REPAIRS TO BRICK WALL .. DAMAGED BY TREE ROOTS

[wbmkk]

I hope you can help me

I've been trying to get a subsidence claim for my elderly father sorted out for well over 18 months, with great difficulty. It’s a boundary wall but also includes the side wall of his garage. The cause of the damage, as I knew all along, but the loss adjustor has for some reason only just confirmed recently .. as being vegetation on the other side of the wall, causing the clay soil to dry and shrink, leading to the foundation moving and the wall too. Where the rear wall of the garage joins the boundary wall, originally toothed in properly, there is a crack approx 50mm wide, with bricks broken in two.

The wall (102mm thick) with piers 225 x 225, built in to the wall varies from about 1700 to 2600mm high (garage wall bit). It was all built in 1962, with the house

Initially after I first contacted the insurance company, a surveyor called out and said my father wasn’t covered, as it was, I quote “a badly detailed wall, only being 102mm and therefore not strong enough for the height” If my father had built the wall and it wasn’t right, that would have been a fair comment. However, it came with the house, and my parents were the original owners of the property

Now, 18 months after my first enquiry I have just received the building schedule for the agreed repairs, (well, at least agreed by the loss adjustor only at present) and they are once again going to build a 102mm wide wall; despite mentioning to me on their last visit, several weeks ago, that a thicker wall would be built. If it wasn’t strong enough previously and being used as an excuse, why do it again ?

No doubt the original foundation has moved, leading to the wall moving and being out of plumb in places. The schedule does not mention anything about a new foundation. Instead a piling item is mentioned in the schedule, but no further details.

I have spoken to a friend, who is actually the MD of a building maintenance company. He advised that such underpinning is rarely successful. He added, as the wall, is only a boundary wall, except for the centre section which is the garage wall, the only proper solution is to take the wall down, excavate and provide a new foundation, then rebuild the wall.

Any comments / advice would be appreciated.

 

[^woody^]

The thickness of the wall is irrelevant, as the issue here is clay soils causing foundation movement. It is correct for the insurers to replace the wall like for like, and rebuilding a thicker wall is not required and wont make any difference at all - nor is it part of the policy.

The mention of piling indicates that a new foundation is either being built off piles or underpinned with them, and either of these are typical solutions.

As this is a shrinkable clay soil, your friends advice of a new foundation is wrong, as this will most likely be subject to movement again as the clay expands/contracts.

The idea is to have a foundation which does not move and a piled solution is the best or even only option

 

[chessspy]

Hi, What woody says is true enough, but you could try employing a civil engineer to prepare a report. It will cost, but if his reccomendation is substantially different from the insurers you may have a case to claim your costs back.
And if not thnen you can be reassured.
Alan D. (chessspy) (but a bricky before I retired)

 

[unkle]

Firstly the MD of the building company is wrong.

I've probably dealt with over 500 subsidence claims over the years, not many end in underpinning (as usually a last resort) but those that do 100% that I have dealt with have been successful.

What has been done about the vegitation? If they rectify that issue then underpinning/piling should not be required.

Im not sure who the insurer is but actually you've been quite fortunate - subsidence is normally only covered if the main property is effected.

Your insurance is there to replace like for like, not make improvements - if the wall is of an inadequate size that isn't the insurers fault - they aren't there to fix what the builder potentially did wrong.

However if you wish to have a bigger wall, then i've no doubt you can but you would need to fund the difference in cost.

 

[Bowness72]

Woody wrote:

As this is a shrinkable clay soil, your friends advice of a new foundation is wrong, as this will most likely be subject to movement again as the clay expands/contracts.

I disagree woody. If a new trench fill foundation was constructed at the correct depth, it should be fine, even if it means it is quite deep.

 

[unkle]

Woody wrote:

As this is a shrinkable clay soil, your friends advice of a new foundation is wrong, as this will most likely be subject to movement again as the clay expands/contracts.

