland, in fact leasehold is only practiced mainly in England and Wales. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcomloc/1468/report-files/146802.htm
×
×
  • Create New...