@woody: I've decided to get a damp proofing specialist in to do the invasive testing. He will know what he's doing and secondly, it will have more bearing (IF he has findings) rather than claims from myself (as an ordinary joe). Furthermore, I will leave the openings - as is - until this whole debacle is sorted out and agreed upon. If he has findings, I can also bring my engineer in - to examine and bring further credibility still to any specific additional claims.
They are still maintaining that they don't have to cover his costs in safeguarding my interests. I will get that matter resolved next week - one way or another - by way of a meeting with my solicitor. Their interpretation should be sufficient to put that matter to rest (and unless I don't have a basic grasp of the english language, I'm going to be very surprised if they don't say that the contract allows for (and covers) his involvement in an oversight role. Having both of them assess will also add weight should this go legal (that's not the case to date but if there are significant findings here, it could increase costs of remediation significantly...and with that, there's no telling what stance the insurer will take at that point.
Under NO circumstances accept a "Full and Final Settlement" from your Insurer, unless the causation is a cast iron Diagnosis of the Problem...it would appear that the Insurer has a fairly good idea of the defect, but have not intimated it to you [sub plot is that there is serious money involved here??] or that is what the Insurer thinks???
I'm wary of sign-off - that's why I'm going to get this checked out fully first. They have agreed to all that my engineer requested to date - but then he has been excluded from the finalisation of the scope of works (upon which their cash settlement is based) - see above. As regards ethical practice in relation to the insurer/insurers agent & insurers engineer - don't get me started! I've had 2 years of dealing with treachery.
I also have a couple of other items that I need included in the scope of works (and therefore, the costings of same) before I'm prepared to sign off on it.
You posted an image of the "Wall tie" it is an image I do not recognise? have you any Idea what the Wall tie was constructed from? The external cracking is classically indicative of wall tie failure? [horizontal long cracking]
The wall tie is stainless steel. Of the couple of ties examined, there didn't appear to be any evidence of wall tie failure - and as they're s.s. wall ties - unlike the wall tie types that gave trouble in years gone by (and given that this problem emerged within 10 years of the initial build), I don't think it's the wall ties in and of themselves. I accept - given what you and others here have suggested that it looks that way though. That said, wall ties could still be implicated. Mortar snots were found on one tie as part of the opening up works - not responsible for the horizontal nature of the cracks but symptomatic of bad workmanship, facilitating cold bridging and potentially water ingress (although both my and their engineers reached the conclusion that water transfer happened by way of the EPS beads).
I'm in Ireland and this house was built at a time in our history when the economy was roaring. With that, we have a legacy from that time of absolute muck in terms of housing stock with ineffective industry oversight to stamp out bad construction practice. This is but one example - there are 1000's of worse cases than this one.
Bearing that in mind, it may not be the ties themselves but it could be the manner in which the ties were placed (at the points where the horizontal lines appear) - hell, maybe there simply are no ties there! In this regard, I find it interesting that the insurer has included 20 linear metres of Helibar 6mm Stainless Steel as a provisional item as part of their proposed scope of works.
The internal dampness? how widespread is it?? does it affect one or more rooms? why this question? possible cavity fill failure issues, well documented on the NET.
The internal dampness is confined to the gable wall only. However, there is an admission from the insurers engineers that the same characteristic horizontal cracking is developing (at a slower pace) on both the front and rear facades. The gable is higher and takes the full brunt of driving rain/wind/stormy conditions.
Otherwise, there is minor hairline cracking inside - one of the back bedrooms - with corresponding hairline cracking on the external back wall surface. In their original outline scope of works, they had agreed to investigate this and address this. They have since taken it out
When you say cavity fill failure issues, do you mean in terms of the distribution of the fill material - or another issue? If the latter, I'd be interested to hear more or if you have links to same, that would be useful.
Reason I ask that is that my engineer expressed the view that in his professional opinion (opinion only - no laboratory testing has been carried out), there is something inherently wrong with the bonded bead cavity fill material. He's been in the business for years and has never seen trans-cavity water transfer to this extent ever before. With that, the suggestion was made that the cavity fill material be removed (it's possible for a specialist contractor to make openings at the base of the wall - and using high pressure air jets - blow the bonded bead out of the cavity - the empty cavity examined for other damages, any mortar snots to be removed from the wall ties and then the cavity to be refilled with fresh bonded bead insulation.
It was conceded (by the insurers engineers) that the render was pathetically thin - probably just a one coat render of a couple of mm - totally inappropriate in any event but particularly so, given the exposure on the site. It was agreed that this would be stripped off all surfaces on the dwelling and replaced with 3 layers of render - topped off with webercote.
However, whilst they will re-render the entire dwelling, they won't remove/refill the cavity on the front/back! Whatever happens in terms of investigations of my most recent query (i.e. potential for an issue with the DPC/DPM), I will not sign off on what they have proposed until they commit to including this specification for front and back - as well as the gable wall.
it's possible that either the eps has come away from the inner lear, or the eps wasn't scarrifid before the render was applied, but the fact that the cracks are so uniform, suggest that there is a line of insulation that's come loose.
I see your logic. However, it was bonded bead insulation that was pumped into the cavity rather than EPS boards.
You could possibly just use a EWI render on top the existing render, and that would seal the building, but if the eps is comming away from the inner leaf, you'll always be waiting for this to go bang.
Originally, I had pimped the idea of EWI in my (amateur) initial counter-proposal to the insurer. They wouldn't accept. My engineer considered it - and decided that it wouldn't be of any advantage in terms of keeping water out - bearing in mind site exposure/conditions.
You've got the inner brick layer, then the eps, but what comes afterwards; is it a brick or block consruction, or does the render go straight on to the eps....I'm wondering if they should have used and EWI type render, rather than a sand and cement render.
Current wall build up as follows;
Block on flat (inner leaf) -> 100mm bonded bead cavity insulation -> Block on flat (outer leaf) - capped off with a pathetic one coat nap sand/cement render.
What's been agreed is 3 layer render followed by webcote.
Can you strip back to the inner layer without everything collapsing, and then rebuild, and at what would that cost.
Do you mean remove the outer leaf and rebuild? In theory, I'd imagine it's possible. However, if that was the proposal, we'd definitely end up in court. Don't get me wrong - I'm prepared to go to whatever length is necessary in order to get a just and fair outcome but have to be careful. If I walk into court, I have to do so with a watertight case (excuse the pun).
As to the issues with the insurance company, could you write to them stating that as you have both reached an impasse, could they advise you of the insurance ombudsmans details, along with details of their complaints procedures.
I'm in Ireland - and just in the same way as these bodge jobs were constructed (light touch regulation), not a whole lot has changed in terms of accountability and oversight unfortunately. Again, I have to be careful what I bring to them - and if it goes against me, the only way to have that overturned is via the High Court (i.e. a very expensive method to appealing the ombudsman's adjudication). There was one specific item that I was primed to take to the ombudsmans office a couple of months ago. At the 11th hour, the insurer gave way/complied.
Thanks once again for all the input here. Although it's but one source of info, it's still been invaluable to me in considering all aspects of this scrap that I find myself in. There's a dirth of information out there on accounts of taking on structural insurers (whether in the UK or Ireland). Whenever this whole saga is over, I hope to write a key post from a homeowners perspective with the hope that it will be of assistance to others in how to deal with/stand up to/be wary of - structural insurers.