The front corner of my house collapsed taking with it most of the side wall. The wall was made of cob and was built in the 1780's, at some time the wall was rendered with a sand and cement render. We had removed the cement based render in preparation for lime render. I have tried to claim from my buildings insurance however they say that the collapse was due to deteriation caused by poor maintenance over a considerable time ie. the application of cement based render. Has anyone else had this problem? and if so have they found a way of persuading the insurance company to pay up? The insurance company is one of the largest insurers who regularly advertise on TV.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
cob wall collapsed - insurance wont pay out!
- Thread starter chrisreed
- Start date
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Oh dear - not a good idea to remove all render at once as collapse has been known with cob - the walls get too wet to stand on their own. It really should be removed a layer at a time, possibly bottom up.
I presume that they took your premiums however without asking about what it was rendered with. In reality the property was undergoing appropriate repair for its long-term future is how I would argue the case. It's only relatively recently that the real problems with cement have become apparent, and I bet there are still many so-called damp specialists still recommending it...
You can argue the case possibly with the Insurance Ombusdsman, and you could try SPAB to see if it can help back up your case that you were carrying out appropriate repair.
I presume that they took your premiums however without asking about what it was rendered with. In reality the property was undergoing appropriate repair for its long-term future is how I would argue the case. It's only relatively recently that the real problems with cement have become apparent, and I bet there are still many so-called damp specialists still recommending it...
You can argue the case possibly with the Insurance Ombusdsman, and you could try SPAB to see if it can help back up your case that you were carrying out appropriate repair.
charlie-ia
Member
- Messages
- 336
- Location
- LANCASHIRE
You poor thing chris! hope it gets sorted.
Im just out for a bit of reasurrance, can "too wet to stand up" apply to any wall?
our walls are (where visible) sandstone and mortar. we have two walls cement rendered on the outside, and "beauty board" on the inside. you can see real water actually dripping from inside the beautyboard, which is lined with plastic. when we remove this all is there any chance of our wall collapsing, or is it just cob thats paticularly troublesome?
how much of the render should you remove at a time? do you leave the corners till the rest is dry? and the beautyboard is in large sheets, probably three to a wall, running vertically. I was just going to rip this all off as soon as possible and leave the walls naked for a good long time. is this not the right way to go about it?
Im just out for a bit of reasurrance, can "too wet to stand up" apply to any wall?
our walls are (where visible) sandstone and mortar. we have two walls cement rendered on the outside, and "beauty board" on the inside. you can see real water actually dripping from inside the beautyboard, which is lined with plastic. when we remove this all is there any chance of our wall collapsing, or is it just cob thats paticularly troublesome?
how much of the render should you remove at a time? do you leave the corners till the rest is dry? and the beautyboard is in large sheets, probably three to a wall, running vertically. I was just going to rip this all off as soon as possible and leave the walls naked for a good long time. is this not the right way to go about it?
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I haven't a clue what beauty board is, but stone should be fine.
Cob is mud really and mud slumps when soaked.
Cob is mud really and mud slumps when soaked.
charlie-ia
Member
- Messages
- 336
- Location
- LANCASHIRE
"beauty board" is what the locals are calling hardboard(?) sheeting with pictures of woodgrain printed on it, and shallow channels to make it look a little like planks. i quite like it. the house i grew up in had a bit in the window seat. has to go though, the picture is flaking off.
stickybeak
Member
- Messages
- 109
- Location
- South East
.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
The book's co-author is Jill Smallcombe, who works extenisvely with cob (including at the Eden Project).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article711959.ece
The two others mentioned in the article have published a book on cob too.
In my experience internal complaints procedures are there so the insurers can deny all responsibility. They have to be gone through so research and lay out your case very thoroughly.
It's worth talking to the Ombudsman and getting a case number. they are quite good at giving help on the telephone in my experience about what they can and can't look at.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article711959.ece
The two others mentioned in the article have published a book on cob too.
In my experience internal complaints procedures are there so the insurers can deny all responsibility. They have to be gone through so research and lay out your case very thoroughly.
It's worth talking to the Ombudsman and getting a case number. they are quite good at giving help on the telephone in my experience about what they can and can't look at.
I don't want to put a downer on this thread, but my gut feeling is that the insurance company is very unlikely to pay out and that any ombudsman is likely to agree with them.
