Structural damage caused by neighbouring house
Pix
I own a mid-terrace house which has developed a crack and bulge in its
front wall. This crack is increasing in size fairly quickly and is
approx 4-5mm wide at its worst point. I got a structural surveyor to
have a look at this and he is 99% certain that the problem is being
caused by a rusting steel support beam in the neighbouring house which
was left in place when the property was converted from a shop. I've had
this backed up with a second opinion from a council surveyor but the
council won't actually get involved further unless the structure
becomes dangerous.
My surveyor advised that the next stage was to remove some masonry
blocks from my neighbours house to establish the cause for certain.
I've talked to my neighbours about this several times and their stance,
in short, is that its my problem and they don't think there is a support
beam there. I've even offered to pay for the work myself but they won't
let me do this as it could establish their liability. I've been
advised by my surveyor that I shouldn't attempt to fix the damage
caused to my house without solving the underlying cause as it would
actually cause greater damage to my property in the long run.
It's a last resort but I can't see that I have any choice but to look
at my legal options here. Given that I have grounds to suspect that
their house is damaging my own, is it possible for me to either gain
access to confirm this or to make them do the work themselves?
--
Pix
R
"Pix" <Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk...
What do your insurers suggest ?
Ste
It's a very complex area of law, and you're going to need to see a
solicitor if you want to have work done but don't have the cooperation
of your neighbours.
Invisible Man
deterioration of a property next door.
The Todal
Possibly an application under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act. Or a
Party Wall award. I would think that an experienced surveyor would know the
correct procedure and there should be no need to involve lawyers if the
right sort of letters are written.
Roland Perry
Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Invisible Man <invi...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>> What do your insurers suggest ?
>Not sure that any policy would cover damage caused by gradual
>deterioration of a property next door.
And the insurers may also suggest that even if the corroding beam's the
cause it's a "design error", and that's not one of the things they
insure against.
--
Roland Perry
Pix
'Invisible Man[_2_ Wrote:
> ;655560']R wrote:-> news:Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk...-
>
> What do your insurers suggest ?
>
> Not sure that any policy would cover damage caused by gradual
> deterioration of a property next door.
I've only made informal enquiries with my insurance company but that
was more or less the reply I got. They said it was nothing to do with
them as my neighbours were responsible for the damage and sent me to
building control at the council. I've not pushed the issue at this
stage as I don't have legal cover and had been hoping to sort this out
myself.
I'm going to my local citizens advice this afternoon who will no doubt
put me in touch with a solicitor. I'm not convinced I can afford legal
action but have little idea of the cost involved. If I can't
afford/justify it my options at this point seem to be to fix my own
house and hope for the best, or wait for it to get so bad that its
dangerous to the public.
--
Pix
Tim S
Go talk to the Building Control Officer at building control.
If there's a deficiency in the building they may have their own legal
avenues to go down, at their expense. If you say structural damage is
possibly going to result, and the BCO agrees, that may be enough for them
to take direct action. All you can do is ask and it won't cost you.
HTH
Tim
steve robinson
If you are aware of the problem then leaving it is not an option as you will still
be responsible for the repair costs , if the wall does become a danger and injuries
are caused you would possbly be held liable and its almost certain you insurance
company would not pay out leaving you stuck with possibly hundreds of thousands of
pounds worth of claims against you and possibly the death or seriuos injury of some
inocent party
Ste
wrote:
>
> If you are aware of the problem then leaving it is not an option as you will still
> be responsible for the repair costs , if the wall does become a danger and injuries
> are caused you would possbly be held liable and its almost certain you insurance
> company would not pay out leaving you stuck with possibly hundreds of thousands of
> pounds worth of claims against you and possibly the death or seriuos injury of some
> inocent party
In fairness he has notified the insurance company.
The Todal
However if the damage is not covered under the terms of the policy the only
practical effect of notifying the insurance company is that they will
probably refuse to renew next time unless they are assured that the problem
has been fixed.
Pix
steve robinson;655811 Wrote:
> Pix wrote:
> -
>
> 'Invisible Man[_2_ Wrote: -
>
> I've only made informal enquiries with my insurance company but that
> was more or less the reply I got. They said it was nothing to do with
> them as my neighbours were responsible for the damage and sent me to
> building control at the council. I've not pushed the issue at this
> stage as I don't have legal cover and had been hoping to sort this
> out
> myself.
