More wall woes

[Lime]

Insurance companies are in the business to make money.
Sometimes they are more amenable when they needn't be and sometimes not.
I wish you the best of luck going to court.
Let's hope the threat will cause one or both to "cough" up.

I don't have a huge house but on the last occasion of renewal I was asked for £450 by my broker.
I've always used them being a local brokers and thought them fair (never made a claim) but this just seemed like throwing good money after bad.
I did a search on the internet and found an identical policy offered by Lloyds for £189.
Not a difficult choice IMO.

 

[Pford75]

Thanks for the kind thoughts.

Given that our premium is now approaching £5k, I hope you can understand why i'm so p'd off with the insurers. They will happily take the premiums, but when it comes to a claim, they wriggle like worms.

If it does come to court, perhaps we can arrange a PPUK Norfolk day out :wink:

 

[Moo]

Count me in!


(Tea & cakes at mine, of course)

 

[Penners]

Will you be inviting foreigners from down south?

I'm so sorry to hear of yourinsurance woes, Pford75. I thought you had that all settled (as did you). Good luck with your action against the council - I don't really see how they can deny responsibility for the deterioration of the wall.

Keep us posted.

 

[Lime]

I'm all for tea and cakes.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Sorry to hear that tale, rotten start to 2009. Best of luck.

oddly, I am also in deadlock with insurers. This is over an 18thc oil on canvas which has been ripped in the move, 12 inches across and 2 inches wide They are quibbling because the Restorer has mentioned cleaning the first layer of grime from the canvas in order to touch in the damaged paint. The insurers argue that that they wil pay for the repair to the damage caused, but not the cleaning because it was like that before it was ripped! They obviously think that it will be acceptable to have a painting with a brand new patch of oil colours in the middle.!!

 

[Penners]

Ah, the old insurers standby - betterment. To be honest, Joss, I think you'll find that pretty well every insurer has a clause about this, unless you have a clear-cut "new for old" agreement with them. Even then, I'm not sure that they'd stand still for that arrangement on an 18th century painting.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think I posted my tale of a torn oil painting somewhere on here. I can't remember all the details (but could look them up if it would help) but ours was also cleaned during the repair and the insurance company didn't claim any 'betterment'. They were happy to pay the whole amount, less £100 excess I seem to recall. Perhaps it's the way our repair estimate was put together, although I'm sure the paperwork showed cleaning. I do recall the restorer explaining that it wasn't really possible to do the repair without cleaning.

I would argue with the insurance company that you don't want the painting cleaned you just want it repaired, but because repairing it requires cleaning first then that's part of the repair, not 'betterment'. If they say they'll only pay for cleaning the area of the tear, I would agree to this only on the basis that they pay for the cleaned part to be restored to match the rest of the picture, which I suspect is not possible!

Alternatively, is it possible that the 'cleaning' portion of the repairs might turn out to be extremely cheap compared to the actual repair? - if you see what I mean. :wink: Although I guess you've already submitted the estimate to the insurance company.

On a more positive note, I was very pleased with the final repair - it's quite amazing what can be done.

 

[middi]

Perhaps the restorer's quote should have read;- " to restore damaged oil painting on canvas at the cost of XXXXXXX + vat"

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Hey, thank you all for those helpful comments!

AS it happens I do have 'new for old' cover!

I will be pointing out the difference between 'want it cleaned' and 'repair it please' ( got the same problem with my bracket clock, not an insurance claim, but the clockmaker wants to give it back to me as good as new, when it was only the minute hand that got stuck-- rusty)

And I did kick myself when I realised that it would have been simpler to ask the restorer to give me a price to repair it, so they did not have a margin to argue over.

 

[Pford75]

Jocelyn,

I also faced a similar problem with the section of wall reconstructed after the tree demolished it. Builders insisted that foundations were required....whereas the previous wall had no foundations...so insurers insisted that they would not pay for the foundations (betterment).

I argued along similar lines to Penners that I was happy to reconstruct without foundations...if they could find a builder who would do so. (they couldn't). As that wall progressed, I learnt that you always get two versions of a quote from builders.....

Quote 1 (for your purposes) contains all the detail you need (eg. for LBC, finish specs etc.)

Quote 2 (for the insurers) contains nothing but a price (eg. Reconstruct wall)

I would suggest you make the problem theirs....ie. Tell them that you don't want a 'better' painting...you want one restored to the same condition in which you insured it. Ask them to find a specialist who can repair without cleaning and acheive a uniform look.

 

[middi]

That is a brilliant idea from Pford75 for a get out clause Jocelyn, " the years of muck and grime has to go back on the painting for the sake of athenticity" but you are quite willing to accept it cleaned if it saves them noney. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

A section of our 18th century garden wall fell over a year ago. We got a couple of people from HeplX and they rebuilt it after a quick lesson in the arts. Seemed much simpler, quicker and cheaper than involving insurance companies and builders.

