Reason for serial horizontal cracking?

[^woody^]

I cant see the point of checking the insualtion via the internal wall, or even removing it at this stage .

The internal dampness is a symptom, not a cause, and its not certain if that even relates to the insulation or the ties - there are more cracks than damp patches.

Likewise for the render. That has been most probably caused to fail by something else - either the wall panel (sections of the wall), by the materials - blocks, bricks or mortar, or possibly ties. And the cracks are external, which implies a problem specific to the external leaf. This in turn could mean that moisture is a contributing factor - either on its own or causing a reaction in the wall materials

So the cracking is not "render failure", and the render should not be repaired until the actual cause has been identified and remedied

I'd opt for more investigation of the external leaf and material samples. A thermograhic survey (after extensive rain) may show up areas for further investigation, or show a pattern of potential defects.

The best thing may be to engage the services of an expert in building pathology, rather than a run-of-the-mill surveyor or engineer.

 

[borderfox100]

Have had another site meeting with insurer and their engineers. They have to come back with a written offer but the outline of what they're suggesting is a full re-render and redecorate. They say that any concern that there's an issue with blockwork, mortar, etc can be re-assessed once the existing render is stripped back. The structural insurer won't extend any warranty past these repairs but their engineer (who will put together the scope of the work and specification for remediation) suggests that his professional indemnity insurance will cover any eventuality whereby it's later found that the issue was anything other than simply render failure.

I'd like to work on definitive answers, I'd like to do further testing - but all of that is both time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, it could lead to a protracted legal battle - and whilst I was prepared initially to go that route, perhaps if I'm pragmatic about it, it may not be the correct route right now (structural insurance policies are tricky - I could very well end up outside scope of the policy if it comes down to a specific material failure..and end up worse off than when I started).

Naturally, what I have to do is wait and see specifically what they come back with. However, they seemed amenable to covering all wall facades - not just gable.

With regard to mortar snots on wall ties, whilst they agree that this is both a defect and against building regs, the insurer claims this is not structural. They put it to me what could they possibly do to address it without tearing down the wall?. Whilst this should never have been my problem, I do appreciate that it's a heavy expense to have to go to - to chase down snots on ties. Notwithstanding that, I'm still thinking in terms of asserting that this was a component of the structural failure (not just the bonded bead insulation infill together with defective render) - leading to the water ingress, together with providing a cold bridge.

With that, I'd like to counter the proposal that I'm assuming they will come back with and ask for an external insulation rendered finish.

That leads to my question....

Does this wall build-up work? i.e. block inner leaf => complete bonded bead infill 100mm = block outer leaf => external insulation rendered finish. If it doesn't assist with future potential water ingress issues, is there a 'membrane' or layer of some material or other that could be placed inside the external insulation layer - which would prevent water creeping in any further?


Can a case be made that external insulation rendered finish would be less likely to fail into the future - given that failure (in terms of water ingress) can't be allowed to re-occur due to the filled cavity and mortar snots on ties?

 

[borderfox100]

Just an update on this. I've spent an age trading correspondence back and forth with the insurer. They dismissed the alternative proposal that I put forward. I then reverted to consideration of the remediation plan that they came back with. I've asked queries on same before I will commit to signing off on that plan.

Key amongst those are the following;

1. I've asked them to confirm if the outer (render) layer will be impermeable to water ingress. They repeatedly avoided answering the question claiming relevance (!) - but now, they have come back with the following;

"With full fill cavities, there are many capillary tracks available for moisture to pass into the property. Accordingly it is imperative that the exterior rendering is watertight and maintained that way by the property owner throughout its service life. Our proposed external render system is the best and most appropriate for this dwelling. Lack of maintenance is exacerbating this situation."

They accepted liability in the first instance without a mere mention of 'lack of maintenance'. They started down this track AFTER the fact (once I went down the road of insisting that they answer the queries I put to them so that I could make an informed decision on their remediation plan). I clarified at that stage that due to the unusual nature of the cracks, I wasn't going to simply fill them in - until I could ascertain the nature of the defect. I outlined that others in the estate had done this and repainted also - only for the same horizontal cracks to re-emerge.