>
> I'm going to my local citizens advice this afternoon who will no
> doubt
> put me in touch with a solicitor. I'm not convinced I can afford
> legal
> action but have little idea of the cost involved. If I can't
> afford/justify it my options at this point seem to be to fix my own
> house and hope for the best, or wait for it to get so bad that its
>
> If you are aware of the problem then leaving it is not an option as you
> will still
> be responsible for the repair costs , if the wall does become a danger
> and injuries
> are caused you would possbly be held liable and its almost certain you
> insurance
> company would not pay out leaving you stuck with possibly hundreds of
> thousands of
> pounds worth of claims against you and possibly the death or seriuos
> injury of some
> inocent party
This isn't an option I'd seriously consider but it is what I was told I
would need to do by the head of building control before they would get
involved.
I only received some very general help from citizens advice for now and
need to go back in a few days for a proper appointment. In the meanwhile
I'll see if my surveyor can help as suggested earlier. From the little I
know, I'm unsure about whether the party wall or access to neighbouring
land act apply here since it is my neighbours house I would be working
on but its worth looking into. Failing that I'll make enquires with a
solicitor.
--
Pix
Toom Tabard
Expansion of rusting steel beams is a well known cause of damage, but
usually only happens if the beams are being exposed to damp rather
than being embedded and not subject to considerable water ingress.
Perhaps looking for any reason and source of rusting, and dealing with
that, would halt further damage.
In any event the neighbour would probably not be liable simply because
he is the owner of the beam - he would have to be shown to be
negligent in some way (i.e failing to repair the property and allowing
water ingress to cause the rust expansion). Also, if the neighbour has
building insurance, that would cover him for any legal liability he
would have for damage to neighbouring property (though would be
subject to a condition that he keeps his own property in good
condition). Perhaps asking your neighbour if he has building cover,
and suggesting he check that his insurers would cover his liability,
might allay his fears of you investigating further at your own
expense.
Toom
Tom
OR being aware there is a problem and doing nothing about it?
The Todal
"Tom" <TomT...@tiscali.com> wrote in message
news:4a44bcc1$0$29140$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
Actually, I think it could be argued successfully that the original poster
has a legal right to the support of his property from the neighbouring
property and if part of the neighbouring property fails or collapses thereby
causing his own property to collapse, he may be entitled to damages and an
injunction.
For an example of how this principle might be applied see
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/760.html
Toom Tabard
> "Tom" <TomTom...@tiscali.com> wrote in message
It's salient in that case that there was active removal of support, ie
demolition of the adjacent property by the owner. In this case there
has been no active action. The case does make mention of an adjacent
owner not being under obligation to repair deterioration in terms of
support, but the supported party having a right to enter and rectify
support. (which seem to be what the OP is offering or trying to
achieve here) The case does mention the adjacent owner being
responsible for any damage penetration (it specifically mentions dry
rot, but would apply preumably to eg water penetration) to the
neighbouring property from deterioration (which could be deterioration
which also affected support), but that would be on the basis of
general negligence, separate from right of support. It might be
further complicated if there are party wall considerations but it is
not clear whether that is the case or merely fault and cracking along
an external wall.
Toom
Pix
I've gone between various people on this and got a lot of conflicting
advice but more or less know what I'm doing now. To cut a long story
short, there is no way I can directly force my neighbour into repairing
his house without spending far too much money in court. My neighbours
insurance won't pay for his house to be fixed but damage to my house
will be covered by standard liability cover. My insurance company
therefore play no part in this.
How I proceed depends on how cooperative my neighbour ends up being but
in the worst case, I fix the damage to my house and apply to the small
claims court to get the money from him. Unless he actually gets a
builder+surveyor in to show otherwise (which is what I wanted in the
first place) the report I have will mean that I win this by default.
He won't of course be forced to pay this or to fix his own house but I
expect in the long run he would have to do both as it would cause him
severe mortgage/insurance difficulties. I'm getting builders quotes for
repairs to my house, the inspection work + the potential cost to remove
the offending beam in his house next week. After this I will be giving
him official notice of the problem with the surveyors report and asking
him to contact his insurance company.
My hopes aren't high but given his limited options we can hopefully we
can sort this out amicably without the need to go to small claims. From
his reaction so far, I don't expect him to be prepared to tell his
insurance company about this but I look to be fairly well protected by
the law provided I don't mind waiting a year or two for the money &
risking more damage in the meanwhile. At least if I do suffer further
damage, I know I can just put in another claim which should be
incentive enough for him to get this fixed.