 

[andrew gayton]

A section of our 18th century garden wall fell over a year ago. We got a couple of people from HeplX and they rebuilt it after a quick lesson in the arts. Seemed much simpler, quicker and cheaper than involving insurance companies and builders.

Probably not. unless they have a suitably skilled person/s that they can offer; I have seen far too many examples of second rate flintwork go up over the years - usually undertaken by otherwise capable fired clay technicians (brickies) - to agree that a 'quick lesson in the arts' would suffice. Flintwork needs a certain attitude and skill set that very few possess.

E s p e c i a l l y on this wall.

 

[middi]

Of course flintwork needs great skill. (the caveman worked it out :wink: )

" fired clay technicians "......( :lol: ) . Is these kind of slogans which make their services very expensive.

 

[Lime]

Of course flintwork needs great skill. (the caveman worked it out )

I remember we had in a previous post a similar account of historic skills in relation to plastering.

Perhaps the Hi-tech engineered powered world of today thinks it's bloody marvelous but unfortunately it often falls far short of it's claims.
Just a few moments watching modern workers dig a trench tells me so.

Then, as has been said by andrew gayton, there are some dreadful examples of modern man's attempt to replicate historic skills of flintwork to name but one "caveman" skill.
Coupled with an almost universal inability of the general public and those in authority to distinguish between good workmanship and bad the world is slowly turning into a crude pastiche of it's former self.

For anyone who doubts what I say there are historic examples still standing of skills that modern man, even with all the extra gadgets in the world, would have difficulty in accomplishing.
The pyramids (even just a little one) are perhaps the easiest and best examples.

 

[Penners]

I have seen far too many examples of second rate flintwork go up over the years

I wish our garden wall had second-rate flintwork. It was constructed by our predecessor in the house - a farmer - and his fired-clay-technician mate. The brickwork is OK, but I would place the flintwork somewhere between fourth- and fifth-rate.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

That is a brilliant idea from Pford75 for a get out clause Jocelyn, " the years of muck and grime has to go back on the painting for the sake of athenticity" but you are quite willing to accept it cleaned if it saves them noney. :wink:

I could suggest 'new for old'.. what do you reckon, any Clemenson students out there? :roll:

 

[Pford75]

Just thought I would updaate you all on progress (or lack of it).

/recap
As you may know, there was flooding in the highway which resulted in constant soaking of our listed flint wall over a period of several months. A section of the wall eventually collapsed and the remainder was condemned by building control as a dangerous structure. Our insurers refused our claim initially on the basis of 'gradually operating cause'. We have been pursuing the landowner who we believe was responsible for causing the flooding of the highway - the legal process is long and so we have also reverted back to our insurers'

I entered a formal complaint with Brit Insurance on the basis that their own loss adjusters had agreed that flood was the cause of the damage and recommended that the claim be settled in full (apx costs were £40k). However, Brit (who never attended the site after the wall collapse) decided to ignore their own loss adjuster and refused the claim.

During the official complaint, Brit changed their story from refusal on the basis of gradually operating cause, to refusal on the basis of poor maintenance. They commissioned an 'independant' survey of the wall. The report arrived last week and it is laughable - it attempts to identify 'poor maintenance' in other sections of the wall (which is apx. 1500m in length) and concludes that if the wall had been adequately maintained it would have withstood the flooding.

In turn, I commissioned my own survey (from someone with a bit more experience of flint walling and traditional building techniques) and they made several comments:-


1. In their view, even a wall in a perfect state of repair (but of the same construction as my wall) would not have withstood the constant soaking demonstrated in the photos provided over the period of time it occured (ie. poor maintenance is not the cause...flood is). Lime mortar needs to be allowed to dry out - and the forceful nature of the soaking was akin to a pressure hose being 'pointed at the pointing'

2. They disagree with the comments re: some of the wall exhibiting friable pointing - in their opinion the wall is in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance commensurate with it's age.

3. To be honest, no surveyor can adequately comment on the condition of the wall at the time of collapse since apx 1 year has passed and walls of this nature can change considerably in this period. In their view, the loss adjuster (who saw the flood and the remaining wall before demolition) would have had the most accurate impression of cause.

4. They disagree on the comments made by Brit's surveyor re: a leaning section of wall. In their expert opinion, this certainly is not progressive or at risk of collapse. It is a historical wall and part of the charm and aesthetic value is the fact that it is not perfectly straight. This does not mean the wall has not been maintained - would they suggest that the sloping floorboards in a cottage should be maintained?

5. They searched through the pile of spoil which was left when the wall was demolished to make it safe. They located multiple 'chunks' of flint facing which clearly demonstrate that the pointing was in good condition (even after 1 year of sitting in a pile of rubble)

So - Brit will be given one last chance to agree to settle, or this will go to the ombudsman. The lesson here is that insurance companies will try anything to wriggle out of paying up

 

[Penners]

insurance companies will try anything to wriggle out of paying up

I feel I should apologise for missing this thread's anniversary by two days, Pford. What a shocking state of affairs.

Full marks to you for not caving in to the insurance company's tactics.