Reason for serial horizontal cracking?

[Doggit]

Hi Border, Whilst I don't have the experience of some of the current posters, I'm going to throw a few things in that might help. Having just done an external wall insulation recently for my ex, I had to learn a lot of new things to do the job. It was a 1930 solid wall house with the render cracking on the side wall where it seldom dried out; the render was allowing water in, and the bedroom walls were damp. The cheap solution was to hack the render off, and redo it (and still have a cold expensive to heat house) or to hack the render off, fix 100mm EPS panels, and then render using a fibre reinforced cement with a fibreglass mesh, and then another cement layer, and finally a silicone top layer.

The EPS was fixed using adhesive foam on the ground floor, but with a cement based adhesive on the 1st floor, and then fixing plugs used as an additional measure. Unlike a normal sand cement render, the reinforced cement is more flexible, and the fibrglass mesh adds a additional strength, and even though it's only about 5mm thick, it's tough.

Now I don't know how your insulation was fixed, but looking at the cracks, 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. My EPS were panels 1mx0.5m, so the cracks could be along a line of the panels, and then the water would trac across the top of the panels.

But as Ken has pointed out, until you find the cause of the problem, you can't determine where to restart the rebuild from. 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. Now showing my ignorance, of your construction, 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. Because if it's the latter, then I'm wondering if they should have used and EWI type render, rather than a sand and cement render.

Can you strip back to the inner layer without everything collapsing, and then rebuild, and at what would that cost.

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.

 

[borderfox100]

@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.

 

[chappers]

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???

Totally agree, this is the insurer backing away in case this becomes an ongoing issue.
They then pass the burden of responsibility on to you, this includes diagnosis and remedy together with the quality of the remedial works. If the proposed works don't sort the problem you take on board the responsibility of then assessing as to whether the diagnosis was correct or whether the subsequent works were carried out correctly.
As Ken says I suspect by now they must have a pretty good idea as to where the problem lies, but by openly making the diagnosis themselves rather than leaving it to you, they open themselves up to everyone else on the development making a similar claim.
Offering you a sum of money in full and final settlement would indicate to me that they fear that might potentially not be the final figure.

 

[borderfox100]

Totally agree, this is the insurer backing away in case this becomes an ongoing issue.
They then pass the burden of responsibility on to you, this includes diagnosis and remedy together with the quality of the remedial works. If the proposed works don't sort the problem you take on board the responsibility of then assessing as to whether the diagnosis was correct or whether the subsequent works were carried out correctly.

There's a definite logic to what you say - no doubt. However, I don't think they were playing for this outcome as such. They have their own panel of contractors - and you can be sure they are on that shortlist with one mandate - get in, get out - get the job done as fast as you possibly can for as little as you possibly can (and you'll have more work to follow). Part of the deal was that I was to be moved off site for the duration of site-works. If they find something else, they will then conceal it - simple as. There's nobody there to control them.

Of course, I can get my own engineer in. However, he can't babysit them all day every day. Furthermore, I believe this is one aspect as to why they are fighting so hard to insist that the cost of me maintaining an engineer to look after my interests are on me despite the contract stating otherwise (insofar as I can tell - I'll have that confirmed legally one way or the other by the end of next week). They also don't want him involved to finalise scope as he can only cost them more money in what he sees.

There's also another aspect - in that they will NOT stand over the works that they are carrying out. They (the insurer) keep maintaining I'm asking for a new guarantee - when all I have been asking them to provide is a confirmation that they will stand over ONLY the repair works that they are having carried out. Instead, they say that I have no future recourse with them - only with their engineers. I have a contract with them(insurers) - I have no such contract with their engineers - and there's a legal loophole here down the road - if a bigger problem (related to the repairs) emerges.

As Ken says I suspect by now they must have a pretty good idea as to where the problem lies,

I'm sure they do - but I think my engineer got it right for the most part (and to be fair to him, he hadn't and hasn't finished - that also goes to explain why I'm openly discussing this here - his involvement right now is supposed to be covered under the insurance policy - but they keep denying it. The minute I've got a qualified legal opinion sent to them to confirm same, he'll be back on the case). Up to this point, he had called everything - and one way or another, it all falls under the category of $hite workmanship. From speaking with him after the last site meeting he wasn't finished - but they're trying to manipulate/pressurise me into excluding him from the process going forward - by saying the costs are on me. Given the latest twist, he'll be included either way (even if I have to cover the cost myself). In the meantime, I'll pay for the damp proofing specialist to come in and open up inside. Have him compile a very brief/concise report as to his findings. Leave the opening in place for my engineer to have the opportunity to back that up - and offer the other side the opportunity to assess if they see fit.

They open themselves up to everyone else on the development making a similar claim.
Offering you a sum of money in full and final settlement would indicate to me that they fear that might potentially not be the final figure.