When the insurance was taken out, the construction would have been specified as cob. The small print in the contract would have specified that the building was in good condition and maintained properly.
The problem is, the property was not maintained properly (in the past) so hence they have very good grounds not to pay out. I hate insurance companies as much as anyone (don't get me started on next door's wall falling on my car) but I don't see a way around this issue. Please somebody tell me I am wrong. The only get out I can see is if the insurance company had been told that the cob had a cement render when the insurance was taken out.
When the insurance was taken out, the construction would have been specified as cob. The small print in the contract would have specified that the building was in good condition and maintained properly.
The problem is, the property was not maintained properly (in the past) so hence they have very good grounds not to pay out. I hate insurance companies as much as anyone (don't get me started on next door's wall falling on my car) but I don't see a way around this issue. Please somebody tell me I am wrong. The only get out I can see is if the insurance company had been told that the cob had a cement render when the insurance was taken out.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I think the issue of being 'maintained' isn't so simple.
The issue is how appropriate a cement render is. There are many 'professionls' still advocating injection and cement for cob. It was considered the modern material far surpassing lime for many a year - it's only really recently (relatively speaking) that the problems are coming to light.
I have a book from the seventies on how to do up your cottage with all manner of things recommended which we (ie those of us with some idea of conservative repair) now realise are not great. A trawl through many a website will reveal these things still being recommended.
There are many, many cob (as with timber) buildings with cement render. Insurance companies presumably aren't refusing to insure...
There are cob buildings where the cement has been removed prior to re-rendering with lime which haven't collapsed, but there is always a risk that the wall has become so damp it collapses if all taken off at once.
The issue is how appropriate a cement render is. There are many 'professionls' still advocating injection and cement for cob. It was considered the modern material far surpassing lime for many a year - it's only really recently (relatively speaking) that the problems are coming to light.
I have a book from the seventies on how to do up your cottage with all manner of things recommended which we (ie those of us with some idea of conservative repair) now realise are not great. A trawl through many a website will reveal these things still being recommended.
There are many, many cob (as with timber) buildings with cement render. Insurance companies presumably aren't refusing to insure...
There are cob buildings where the cement has been removed prior to re-rendering with lime which haven't collapsed, but there is always a risk that the wall has become so damp it collapses if all taken off at once.
stickybeak
Member
- Messages
- 109
- Location
- South East
I agree with Nemesis. Chrisreed doesn't tell us how long s/he has owned the building, whether it's listed and so on, although given the age, it probably is (pre 1840 etc).
It's all so much a question of timing and the evolution of conservation philosophy over the years. We don't know from CR's post how long the cement render has been up for, whether it predates listing etc etc. What was 'proper conservation' (i.e. maintenance and repair) thirty years ago is anathema now. I agree that CR can argue that removing the cement render is indeed 'proper maintenance and repair' of an historic building.
Insurance companies will expect to be able to exclude their liability for repairs caused by poor maintenance and inadequate repair- but it is the owner who is party to the insurance contract, not the building. If the owner is able to say with their hand on their heart that the building was in good condition when they bought it - here's the key part 'to the best of their knowledge' they should be covered. I think you should argue the toss with your insurer and then take it to the Ombudsman if they don't play ball. Note: Ombudsman proceedings are free of charge to the complainant.
All the same another good reason, were any needed, to insure with an historic buildings insurer.
It's all so much a question of timing and the evolution of conservation philosophy over the years. We don't know from CR's post how long the cement render has been up for, whether it predates listing etc etc. What was 'proper conservation' (i.e. maintenance and repair) thirty years ago is anathema now. I agree that CR can argue that removing the cement render is indeed 'proper maintenance and repair' of an historic building.
Insurance companies will expect to be able to exclude their liability for repairs caused by poor maintenance and inadequate repair- but it is the owner who is party to the insurance contract, not the building. If the owner is able to say with their hand on their heart that the building was in good condition when they bought it - here's the key part 'to the best of their knowledge' they should be covered. I think you should argue the toss with your insurer and then take it to the Ombudsman if they don't play ball. Note: Ombudsman proceedings are free of charge to the complainant.
All the same another good reason, were any needed, to insure with an historic buildings insurer.
As someone in the midst of a rather large claim for a collapsed wall with my insurers, I sympathise.