Furthermore, to my assertion that in addition that water is being carried across the cavity via the bonded bead cavity infill, I'm also claiming that this is also the case when it comes to what have been found to be improperly positioned (sloped inwards to carry water inwards) mortar snotted wall ties....(this was pointed out to them on-site by the engineer that I had engaged at that time - but they continually refuse to acknowledge this - even though I have an audio record of everything that was stated at that site meeting) to which their answer is this;

"With full fill cavities, there are many capillary tracks available for moisture to pass into the property. Any argument in regard to the passage of water along a wall tie is immaterial to the overall construction of this dwelling. "

I want to sanity check the position I'm taking as opposed their position. Am I being unreasonable in what I claim?


What the hell do you have to do in Ireland to get an honest/fair/reasonable outcome from an insurer!?

 

[borderfox100]

The latest update on this is that we've tentatively agreed on the following;

- 3 layer sand/cement nap finish - with a final 'layer' of Weber acrylic finish which comes with a 10 year waterproofing guarantee.
- Bonded bead full fill cavity insulation to be removed from the cavity.
- As part of the removal - any mortar snots on wall ties to be 'knocked off' /removed by way of the high pressure air jets they use to blow the insulation down from the top (with vacuum out from small wall openings made at base of wall).
- Opportunity for cavity to be inspected - for piece of mind purposes (just in case there is any other issue at play) and to verify that no debris at bottom of cavity causing an issue.
- Plaster to be removed internally. Dehumidifiers to be used to dry out the wall over a 6 week period.
- Internal walls then to be replastered and decorated/painted.
- Cavity to be re-filled with bonded bead insulation.


Does the above sound logical? What would you be looking out for when inspecting the vacated cavity - to rule out any other issues?

 

[borderfox]

Latest snag I've hit revolves around payment of fees for engineers, etc. The policy states the following in relation to coverage of fees;


"Such architects', Surveryors', Legal, Consulting Engineers and other fees as are necessarily and reasonably incurred, by the Policyholder in relation to the complete or partial rebuilding or rectifying work to the Housing Unit."

However, the insurer claims that because they have elected to nominate a consulting engineer (that reports in to them - never to me) to work on the scope of works, that on that basis, I don't have any entitlement to have independent consulting engineering representation fee's covered. I can't see the equity in this situation given that their engineer has an ongoing relationship with the insurer - and it's clear to me that the mandate is to get in, get out - for the smallest cost possible (i.e. to my detriment).

Originally, they took the tact that fees incurred in the investigation and preparation of the claim are the responsibility of the policyholder (i.e. me). I don't dispute that. However, I discharged my obligations in this regard and paid for engineers, etc to prove my claim to the point whereby the insurer accepted liability.

My rationale is that given that I've proven my claim and liability has been accepted - and that we have moved on to resolving conflict with regard to their proposed remediation plan/scope of works, costs incurred on my part from this point onwards are 'reasonable and necessary' (as per the excerpt quoted from the policy above).

Has anyone else been in this situation with a structural insurer? Any thoughts you can share on the matter would be very gratefully received.

 

[vinn]

I see where you are, and I know how stuff was built during that period.
As its been suggested above, its almost certain to be bad workmanship and any old cheap materials.

Is there any chance of whats called a class action - with you and the remainder of the estate going legal together? Perhaps class actions are only in the USA?

There are, of course, hundreds, if not thousands, of poorly built and abandoned properties across Ireland. There are also thousands of homeowners who are still paying through the nose for mortgages and repairs - builders long vanished, & warranties useless.

It must be worrying for you & your family, I do hope that there's some kind of resolution in your favour.

I think that this structural insurer business was discussed in the building or the planning forums not that long ago? Put it in the search box at the top of the page.