Unfortunately (and I say that because of the nasty way they've gone about their business!), it looks like they are not open to further liability. Every other house in the estate (i.e. 35 other houses) demonstrates precisely the same problem. However, the 10 year limitation on the guarantee ran out approx. 18 months ago. Insofar as I'm aware, I'm the only one to have gone toe to toe with them. You'd think they would be happy out - and would have gladly paid out at the outset - knowing that they escaped having to pay out say...another £1million? Not in their mindset and here's the irony. If they hadn't treated me in such a contemptible manner from day one (and proportionately moreso with every day since...at least up until now - they're beginning to respect me that little bit more...insofar as people that work insurance can), I'd probably have settled for a fraction. If they came to me on day one and said, yes there's a problem and we're sending in a builder to fix it - I probably wouldn't even have questioned it OR if they said here's €10K, I'd have taken it. All the while, they've clocked up more expenses (via their agents and their engineers in having to deal with me) and they've made me more committed than ever. As time went on, cracks in the back and front became a matter of relevance - and so, they now have to be included in the scope. They refused to accept liability on the basis of a 1 coat render with cracks in it - made me cut out openings in the wall (hoping that I'd just sling my hook - as many people would) - and all that achieved is that it strengthened my case and proved even more damage. (apologies for rant mode but its become a lot more personal than just the repairs/money for repairs with me - given this journey!).

Anyways, for right now - I'd be grateful for your best guess (whilst I await arrangement of an appointment for specialist to call), two questions for you all...

1. IF the Damp Proof Course and Damp Proof Membrane are functional and installed correctly, is it likely that water seaping through the wall higher up would be able to 'soak' in either ...
A. at all
or
B. so far into the concrete floor as you can see in the pic =?

Picture showing water ingress into floor area

2. IF I prove that either the DPC/DPM are not as per Building Regulations OR I prove that the water has managed to cross onto the floor because of a pile of 'muck' (mortar) at the base of the cavity, what remediation can the insurer possibly recommend at that point??

 

[KenGMac]

Hi everyone.

WOW what a series of postings!!

Can I chuck in some background information, I for my sins work in the insurance Industry as either a Surveyor or Loss Adjuster [say no more!!]

Story is as follows. All major insurers share information Via. a third party, that party is the Company called Experion.

What happens is that all claims intimated to all Major Insurers are logged with Experian, including Causation, Cost to repair, and outcome of claim [Repudiated or accepted] Etc. The rational is that it is supposed to prevent Fraud when a Policy holder has two Policies on one property, the Policy holder accepts a cash settlement from Company A and then gets Company B to undertake the repairs.

I believe it is inside information available only to the insurer that is causing the Insurer to prevaricate, make smoke screens Etc. because the Insurer knows how much it cost to undertake remedial action on a similar construction either in the estate you live in or another identical property elsewhere?

Also insurers are good at playing a long waiting game, meaning if they do nothing, or drag out the claim life you as the Policy Holder will get cheesed off and either go away or accept a sash settlement [see previous post on this subject.

 

[borderfox100]

Latest Update

They have flatly refused all three requests I put to them.
1. They acknowledge taking cracking in a back bedroom out of the 'Outline Scope of Works' which they produced initially - without any discussion. They say that the current, more detailed Scope of Works that they have produced supersedes the Outline Scope of Works - end of. This is despite a principal engineer for a firm they have contracted stating the following in the Outline Scope of works;
"this cracking should be assessed and repairs to bed joints of blockwork undertaken in order to both guarantee the structural integrity and the waterproof integrity of the property in this location."

I can't see how they can role back on a position where their own engineers identified an issue to be addressed - but they're stonewalling me on this (repeating the same thing) when I raise it with them.


2. They will NOT remove and refill the cavity fill insulation on the front and back facades - they will only do so on the gable wall. They say there's no evidence of water ingress on these walls - thus, no need. My engineer has stated his professional opinion that there is something intrinsically faulty with that insulation and it must be replaced in its entirety - but again, they are not for moving on the matter. I then asked them for a copy of the Agrement Certificate for the Bonded Bead that was used (as I had done previously - without response received) and for documentation related to the contractor that installed the Bead - to determine if he was certified to do such works. They say that they don't have them. Surely they have an obligation to have them? How can they defend their position not knowing what it is for insulation that's in that cavity and how it was installed?


3. They won't replace the damaged carpet. They quote a section of the policy that states;
"'The cost of complete or partial rebuilding or rectifying work to the Housing Unit which has been affected by_Major Damage provided always that the liability of the Underwriter does not exceed the reasonable cost of rebuilding each Housing Unit to its original specification."

My interpretation of that clause is that the overall cost of any rebuild or partial rebuild must not exceed what it ordinarily would. Their interpretation is that they do not have a duty to replace anything that was not part of the original specification (carpet was not included in the original specification) despite the fact that it's 100% clear that the carpet has been damaged as a direct consequence of a negligent build. It's been suggested to me that they may be able to squirm out from under this on the basis that the 'negligence' is the builders and not theirs, that their policy doesn't include for this type of loss (and of course, with the builder long since bankrupt, I'd have no recourse if that's the case).