A lot really depends on the cost of the rebuild and whether it is worth fighting. From what you describe, it sounds like a large section of wall and probably costly to rebuild. If this is the case, I would start by getting an expert opinion (which you will have to pay for) - ideally you want to get this ASAP (certainly before reconstruction starts). This opinion should focus on the cause of the collapse and the maintenance. ie. it may be possible to demonstrate that there are other parts of the building in a similar state of maintenance which are fine...
Which leads me to....what caused the collapse? If it is the fact that you removed the render and allowed it to get wet....then I don't hold out much hope.
Another angle to try (which we used successfully)...is whether the insurers undertook a survey when you first obtained cover. If they did, they could reasonably be expected to have seen the render and/or exercised due diligence before offerring cover (regardless of their clauses). You might want to check your policy re:notifiable works...many policies require you to inform the insurer of any works on the building.
A lot really depends on the cost of the rebuild and whether it is worth fighting. From what you describe, it sounds like a large section of wall and probably costly to rebuild. If this is the case, I would start by getting an expert opinion (which you will have to pay for) - ideally you want to get this ASAP (certainly before reconstruction starts). This opinion should focus on the cause of the collapse and the maintenance. ie. it may be possible to demonstrate that there are other parts of the building in a similar state of maintenance which are fine...
Which leads me to....what caused the collapse? If it is the fact that you removed the render and allowed it to get wet....then I don't hold out much hope.
Another angle to try (which we used successfully)...is whether the insurers undertook a survey when you first obtained cover. If they did, they could reasonably be expected to have seen the render and/or exercised due diligence before offerring cover (regardless of their clauses). You might want to check your policy re:notifiable works...many policies require you to inform the insurer of any works on the building.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I think that in reality it's difficult to be able to help further without knowing more about the situation.
So many imponderables to ponder!
It may be that removal of the cement was recommended ina survey...
So many imponderables to ponder!
It may be that removal of the cement was recommended ina survey...
Chris,
First, I'm sad to hear about your situation. I live in a cob property and sympathise very much (I too have more than a bit of Portland kicking about - most benign, some questionable).
There's little I can add except one ongoing anecdote...
A pub near to where I live is part cob. The tenants have warned the owners (the brewery) that the upper walls are beginning to fail (which they are). The brewery prefers to do nothing - and let a 15th century structure - collapse first because they'll get the pay out rather than fork out for remedial action.
One rule for one...
Wish you luck.
FCB
First, I'm sad to hear about your situation. I live in a cob property and sympathise very much (I too have more than a bit of Portland kicking about - most benign, some questionable).
There's little I can add except one ongoing anecdote...
A pub near to where I live is part cob. The tenants have warned the owners (the brewery) that the upper walls are beginning to fail (which they are). The brewery prefers to do nothing - and let a 15th century structure - collapse first because they'll get the pay out rather than fork out for remedial action.
One rule for one...
Wish you luck.
FCB
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,286
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
That's an interesting example - I wonder how insurance companies would treat such circumstances. Is it possible to claim for remedial works that would prevent a bigger claim? After all, it is usually required to disclose any material facts. Or, having disclosed said facts, would the insurance company then refuse any further cover at all?FCB said:The brewery prefers to do nothing - and let a 15th century structure - collapse first because they'll get the pay out rather than fork out for remedial action.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Insurance companies in the main pay out for something which happens unexpectedly - not for something foreseen. They do tend to have the get-out clause of poor maintainenence.
Thank you for all the usefull information. In answer to the questions raised thus far; The building dates from the 1780's and was probably rendered with cement some thirty years ago (I will get more details from the prevous owner). I have only owned the property since last October. The cob wall slumped only a matter of hours after a section of the render was removed, NOT ALL of the render has been removed as yet!
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
So what you were doing was maintaining the building...
So what you were doing was maintaining the building...
Yes - although this may fall into the 'notifiable works' section of the policy. Sections from our own policy...
"We will not pay for
a) loss or damage directly or indirectly caused by or arising from:
i. any demolition, alteration, extension, repair, cleaning, maintenance or any other similar process to the buildings"
"Notifiable works
You agree to inform us of all works to the fabric of the building exterior or interior including but not limited to building redecoration electrical plumbing roofing"
Their lack of punctuation, not mine ;-)
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yes - I think mine says something similar.
It's all not easy is it?
Do they really want to know every time we wallpaper or slap a coat of paint on the walls?
It's all not easy is it?
Do they really want to know every time we wallpaper or slap a coat of paint on the walls?