 

[^woody^]

"Such architects', Surveryors', Legal, Consulting Engineers and other fees as are necessarily and reasonably incurred, by the Policyholder in relation to the complete or partial rebuilding or rectifying work to the Housing Unit."

That's just a snippit, but it does seem to be part of a common clause which means that the policy will cover the costs that the insured incurs in dealing with the claim from start to finish.

So lets say a wall falls down, the costs may not be just to rebuild the wall, but also to determine why the fall fell down in the first place (survey), to design the replacement wall (plus any additional specialist design required), to oversee the wall as its being built (management), and the check the wall once it has been built (certification). The reasonableness of each will depend on the size and complexity of the work.

I dont agree that you should have paid for the fees beforehand (or that they are not recoverable under the policy), but that is by-the-by now if you accept that you should have.

Now the fact that the insurance company have appointed a consulting engineer is acknowlegement that one is needed - is reasonable, and thus the costs would be reasonable if the policy holder had appointed one.

The policy holder would therefore be entitled to employ his own engineer to look after his interests. If the insurer wants to employ their own engineer (to look after their interests) then it should be at their own cost.

Bear in mind that the insurance company is just that, an insurance company - you make a claim, they pay if it is an insured risk. You are not employing them as a builder or engineer even if they offer the service. You are entitled to look after your own interests and not to rely on the insurance company to do that. Of course, if they offer the service, you can accept it or not, but above all, if the policy allows for you to get your own specialists in to look after your interest, then the policy must pay you for this if you chose to do that.

 

[borderfox100]

I see where you are, and I know how stuff was built during that period. As its been suggested above, its almost certain to be bad workmanship and any old cheap materials. Is there any chance of whats called a class action - with you and the remainder of the estate going legal together? Perhaps class actions are only in the USA?There are, of course, hundreds, if not thousands, of poorly built and abandoned properties across Ireland. There are also thousands of homeowners who are still paying through the nose for mortgages and repairs - builders long vanished, & warranties useless. It must be worrying for you & your family, I do hope that there's some kind of resolution in your favour.
I think that this structural insurer business was discussed in the building or the planning forums not that long ago? Put it in the search box at the top of the page.

Thanks for your post. Yes, it's the stuff of legend what went on during that 10 year period of house building in Ireland. You're right in your supposition re. class actions - only in the U.S. I'm not worried per se about this issue - as I've already proven my claim. It's just a matter of getting the specifics sorted out. With that insurance companies play hard ball, using their resources to try and strong arm their way through. They have cost me in terms of time and effort in fighting this - which I'll never be compensated for. I've also had to live with this unsightly mess over the last couple of years (I can't touch it until agreement is reached).

I dont agree that you should have paid for the fees beforehand (or that they are not recoverable under the policy), but that is by-the-by now if you accept that you should have.

Yes, in principal (and rationally), I'd agree with you - and contested this element (i.e. fees incurred exclusively in proving my claim) with the insurer 18 months + ago. They have another clause in the contract/policy document that deals specifically with that =>
"Shall not include costs or fees incurred by the Policyholder in investigating and/or preparing a claim."

I can understand the rationale for this in the event of a claim not being proven. However, it's not ethical in a claim that has been proven....yet that's how it's outlined in the policy document. I'm on the hook for those costs already - unless I can prove that this policy clause is unlawful - but I don't think I can.

Now the fact that the insurance company have appointed a consulting engineer is acknowlegement that one is needed - is reasonable, and thus the costs would be reasonable if the policy holder had appointed one.
The policy holder would therefore be entitled to employ his own engineer to look after his interests. If the insurer wants to employ their own engineer (to look after their interests) then it should be at their own cost.
Bear in mind that the insurance company is just that, an insurance company - you make a claim, they pay if it is an insured risk. You are not employing them as a builder or engineer even if they offer the service. You are entitled to look after your own interests and not to rely on the insurance company to do that. Of course, if they offer the service, you can accept it or not, but above all, if the policy allows for you to get your own specialists in to look after your interest, then the policy must pay you for this if you chose to do that.

