Damaged oil painting + odd bits of info.

[jocelyn plummer]

End result of insurance claim for damaged, during move, oil painting--- only 75% of total repair cost, because of 'betterment'. The removal company has 'made up' the rest by offering free storage for 1 month and some leeway on delivery of certain stored items. Not very satisfactory since I am still out of pocket. (around £300) grrrrr

Have been trying to locate the deeds to this house. The Land Registry have supplied my Conveyancing Solicitor with the name of the firm who registered it during a sale in 1999, so I am hopeful that the deeds will appear. Don't know why, but I have a hunch that there is something that 'does not fit together' here with the boundaries and previous conversion.

The mysterious little pathway at the bottom of each garden leads to a piece of land belonging to another property around the corner which is in a dreadful state of neglect, and causing a lot of ivy and stuff to creep through the fence, however, I am sure that we shall be able to sort that.

Those of us with listed/character/period properties surrounded by similar mature grounds and gardens or wishing to start allotments etc may be interested in http://www.landshare.net

We've made a start planting 3 fruit trees---- another odd thing about this Victorian house is that there is not a single fruit tree to be seen--- most of the houses around have at least one or two old fruit trees left.

 

[Flyfisher]

Bad luck about the 'betterment' on your painting. I think this is very unfair, as previously discussed.

Was this claim against your removal company's insurance or your own house insurance? I'm wondering if we didn't have a 'betterment' issue with our oil painting repair because our household policy is 'new for old'?

A bit late now, but I wonder how they calculated the 'betterment' value and could you refute it by submitting a professional valuation of the painting before and after repair? Most oil paintings will be reduced in value as a result of being repaired so it seems odd to claim 'betterment' when you have probably lost out in financial terms.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Good points Mike, the insurance cover was taken out through the removal company. A agent has been dealing with the claim, not the removal company itself. The words 'cleaning and restoration' were mentioned as part of the repair. In the end, the agent did accept the detailed explanation of why there has to be an element of cleaning, but he still insists that I will now have a painting in better condition than before the damage occurred. I have told him that the painting will now be de -valued as a result of this invasive treatment, despite its provenance and that the damage was down to incorrect packing by the company. My last option is to write directly to the underwriters and also complain more vociferously to the MD of the removal company-- which is a shame because they have been brilliant in every other respect. (Not too far down the road from you by the way.)

 

[Flyfisher]

I would argue that you certainly don't have a painting in better condition than before the damage occurred - it's a damaged painting and is now (almost certainly) worth less than it was. Professional valuations of before and after values would, I believe, support this simple fact. The damage was caused by the removal company so they are fully responsible for your financial loss. The fact that their insurance policy will only pay out a certain amount is their problem, not yours.

I agree about writing to the MD of the removal company (and, to be fair, he may not be aware of these details) and if you can provide independent valuations of the before and after values of the painting then you'll have an open-and-shut case, morally at least. If the valuation loss is greater than the £300 you've had to pay out, I would ask the MD to pay the £300, thus reimbursing your out-of-pocket costs while you take the valuation loss on the picture, which might be seen as a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, I suppose you could consider taking the removal company to the small-claims court to recover your uninsured loss (out-of-pocket and/or loss of value).

The bottom line is that you're now worse off due to the actions of the removal company and they should reimburse you 100%. If their insurers will only pay 80% then they should pay the remaining 20% (or whatever the numbers are) - unless there is a get-out clause in the T&Cs of the removals contract. :evil:

All very frustrating and difficult, I know, and at some point it becomes easier to just 'let go' and get on with life. Trouble is, I'm sure many companies rely on people giving up and taking the injustice on the chin.

 

[Lime]

If I remember rightly the legislation brought in during the late 70s allowed solicitors to dispense with old deeds.
Something to do with the land registry.
Whole rooms used to be completely filled floor to ceiling with all the old deeds of houses in their care.
Most solicitors just threw the lot away.

 

[Flyfisher]

Surely they should first offer them to the owners before throwing them out? They are only the custodians, after all.

Or maybe they do and people don't want them, which I find a bit odd.

 

[Lime]

The majority of property owners never actually see their house deeds, let alone take them home to read.
Most deeds remaing in safe keeping with mortgage companies or solicitors offices.
When the legislation came in most solicitors took the view that old deeds were just paperwork no longer required.
Some did offer old deeds back to a new purchaser (this is the time they are likely to be destroyed) but most purchasers are not interested in a pile of old documents that have nothing to do with them.
The advice from the solicitor, if asked if they were needed, would have been that they were redundant.

 

[Flyfisher]

I accept that a lot (most?) people won't want their deeds but my point was that destroying them is not really a decision for solicitors to take. Anyway, I think solicitors, or more often the mortgage companies, used to charge for their storage so it was hardly a free service.

Mortgaged or not, I've always held copies of the deeds for all the properties I've owned.

You're right that paper deeds are no longer necessary since everything is now managed electronically through land registry and I'm sure this is a more 'efficient' method, but it's a shame to lose such a wealth of historical information.

 

[Lime]

............ but it's a shame to lose such a wealth of historical information.

I could not agree more.

With many solicitors in the past (1960s and before) holding on to deeds was a way of ensuring getting the conveyancing work next time around so most kept them for free.
I know that some local solicitors at the time of the change had a clerk go through all the old deeds to find those registered at the land registry.
Those that had been registered were stripped of their extraneous paperwork (i.e. anything dating to before the registration) and a very big bonfire followed.
In some groups a couple of rooms were freed up to make way for more menbers of the practice!
...they had an incentive to get rid of the old papers, sod history.

 

[Flyfisher]

Plenty of room underground, apparently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7911124.stm
Albeit for a price, of course.

Brings new meaning to the phrase "mine of information".

 

[jocelyn plummer]

I have been fortunate enough to have been given the Deeds for all 4 of my properties and I have passed them on to the new owners. I am awaiting with interest the result of my request for these and am expecting to hear that they have been chucked. If they were handled locally I know that there was a huge fire in one of the Solicitor's offices sometime in the '80's--- actually just realised that may have been accidentally on purpose-------.

Seriously though I suppose I shall then have to research by another means, Any suggestions?

 

[Penners]

A bit late now, but I wonder how they calculated the 'betterment' value and could you refute it by submitting a professional valuation of the painting before and after repair? Most oil paintings will be reduced in value as a result of being repaired so it seems odd to claim 'betterment' when you have probably lost out in financial terms.

I think that's a damn good idea - and surely not too late.

Was the painting intact before the damage? Presumably yes.

Is it intact now? Well, yes... apart from a repair that didn't exist before.

So where's the betterment?

Fight them, Joss! They shouldn't get away with that outrageous attempt to wriggle out of their responsibilities. :evil:

 

[jocelyn plummer]

I have complained to the Insurance Company, asking for a review of the decision and an immediate payment of the outstanding £350.00. Ended the letter with a curt remark --- about 'further action.'