personal finance

'Our house fell apart – but our insurer won't pay the full amount'


A Sussex family has accused Direct Line of “shocking and appalling” treatment following an eight-year battle over a subsidence claim during which time, they say, the property has worsened each year to the point of becoming dangerous.

Robert Sherburn first reported cracks in the walls back in 2010, when he and his wife Anna’s first son, Hector was still in nappies. Eight years on, they say their three children have had to live in a home that is falling apart, and the subsidence is so bad they can put a hand through some of the holes in the walls. Rain was leaking into the kids’ bedrooms.

The couple say their building experts have told them this is the worst case of unfair treatment by an insurer towards a policyholder they have come across.

Each year of delays has meant ever-widening cracks in the terraced house in Lewes, thus pushing up the final repair bill. After a protracted legal battle, Direct Line has offered £363,000 in “full and final” settlement, but the couple say this does not come close to the true cost. Their experts have told them that it could cost double that.

Photos of the house seen by the Guardian are shocking and their case will be seen as an extreme example of how insurers aim to cut their liabilities when subsidence strikes. They are already bracing themselves for a spike in such claims after this summer’s heatwave which led to cracks appearing in walls across south-east England.

Direct Line says the majority of the delays have been due to the Sherburn family’s requests for work to be undertaken that is “neither required, nor covered” by his policy.

What really shocked Sherburn was Direct Line’s U-turn after at first accepting their claim. “Initially, it seemed to be going fine,” says Sherburn, who runs a design agency in nearby Brighton. “Back in 2011 the team of loss adjusters appointed by Direct Line concluded that our home was subsiding – that it had occurred since we had moved in – and that our policy would cover the necessary underpinning and associated works.

“But just before the works were due to start, Direct Line, without any explanation, disinstructed them and replaced them with another firm, Innovation Group.

“Almost immediately they appeared to set about disproving the need for underpinning in a way which seemed, and still seems to us, to be designed to reduce Direct Line’s costs. Then, in 2012, we were told they did not believe our house was subsiding. It was shocking.”

A crack caused by subsidence in the Sherburns’ home.



A crack caused by subsidence in the Sherburns’ home. Photograph: Andrew Hasson for the Guardian

At this point, the couple were forced to appoint their own team of independent technical advisers, and have been battling the insurance for a proper payout since.

“Along our terrace, eight of the 10 homes have been underpinned. Ours and next door’s are the only homes not to have had the work done.

“Interestingly, the same firm of loss adjusters advised our neighbour’s insurers that underpinning was not required there, as well. They patched up the damage and a certificate of structural adequacy was issued. Several months later, new large cracks appeared,” he says.

Sherburn’s structural engineer told him that had Direct Line undertaken the work in 2011, as originally planned, it would have saved itself thousands of pounds. He has also told the couple that the structural integrity of their back wall is now compromised across all three storeys, requiring a major rebuild.

As a result, the final bill is now outside the £150,000 limit of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

“When I tell other people what’s happened, they can’t believe that a big household name like Direct Line could behave this way. You have no idea how stressful it is to watch your house fall apart in front of your eyes.

“We have asked Direct Line to go to arbitration but it has been refused. All we have had is a ‘take it or leave it’ offer from its solicitors. We simply want to live in a safe home without holes in the walls. That doesn’t seem too much to ask,” he says.

Direct Line says the company has now agreed to mediation to enable this claim to move forward. It rejects any claims the house is unsafe. It adds: “Despite our best efforts, it has unfortunately not yet proved possible to agree a scope of works, and consequently the costings. Mr Sherburn is insisting that the rear of the property be demolished and rebuilt, our external specialists have advised us that this is not necessary.

“He has been informed on several occasions that he is free to take his concerns to the Financial Ombudsman, who would be able to provide direction on this case despite the size of the claim; he has refused this.”



READ SOURCE

Leave a Reply

This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you accept our use of cookies.