We've been thrashing this out in correspondences exchanged over the past few weeks. They maintain what I see as an untenable position - i.e. that they have appointed an 'independent' engineer and that should I appoint my own, that's my own concern and my own costs. The 'independent' engineer claim is complete b.s. - I've given them the last opportunity to do the right thing on this. If they come back one more time and maintain the same stance, I'll have no option but to give them a nudge by way of a submission of a legal interpretation of same - and bill them for the trouble once the point is proven.

I'll update thread with the outcome in due course.

 

[^woody^]

They maintain what I see as an untenable position - i.e. that they have appointed an 'independent' engineer

You should find that one party can't unilaterally appoint an independant anyone. The appointment needs to be jointly agreed to be truly independant.

 

[borderfox100]

You should find that one party can't unilaterally appoint an independant anyone. The appointment needs to be jointly agreed to be truly independant.

Agree completely. I've put this up to them - and they continue to deny. Will go legal if necessary.

 

[borderfox100]

Ok, I'm continuing to make slow, grinding progress with this. Latest is that rather than fix themselves, insurer now wants to settle for cash. £46K is the opening offer. I want to cover all my bases as this will be 'full and final settlement' with absolutely no comeback.

PIC
Is this just dampness seeping out from wall (as a result of the water ingress through the outer/inner leaf of the wall? Is there any possibility of rising damp? I'm not inclined to think that it's the latter but I want to do all I can to make sure.


Sorting out the minutae (or at least, what I hope are the minutae). Full report on this sorry episode to follow once it is all done and dusted (remains to be seen if that's soon - there's still an outside possibility it could go legal....have to be prepared for anything with insurance companies).

 

[^woody^]

Is that dark shade along the floor eage about 400mm in, damp too? Or just the wall damp?

If the floor is damp, and assuming the DPC is at floor level, then you will need to remove the skirting and have a look at the situation with the wall, DPC and floor level, to see if the moisture is getting to the floor from above or below the DPC.

Damp on a wall will tend to show as line running horizontally if rising damp, and as individual patches if penetrating damp.

 

[borderfox100]

Is that dark shade along the floor eage about 400mm in, damp too? Or just the wall damp?

Yes, thats right. This has always been a water ingress issue thru the wall but having peeled back the carpet, i thought i better double check that there isnt a secondary issue ie. rising damp.

If the floor is damp, and assuming the DPC is at floor level, then you will need to remove the skirting and have a look at the situation with the wall, DPC and floor level, to see if the moisture is getting to the floor from above or below the DPC.

Ok, so if i understand correctly, behind skirting should be dry unless theres rising damp??

 

[^woody^]

If the floor slab is wet too, then there could be dampness coming up, or coming across from the wall.

I assume that the construction methods used will be similar to ours, in that the floor slab would be surrounded by a membrane, and this lapped over the DPC. If that is the case, and it has been properly built then no damp should be coming up and in to the slab. However, what can happen is moisture can come via the wall over the DPC and across in to the floor slab. This could be either by coming down the wall, or up and acorss the wall via blocked cavity at DPC level

It would need to be opened up to check whats going on at floor and DPC level and within the cavity.

A dry wall behind the skirting might discount rising dampness above DPC, but that is not to say that dampness is not rising from below DPC and in to the floor slab (ie defective detailing of the DPC and DPM). Or more commonly, plaster or mortar is touching the floor and creating a bridge and downwards for route for moisture in to the floor slab.

 

[KenGMac]

borderfox100, good evening.

Under NO circumstances whatsoever accept a "Full and Final Settlement" from your Insurer, unless the causation is a cast iron Diagnosis of the Problem, but as seen from this really quite complex thread the "Causation" has not been bottomed out, to accept a Full and Final from the Insurer means that the Insurer walks away, as an aside 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???

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]

As posted the pattern of cracking does not indicate a Subsidence issue.

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.

Ken