--
Pix
steve robinson
Before you go all legal you need to remember that you wont be fighting him in court
but his insurers who will normally deny any liablity , make sure you photograph
everything before and as the works proceed . Use a filmed camera not digital , if it
gets personal you cant be accused of manipulating the evidence .
It might pay to get a solicitor to write to him laying out your position this will
give him an oppurtunity to get his own report done
Chris R
Pix opined:
I think your own insurers should be involved. If the neighbour doesn't pay,
eg because his engineer satisfies the court taht the problem is something
else entirely, they your insurer should be picking up the bill, assuming the
cause is an insured risk. And shouldn't your insurer be paying anyway, and
attempting to recover its outlay from the neighbour? If you go back to them
having lost your case they will probably rejuect your claim.
Chris R
Pix
'Chris R[_2_ Wrote:
> ;661383']In news:Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk,
> Pix opined:-
> Pix;655231 Wrote:-
> I own a mid-terrace house which has developed a crack and bulge in
> its front wall. This crack is increasing in size fairly quickly and
> is approx 4-5mm wide at its worst point. I got a structural surveyor
> to have a look at this and he is 99% certain that the problem is
> being caused by a rusting steel support beam in the neighbouring
> house which was left in place when the property was converted from a
> shop. I've had this backed up with a second opinion from a council
> surveyor but the council won't actually get involved further unless
> the structure becomes dangerous.
>
> My surveyor advised that the next stage was to remove some masonry
> blocks from my neighbours house to establish the cause for certain.
> I've talked to my neighbours about this several times and their
> stance, in short, is that its my problem and they don't think there
> is a support beam there. I've even offered to pay for the work
> myself but they won't let me do this as it could establish their
> liability. I've been advised by my surveyor that I shouldn't
> attempt to fix the damage caused to my house without solving the
> underlying cause as it would actually cause greater damage to my
> property in the long run.
>
> It's a last resort but I can't see that I have any choice but to look
> at my legal options here. Given that I have grounds to suspect that
> their house is damaging my own, is it possible for me to either gain
>
> I think your own insurers should be involved. If the neighbour doesn't
> pay,
> eg because his engineer satisfies the court taht the problem is
> something
> else entirely, they your insurer should be picking up the bill,
> assuming the
> cause is an insured risk. And shouldn't your insurer be paying anyway,
> and
> attempting to recover its outlay from the neighbour? If you go back to
> them
> having lost your case they will probably rejuect your claim.
>
> Chris R
I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never realised
how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking into
it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
insurance would only pay for preventative work such as underpinning.
If my neighbour did get an engineer in, it would be a step in the right
direction. The damage is blatantly originating from the 1st floor where
the houses join and is not being caused by the house moving at ground
level. If he can somehow prove that his house isn't the cause then I'm
stuck with the bill either way and will accept that. The only way he
could do this would be to get the inspection work done as I requested
in the first place.
My biggest concern here isn't paying for the repairs as a one off, its
that fixing and supporting the crack leaves the underlying problem.
This would mean that the cracks/bulges appear somewhere else when the
beam expands again causing further (and probably more severe) damage. I
need to be able to force my neighbour into action and realise that this
is his problem as well as mine. Claiming the money back is secondary
but I'm not going to pay for the work unless I have to and it does
provide a lot of incentive for him to have the inspection done.
--
Pix
Old Codger
>
> I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never realised
> how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking into
> it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
> own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
> insurance would only pay for preventative work such as underpinning.
Unless things have changed in the last 15 to 20 years, you have a poor
insurer.
When I suffered from subsidence the insurer paid for underpinning, floor
levelling, crack filling, repointing about two thirds of the exterior
and all interior redecoration. *Everything* that resulted from the
subsidence was covered by the insurance. I did of course have to pay
the �5OO excess. The total cost was around �45,000.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
steve robinson
What type of beam is it , whats its purpose , what is the beem made of ,is it
internal or external why is the beam expanding all spring to mind
steve robinson
> Pix wrote:
> >
> > I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never realised
> > how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking into
> > it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
> > own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
> > insurance would only pay for preventative work such as underpinning.
>
> Unless things have changed in the last 15 to 20 years, you have a poor insurer.
>
> When I suffered from subsidence the insurer paid for underpinning, floor
> levelling, crack filling, repointing about two thirds of the exterior and all
> interior redecoration. Everything that resulted from the subsidence was covered
> by the insurance. I did of course have to pay the £5OO excess. The total cost
> was around £45,000.
