In 2003 I made a subsidence claim as some cracks had appeared in my garage and stone built porch. My insurer, Zurich, refused to pay out stating that, “all that was required was some re-pointing” and that this would cost less than the £1000 excess. In the same motion they removed both my garage and porch from subsidence cover. Both the garage and porch were extensions built by the previous owner approximately 16 years after the original house build

As part of an extension build the garage was repaired – the damage was caused by poor build quality. The original builder had built one corner of the floor over a main drainpipe without adequate support – so the floor rotated around the pipe leading to cracking. Once proof of repairs was presented to Zurich they reinstated cover to the garage.

I contested the porch decision (as the crack continued to get wider). Zurich again refused to honour the claim. I appealed to the ombudsman who found in Zurich’s favour. Late last year the crack had opened to the extent that I could fit my entire hand to the third knuckle in it. The porch was now in serious danger of collapsing I bit-the-bullet and paid to have it rebuilt. On demolition my builder discovered that the total depth of foundation for the porch (from ground level to bottom of the foundation) was 43cm, with most of this being made up of loose hardcore. This was set on top of loose earth. The structure was “anchored” to the house with stays that are normally used to hold door frames in place. To get a good clay foundation for the new porch the builder had to dig down to 2 metres.

Once the rebuild was finished Zurich (with some reluctance) reinstated cover. However and here’s what all this has been leading to, they flatly refuse to remove reference to subsidence against my property from the insurers database. In both cases the damage to both garage and porch was caused 100% by poor build standards.

There was and is no subsidence but because Zurich say there is I am stuck paying excessive insurance premiums.

How can I get this reference removed?

Hi Yorkshire-Rich,

I can see there is a problem here. Zurich, or any other insurer for that matter, should not be liable to pay for damages caused by faulty workmanship by the builder who failed to ensure the 'adequate support' which led to the crack widening. It is all to do with something called 'Proximate Cause' and poor workmanship is a policy exclusion and you should persue damages through a civil claims procedure if the party is still traceable. Zurich have re-instated cover on the basis that everything has now been sorted to a (presumably) satisfactory standard.

RE: Subsidence being on record. It does seem a little bit harsh that your property will now appear on the insurers database as suffered from subsidence. The actual definition of subsidence is "sinking of the Earth’s surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes; and where there is a sudden collapse of something into a hollow beneath it ". So, your perception of this may be different to others.

As you have contacted the insurer regarding this, and they have refused to remove this from the database, you will have to employ a RICS/FRICS approved surveyor to record his findings and submit a report to the insurer. The surveyor should also check for subsidence reports in the immediate area to assist them with your property. If the surveyor concludes that there is no evidence of subsidence then the insurer will have no other alternative but to remove this information unless they wish to challenge the surveyor's findings; which I doubt they would do. Note that the fees would have to be paid by yourself in a similar way that you would have to pay to employ a loss assessor to object to the insurer's loss adjuster. If the insurer wishes to employ their own independent, professionally qualified persons, they will have to pay the fees for that person.

If you do find that the property has suffered/is suffering from subsidence, you may also find it difficult with your mortgage company (assuming you have a mortgage); if not, then good-o, until it comes to selling/letting the property if this is your wish for the future.

In the meantime, you may want to try Adrian Flux initially or Towergate (if and after the property is underpinned).

Thanks for the reply.

I long since gave up on the idea that Zurich would pay anything meaningful towards repairs, but am having real trouble understanding why they refuse to remove reference to subsidence from the insurers database... afterall the porch that was falling down doesn't exist anymore and was only falling down because what ever cowboy builder the previous owner used to build it didn't believe too much in foundations - nothing to do with "sinking of the Earth’s surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes; and where there is a sudden collapse of something into a hollow beneath it ". Logic screams "No Subsidence", but in my (too) long experience with Zurich, logic, common sense and the blindingly obvious are not important

My concern is that I get a surveyor in, who says, "there is no subsidence £500 please". I present the report to Zurich who say, "Don't care, the ruling stays". I need someone, FSA maybe, to tell Zurich that if an approved surveyor says there is no subsidence then they HAVE to remove the reference.

I belong to "Which" Legal so might get their angle on this.

Thanks again.

Yorkshire-Rich.

Yorkshire-Rich:

Thanks for the reply.

I long since gave up on the idea that Zurich would pay anything meaningful towards repairs, but am having real trouble understanding why they refuse to remove reference to subsidence from the insurers database... afterall the porch that was falling down doesn't exist anymore and was only falling down because what ever cowboy builder the previous owner used to build it didn't believe too much in foundations - nothing to do with "sinking of the Earth’s surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes; and where there is a sudden collapse of something into a hollow beneath it ". Logic screams "No Subsidence", but in my (too) long experience with Zurich, logic, common sense and the blindingly obvious are not important

My concern is that I get a surveyor in, who says, "there is no subsidence £500 please". I present the report to Zurich who say, "Don't care, the ruling stays". I need someone, FSA maybe, to tell Zurich that if an approved surveyor says there is no subsidence then they HAVE to remove the reference.

I belong to "Which" Legal so might get their angle on this.

Thanks again.

Yorkshire-Rich.

Hi Yorkshire-Rich,

I see your concern over the costing and the ruling that subsidence will have to stay on record. If the surveyor can write in his report that the property is not currently suffering from subsidence and that there is no evidence to suggest subsidence ever occured prior to his visit within at least X amount of years, then I'm 99% certain the insurer will be made to remove this information - simply as a matter of fact that subsidence was not the cause that prompted the insurer to record this.

It's interesting to note that this record of subsidence could, and is likely, going to affect your neighbour's premiums too!!