I have not even gotten to any mention of floor dampness issues with them yet. Have been making some preliminary enquiries as regards invasive testing - it's an expensive business and it's hit and miss i.e. i could have opening up carried out in one point - but still not discover non-compliant dpm/dpc - as that may exist at another point along the wall. Furthermore, any investigational work carried out in proving my claim is at my own expense (this would fall under that category). What I'm thinking of doing - is drilling down through the floor screed to a certain depth - and using a moisture meter with a probe, take readings at various points.

Apparently, for legal purposes, surface readings are irrelevant - an unacceptable level of moisture content has to be proven at a certain depth. Of course, I will also have to be careful not to drill too deep - lest I perforate the dpm.


In any event, the first 3 items take precedent for the moment. I guess this is just an update I'm posting - for those that are interested. It seems we are getting into the legal realm - my solicitor should be back from leave in a week or so - will discuss in full with her then.


One thing I will say to you all - do NOT take an insurers word for anything! Do not rush anything - take your time and get things checked and rechecked. These guys will walk away and leave you with nothing (as they tried to do for the first 12 months of my attempts during the claims process!), then with a fraction of what they should, and so on and so forth.

 

[^woody^]

It seems we are getting into the legal realm

Yes it seems that it is coming down to interpretation of contact terms, rather than technical issues.

 

[borderfox100]

I'm on the brink of starting the legal process (already sat down with them and worked out how we're going to approach it). Will give the insurer one last opportunity to do the right thing. In the meantime, I still have some homework to do.

I was going to get a damp proofing specialist to make an opening in the floor and check the integrity of the DPM/DPC. I'm afraid his quote was other worldly - and I simply don't have the $ to do that - so will have to make a go of it myself.


Opening of floor screed against internal side of gable wall.


As you can see, I removed the skirting. Not aware of that revealing anything in and of itself. I've then taken a bolster to a small section of the screed - and have reached the underlying floor insulation.

Question: If this is detailed correctly, should I not now see the 'lip' of the dpm turn up along the edge of that insulation/screed - and turn in /be tucked in to the wall (at the point of the damp proof course)? Is it logical that this will be deeper still? Should I go deeper?

 

[borderfox100]

Ok, I've had at it with the Bolster & Hammer

Opening

I've cleared through to the insulation underlying the screed. Should I not see a fold of the dpm come up the side - along by that insulation and be folded inwards into the wall (at dpc level)? Is it intuitive that the dpc - and therefore the dpm 'fold/lip' could be deeper still? Should I root out some more?


EDIT - I've tried to clean up that image so that it looks clearer => 2nd Pic

 

[^woody^]

Is it of solid floor slab or a suspended beam and block construction?

 

[borderfox100]

Its a concrete raft foundation with what should be dpm/radon barrier membrane, eps rigid floor insulation and screed finish....so solid floor slab i guess.

 

[borderfox100]

Ok, got a little bit more time - so chiseled back right to the face of the block - and still no sign of the 'returning end' of the Damp Proof Membrane - along the perimeter/side.


Pic => http://imgur.com/e1Kap3b


Surely it can't be a case that it's meeting the dpc at a point lower than the screed and floor insulation?? If that was the case, would that be legal?

 

[borderfox100]

Ok, I cleared one of the openings (that had been made some time ago to prove water transmission across the cavity) in the external wall down to the very bottom of the cavity - scooping out the EPS bonded bead. Here's what I've found.

Mortar on cavity floor

Isn't that enough to prove that if the whole of the base of the cavity is not cleared out, then I will always be likely to have some level of water ingress - as the mortar is attached to the DPC membrane - In that particular location, it almost completely bridges the cavity by itself (without any help from the bonded bead (which was present at that level until I removed it)?

 

[^woody^]

Sometimes, shallow rafts may be designed with the DPM running on the underside and up the side of the toe or edge beam. It's not a good design, but it is not unknown.

If this was the case, then it would be on the outer face of that inner block leaf.

It would be easier to check by removing bricks from the outer leaf.

 

[^woody^]

Ok, I cleared one of the openings (that had been made some time ago to prove water transmission across the cavity) in the external wall down to the very bottom of the cavity - scooping out the EPS bonded bead. Here's what I've found.

Mortar on cavity floor

Isn't that enough to prove that if the whole of the base of the cavity is not cleared out, then I will always be likely to have some level of water ingress - as the mortar is attached to the DPC membrane - In that particular location, it almost completely bridges the cavity by itself (without any help from the bonded bead (which was present at that level until I removed it)?

You posted that as I was replying to a previous post.

Water in a cavity is OK (though not ideal), as long as it is below DPC, and the inner flor is protected by a DPM.