subsidence - and insurance cover

halfmoonbay

I have a property that is subject to a structural guarantee. The property (along with all other properties in a small development of 15 semi detached houses) is showing distinct signs of subsidence damage. The insurer has this exclusion clause in the policy;

Loss or damage caused by or consequent upon subsidence, heave or landslip unless such loss or damage is as a result of a defect in the design, workmanship, materials or components of the Structure of a Housing Unit.


The properties were built upon an engineered raft foundation. However, as part of the design of the overall development, the ground was raised considerably from its existing levels - immediately prior to commencement of construction of the structures themselves.

Can this backfill be classified as a designed-in material/component of the Structure of the Housing Unit OR are they legally entitled to exclude on the basis that it doesn't form part of the actual structure - given the wording of their exclusion clause above?

Calahonda52

Can you clarify the basis of the structural guarantee, who is providing it and its it separate from your "normal" house policy? Is it separate to Homebound?
what age is the house and were they built in a flood plain during the boom

Also how do you, and the other 14, know it is subsidence as opposed to anything g else such as perhaps pyrite.
At the end of the day this will be a legally decided issue as to what they mean by subsidence and what caused it so I presume you have got the other 14 on side vis a vis a concerted approach

halfmoonbay

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Can you clarify the basis of the structural guarantee, who is providing it? Also how do you, and the other 14, know it is subsidence as opposed to anything else such as perhaps pyrite

Prem_ier Bónd are providing the insurance.

A couple of the others have had surveys done. Don't live in an area where there's any pyrite although one has had tests done to be sure. If it is pyrite, then it's in the backfill as there are some instances where the ground behind some of the houses has sunk/sloped off since the owners first took up residence there.

halfmoonbay

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Can you clarify the basis of the structural guarantee, who is providing it? Also how do you, and the other 14, know it is subsidence as opposed to anything else such as perhaps pyrite

Prem_ier Bónd are providing the insurance.

A couple of the others have had surveys done. Don't live in an area where there's any pyrite although one has had tests done to be sure. If it is pyrite, then it's in the backfill as there are some instances where the ground behind some of the houses has sunk/sloped off since the owners first took up residence there.

What do you think of the wording of that exclusion? Does it rule out accessing the insurance even if the backfill was very much part of the works the developer carried out before they went on to the next stage, putting in rafts and building, etc.?

JimmyMW

halfmoonbay wrote: »

Prem_ier Bónd are providing the insurance.

A couple of the others have had surveys done. Don't live in an area where there's any pyrite although one has had tests done to be sure. If it is pyrite, then it's in the backfill as there are some instances where the ground behind some of the houses has sunk/sloped off since the owners first took up residence there.

What do you think of the wording of that exclusion? Does it rule out accessing the insurance even if the backfill was very much part of the works the developer carried out before they went on to the next stage, putting in rafts and building, etc.?

Assuming it is subsidence, IMHO the design of the foundation was flawed given the substrate on which it is bearing, therefore the insurance should cover it.

Metric Tensor

What are the signs of subsidence that are showing?

I ask for two reasons:
1. Depending on the type of problem you have you can point to flaws in the reinforced concrete raft as well / instead of the fill.
2. Subsidence is a bit like rising damp in that in it's "true form" it's not anywhere near as common as people think.

Calahonda52

Can't comment on the exclusion clause as the devil is in the detail.

So what did the other surveys say?
What was the brief/terms of reference of these surveys?
Was there any opening up or where they just non-invasive surveys, with a host of caveats to protect the writer's PI .

The way this will work is that insurer will claim subsidence, heave or landslip applies, any not pay, unless you can prove otherwise.

Are they all insured with same company, what about homebond?

halfmoonbay

Metric Tensor wrote: »

What are the signs of subsidence that are showing?

I ask for two reasons:
1. Depending on the type of problem you have you can point to flaws in the reinforced concrete raft as well / instead of the fill.
2. Subsidence is a bit like rising damp in that in it's "true form" it's not anywhere near as common as people think.