Sounds reasonable
Pix
Old Codger;662265 Wrote:
> Pix wrote:-
>
> I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never
> realised
> how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking
> into
> it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
> own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
>
> Unless things have changed in the last 15 to 20 years, you have a poor
>
> insurer.
>
> When I suffered from subsidence the insurer paid for underpinning,
> floor
> levelling, crack filling, repointing about two thirds of the exterior
> and all interior redecoration. *Everything* that resulted from the
> subsidence was covered by the insurance. I did of course have to pay
> the �5OO excess. The total cost was around �45,000.
>
>
> --
> Old Codger
> e-mail use reply to field
>
> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
> people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
I agree. My insurance is near enough worthless and I won't be renewing
with the same company but there is nothing I can do about this now.
--
Pix
The Todal
With respect, you have misunderstood the position. Insurers can only apply
the policy wording - they have no discretion to bend the rules for the
policyholder. It sounds as if your house has not suffered from subsidence
within the policy definition. Check the wording - it will probably say
subsidence of the ground on which the building stands, or something of that
sort.
When you try to get quotes from other insurers, you will find that they will
want you to tell them about any claims that have been declined or any
ongoing problems with the house, and they either won't cover you or they
will exclude any damage that occurred prior to them coming on cover.
Pix
>
> Old Codger;662265 Wrote:-
> Pix wrote:-
>
> I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never
> realised
> how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking
> into
> it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
> own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
> insurance would only pay for preventative work such as underpinning.-
>
> Unless things have changed in the last 15 to 20 years, you have a
> poor
>
> insurer.
>
> When I suffered from subsidence the insurer paid for underpinning,
> floor
> levelling, crack filling, repointing about two thirds of the exterior
> and all interior redecoration. *Everything* that resulted from the
> subsidence was covered by the insurance. I did of course have to pay
> the �5OO excess. The total cost was around �45,000.
>
>
> --
> Old Codger
> e-mail use reply to field
>
> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
>
> I agree. My insurance is near enough worthless and I won't be
> renewing
>
> With respect, you have misunderstood the position. Insurers can only
> apply
> the policy wording - they have no discretion to bend the rules for the
>
> policyholder. It sounds as if your house has not suffered from
> subsidence
> within the policy definition. Check the wording - it will probably say
>
> subsidence of the ground on which the building stands, or something of
> that
> sort.
>
> When you try to get quotes from other insurers, you will find that they
> will
> want you to tell them about any claims that have been declined or any
> ongoing problems with the house, and they either won't cover you or
> they
> will exclude any damage that occurred prior to them coming on cover.
Subsidence doesn't come into this as I've said previously. If it was an
issue in the future (which isn't unlikely in my area) I'd prefer better
cover though and will be changing my policy because of this. I'll also
be taking out legal cover which is what I would have needed to sort
this mess out.
I'm certainly not expecting to change insurance company and then have
them deal with this situation for me and have never implied this. This
leaves me with a situation where the legal route to force the repairs
would be many times more expensive than the total bill for both houses.
The only viable option anyone has suggested is small claims which is far
from ideal as it won't solve the underlying problem but it is
affordable. I'm definitely open to other suggestions.
I'll try to avoid small claims if at all possible. I should get the
quotes today and will be formally offering to pay for the inspection
work to his house and assuming the beam is there & causing the problem,
I would claim the repairs to my house off his insurance and would be
prepared to put �1500 towards his own repairs. My neighbour should bite
my hand off with an offer like this but I don't think for a minute he
will take me up on it as he refuses to accept the possibility that he
has a problem at all.
--
Pix
steve robinson
>
> The Todal;662693 Wrote:
> > "Pix" Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk wrote in message
> > news:Pix.4...@legalbanter.co.uk...-
> >
> > Old Codger;662265 Wrote:-
> > Pix wrote:-
> >
> > I've been to my insurers and it's not an insured risk. I never
> > realised
> > how little house insurance covered me for until I started looking
> > into
> > it with this claim. Even if the damage was caused by subsidence to my
> > own house, I would still have to repair all damage caused as the
> > insurance would only pay for preventative work such as underpinning.-
> >
> > Unless things have changed in the last 15 to 20 years, you have a
> > poor
> >
> > insurer.
> >
> > When I suffered from subsidence the insurer paid for underpinning,
> > floor
> > levelling, crack filling, repointing about two thirds of the exterior
> > and all interior redecoration. Everything that resulted from the
He doesnt , you do
You still have not explained where the beam is what its purpose is and why its
affecting your property