I disagree woody. If a new trench fill foundation was constructed at the correct depth, it should be fine, even if it means it is quite deep.

Unless you deal with the root cause (pardon the punn) only underpinning OR new deep foundations are likely to help. But soil test woul dneed to be made as really depends on the roots that are causing the damage and also how far down before you pass clay.

 

[Shytalkz]

The reason the claim has taken the length of time to get to this point is the requirement to monitor ongoing structural behaviour (which is what I assume that has happened). With clays, this means a minimum of 12 months to get any meaningful results, as its behaviour depends on the time of year.

Insurers will usually - and correctly - expect that any cause of movement is identified and isolated and ongoing structural behaviour monitored, before agreeing to any remedial works to foundations. The exception to this is either where there is obviously no prospect of recovery (eg severe erosion due to water escape), or where the movement has placed the structure in a dangerous condition (eg mining/tunnelling subsidence).

Even though it appears that it has been your neighbour's vegetation causing the problem, it is your neighbour's responsibility for the action of their vegetation's roots and presumably there has been some interaction between them and your insurers over the time since you lodged the claim, leading to removal of some or all of it.

The boundary wall is covered, as the garage has been damaged by the same cause, at the same time. However, insurance only exists to put you the insured back in the position in which you were, prior to the occurrence of a peril. In esscence, if the wall was a half brick thick, that is all you will get back and if you want anything different, then the difference in cost is down to you to pay. Which, again, is only right and proper.

Your father's property will undoubtedly have far shallower foundations than would be the case today, but the depth would be normal for that time. The time of construction predates the automatic inclusion of subs cover - since the early 70s - for domestic properties with mortgages on them and there has been an explosion in knowledge about building behaviour since that time (brought about by a massive increase in claims from 76 onwards) on clay soils, which has led to a change in the standards covering foundation depths. Any new foundations will have to comply with the standards of the day and this also relates to remedial works to foundations paid for by insurers (and any other aspect related to the claim which comes under BRegs) and this is the only "betterment" that is covered by insurance policies.

The first loss adjuster was clearly a complete chump. The wall thickness has nothing to do with the movement of the foundations. However, it seems that something has been happening over the past year or so and that they now agree that it is a valid subs claim under the policy terms. I take it that the loss adjuster company is project managing this, ie they are acting as both loss adjuster and engineer? Initials of CL by any chance?

Your MD friend is wrong. There are very few examples of underpinning as a proportion of the whole which have not been successful in arresting further movement and it is not a method that is doomed to failure - only if the chosen method is inappropriate, which does happen occasionally, admittedly.

However, underpinning is not necessarily- in fact, rarely - the first weapon in the armoury that should be reached for and removing obvious adverse causes is successful in the vast majority of instances, without the need to then stabilise the foundations.

All in all, your claim experience has followed established procedure. Whether the scope and extent of work is technically correct is impossible to say, from the limited description that we have of it.

 

[Shytalkz]

Firstly the MD of the building company is wrong.

And talking out of his jacksie .

I've probably dealt with over 500 subsidence claims over the years...

Sprog . Out of interest, in what capacity: loss adjuster, loss assessor (hawk, spit) engineer, claims handler?

What has been done about the vegitation? If they rectify that issue then underpinning/piling should not be required.

Not necessarily. That all depends on the relative ages of the property and the vegetation causing the problem: if, for example, it's a 200 year old Oak affecting a 40 year old property, then its removal will promote heave at some point where the moisture content becomes greater than it was at the time of construction.

Im not sure who the insurer is but actually you've been quite fortunate - subsidence is normally only covered if the main property is effected.

Same cause, same time = covered by the policy, generally. If garage is linked to the house, it normally counts as part of it. If it's separate, then it's open to interpretation.

Your insurance is there to replace like for like, not make improvements - if the wall is of an inadequate size that isn't the insurers fault - they aren't there to fix what the builder potentially did wrong.