We managed (with a lot of detective work!) to track down someone who had worked as a labourer on the development. He confirmed that in the case of a certain section of houses (inclusive of my own), after the raft went in, the blocking followed in a matter of days. He seemed to suggest that it should have been left to cure for much longer? Are there any building regs that cover this? Is there any way we can test the integrity of the raft itself?

Signs of subsidence are both horizontal and vertical cracks on all houses.

@Calahonda52: They're all Prem_ier Bónd. Yes, the couple of reports all have such caveats and the inspections were non-invasive.

The devil is in the detail but trying to kick the devil out as it all pinges on that one exclusion and the wording of same.

sydthebeat

Subsidence or land heave is quite difficult to discover the origin of. There can quite easily be issues external to your site which can cause subsidence such as the drainage of adjoining or nearby lands etc.

As they are raft foundations on built up lands, it would be reasonable to assume they were designed to allow for a certain amount of subsidence anyway, that's what rafts are for.

halfmoonbay

"As they are raft foundations on built up lands, it would be reasonable to assume they were designed to allow for a certain amount of subsidence anyway, that's what rafts are for."(

__


Ok, so a raft is designed to deal with subsidence. If that subsidence isn't deemed to be 'reasonable', then is it fair to say that the design was flawed?

Am I right in thinking that there is no bog standard raft? Is a raft custom engineered to deal with the conditions of a site - unique to each individual location?


(not trying to be pedantic - just trying to figure out if covered or not covered due to that exception clause).

Metric Tensor

I assume you have had an engineer confirm that the cracks you have are related to subsidence or some sort of foundation movement? Cracks can be caused by other things too.

So assuming an engineer has confirmed this then the following applies:

Typically a raft is monolithic - i.e. one continuous concrete unit so for large subsidence cracks to occur the raft must no longer be monolithic - it must be cracked too. This should be evident at floor level - cracks in floor tiles, screed, problems with doors closing, etc. If you can find where the foundation is cracked then that may strongly point towards it not being sufficient (underdesigned) for the site conditions.

To answer your question re concrete curing times - concrete cures (i.e. dries/gets stronger) at a range of rates depending on moisture conditions, mix design, location, etc. etc. and continues to do so for years. In general when people talk about the "strength" of concrete they are talking about the 28 day strength. That's not to say that all concrete has to be left for 28 days before being loaded. As far as I recall (I am open to correction here) approx 80% of the 28 day strength develops within the first 7 days. So - yes - the concrete should not be loaded too soon after pouring but it very much depends on the type and weight of load applied and exactly when it was applied. A few rows of blocks on the raft will be a much lighter load than a fully occupied 2 storey house.

You can test the present strength of the concrete in your raft by taking a core out of it and sending it to a laboratory to be tested. This won't answer much though as it won't necessarily show areas where the concrete was installed poorly and it won't in any way assess the design and installation of the steel reinforcement. It will also involve drilling holes in your floor and puncturing the radon barrier and dpm.

Finally - raft foundations originally developed to serve the needs of specific ground conditions - and still do. However, in the last 10-15 years they have risen in popularity, particularly in the west of Ireland because in poor soil conditions installing a strip foundation properly can be painstaking.

Calahonda52

You need to deal with facts as you see them now and not historical hearsay which may have been elucidated via leading questions.

Re the block work:

Compressive strength of different grades of concrete at 7 and 28 days
Grade of Concrete M25
Minimum compressive strength N/mm2 at 7 days: 17
Specified characteristic compressive strength (N/mm2) at 28 days: 25

So after 7 days it has reached 70% of its design strength.

Yes each raft should be designed for the conditions, as there is no standard bog, there is no standard raft.

However that is not to say this was done.

Have the insurance company written to you saying why they are walking away, if so you are in a legal space

onrail

Digging up an old old thread I know...

But OP, was this ever resolved? Would be really interested in hearing the outcome.