Correct, other than statutory requirements of the day requiring unavoidable improvement.

However if you wish to have a bigger wall, then i've no doubt you can but you would need to fund the difference in cost.

Correct.

 

[^woody^]

I disagree woody. If a new trench fill foundation was constructed at the correct depth, it should be fine, even if it means it is quite deep.

Yes of course it could but how deep and wide and at what cost, and at what timescales and levels of disruption? Thats why I said that piling is probably the best or even only option

 

[chessspy]

Hey, Guys,
This is interesting stuff, and, ground heave is a tricky one, as It's almost impossible to say how the clay will behave in the future, except to say that, if a large tree has been removed then it will, (heave).
however if it's just some roots growing under the wall, their removal and a new deeper foundation would be appropriate.
There are various matrials which are intended to allow for heave movement, (clay board etc.) but I wouldn't think they would be necessary here.
Of course we are all guessing/passing opinions here, and somone knowlegable on the spot would have to have the last say.
But this is exactly what these forums (forii ?) are for isn't it, a different perspective etc.
chessspy

 

[^woody^]

Shytalks, you seem to have developed the multi-quoting style of a certain other member here. Shall we also look forward to future posts being argumentative, arrogant, conflictory and argued to the nth degree on the smallest of points?

BTW, the owner of the vegitation will only be responsible for the roots if they encroach over the boundary and directly cause damage, but not for them merely growing on their own land and drinking the water which may or may not cause ground to shrink or expand

 

[Shytalkz]

Shytalks...

On a point of pickiness, it's a zed, Woodster, not an ess

Good point re the vegetation clarification. Was that not a dispute to the nth degree though ?

 

[Shytalkz]

...forums (forii ?)..

Fora? Forae? Foræ?

 

[unkle]

Shytalkz,

I've changed direction slightly (still in insurance) so it's been a few years, but I used to be property claims manager back in the 90's for a fairly large insurer.

Lossa djusters are normally OK, by loss assessors, I think you were being polite!!

Something has changed in recent years, I'd hazard with the vegetation, unless that is rectified the likelyhood of this happening again is high - especially if we ever have a summer like 76 again!! The last year much damage was recorded was 2003, it's possible thats when it started. Also too many dry winters..............

I wasn't necessarily suggesting removal, sometimes lopping/management is all that is needed, and trust me no one wants heave! You think subsidence is bad!!

Yes covered if main build also damaged (so like you assume the garage must be attached).

lastly, someone said tree roots have to pass onto property - they don't..........although 99.9% of the time they have done anyway.

 

[Shytalkz]

Unk:

The problem these days is that the vast majority of claims are project managed by the loss adjuster company acting as both adjuster and engineer - sold on paper to insurers as cutting out independent engineer's fees, but all put back into the pot somewhere.

The problem has been compounded with insurers entering into deals with contractors for claims up to a certain value and no adjuster, or engineer involved at all. There is a lot of scamming going on there and little in the way of checks and balances.

Then, of course there's the percentages game being played: merely undertaking repairs and not even bothering to investigate causation; and, if it doesn't come back for a couple of years, result (in insurer/shareholder eyes anyhow).

At some point, the insurers will wake up and return to the old tried and trusted way of an independent engineer preparing reports and remedial works proposals, totally separate from the loss adjuster. Householders will get better service and will also feel that they truly are getting professional, independent advice, rather than from someone who they perceive - rightly or wrongly - to be in the pay of insurers.

The issue with management of vegetation is that it requires a commitment to ongoing management; and severe lopping of a mature tree will only result in forced growth, by virtue of it being served by a root system for its former, unpollarded self.

As for loss assessors....every job I've ever been involved with where the client's taken them on board, they've created conflict where none previously existed - and, invariably, the insured doesn't fully comprehend that they have to cough up the fees for these parasites, leaving them short for actually doing repairs.