Sometimes nightmares are real: the insurance story

[MikeSharp01]

1 hour ago, recoveringacademic said:

Looking passed pissed-offness is hard, I accept there is a good deal in what you say.

What I appreciate much more is the confidence you have in telling me what you think. I hesitate to use the phrase 'thats what friends are for' but if it isn't that, then its something close.

Just seen this thread - not good news. There may be a middle way for you here Ian. Why not move on but not let it drop. IE take the intellectual decision to stop the past affecting your future but at the same time just prod the claim along gently in the back ground without rancour as it is no longer a problem for you but you might be successful in getting a result and inadvertently help others using this technology. 

 

Looking through it all DURASOL have a problem at the bottom of this because their advice is just wrong and very plain to see. Just saying the build should have used common sense is not a defence, your builder was actually following their advice by the sounds of it, if the advice he was given by DURASOL is as it appears on their website. There is not, for instance, associated footnote that indicates there are any limits to this claim that there is no need to support them. If the DURASOL advice now changes then your case is strengthened if it does not change the DURASOL will now be liable for any incidents and were any incidents to result in death of injury then things could get very nasty for them - nobody wants that.

 

Move on an plan a strategy to follow it up off-line by showing all the parties that there is a problem here that has cost you money and you intend not to let it drop.

[ProDave]

In the electrical industry, when something goes wrong one of the first places anyone looks is the "Manufacturers instructions"

 

In this case the MI were clear, does not need propping. That is the end of it. I would be perusing the manufacturer for the cost of the damaged blocks and the labour to rebuild the collapsed section of wall.

 

Until you have that satisfaction, make as much publicity as you can on the internet about how that particular product, when used according to the MI, failed. And make sure the manufacturer is linked to that bad publicity so they know about it.

[richi]

20 minutes ago, ProDave said:

In this case the [Manufacturers instructions] were clear, does not need propping.

If you plan to go to court, if you plan to threaten it, or if you choose to publicise the issue, you should be clear on terminology. I am not a lawyer, but...

 

From what I've seen in this thread, although the manufacturer said this in so many words, it's a step too far to call it "Manufacturers instructions." It looks to me like a marketing claim.

 

In the absence of an instruction, a builder ought to use common sense (you wouldn't pile up any blocks that high without thinking about H&S). On the other hand, a marketing claim like that is essentially a contractual promise. So your beef is actually with both parties.

[SteamyTea]

Did you keep the Durasol rep/trainers number?

Get him in to rebuild it

[Onoff]

Can't remember anywhere in the (electrical) regs, where it says in big, bold type "Don't grab the red & black together".  Some things are just "common sense".

 

Says here can be stacked "several" blocks high without propping:

 

https://www.durisoluk.com/icf-technical-advice/what-is-insulated-concrete-formwork/

 

But it should be clear across their site.

 

[AliG]

This is why I would be more inclined to pursue Durisol than the insurer.

 

The insurer can rely on common sense says that you don't build an unsupported wall. They are insuring unforseen circumstances, this could be easily foreseen. I undertand @JSHarris argument that they might pay out to save hassle, but the real culprit here is Durisol not the insurer.

 

Already this is bad PR for Durisol, an insurance company isn't really worried about bad PR, everyone hates them.

 

 

[Stones]

Another agreeing with @Barney12 and others.  It has to be worth pursuing £1200 in the measured way described, if for no other reason that at some point when the build gets past this current difficult stage, you will wish you hadn't just written it off / it would always niggle you.  As others have said, sitting down and writing a suitably worded letter stating your position and your intention need not take hours and there is support on here for peer review of any correspondence should you so wish. Leave it until the next rainy day / until more pressing things (finishing the walls, parting with builder, finding assistance) have been completed, even if this means sending a short holding letter meantime.

 

I pursued a complaint in respect of advice I'd been given on our last build in respect of the heating system.  Ended up agreeing to a cash payment and provision of servicing for the system.  My position in that case was fairly weak as the paperwork I had was limited, but the company involved didn't want to run the risk of small claims action or indeed the impact of negative publicity.  

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

6 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Exactly as @Barney12 as said.  Just one well-crafted letter.  [...]

 

That's what Debbie's got her teeth into.

An uncomfortably sharp mind, a job where she spends a good deal of time giving difficult messages to stressed people. And doing so quietly and dispassionately.  It's essential for us to proceed in a manner which engenders the least defensive responses.

 

I quote from the met report we asked for from the local Met Office (Lancaster University Met Office is round the corner from Debbie's office on campus)

 

[The wind] seems to have been averaging up to 11 m/s (~25mph) during the night. We no longer measure gusts but looking at some older data with the wind in a similar direction, you can be pretty sure it would be regularly gusting at least 1.5 times the average. From memory, it was particularly gusty, so the highest speeds may have been more like double the average.

 

This is pretty unusual for July - especially from that direction.

(Signed Dr. xyz)

 

We've sent that to the Insurers. In addition the topography locally (here's the image: there's a steep ridge just out of sight by the pond next to the road) adds to the turbulence. Any glider pilot would recognise that it's a perfect slope soaring ridge.

 

We'll keep you all posted.

[ProDave]

Glider pilots and sailors.

 

Sailing on Monday, wind coming off the land (not the normal prevailing direction) Contrary to what most people would think, the wind was stronger, the closer in to the shore you got, very strong at the bottom of the cliff  A mile out and there was hardly any wind at all.

[Temp]

If you don't get any joy out of Duisol you might care to submit a complaint to the ASA. Web sites are considered adverts and adverts must not be misleading. Can all be done online these days. You must provide a screen shot and state why you think it's misleading. They will give the company a chance to comment and for you to comment on their comment. In recent years I've made three complaints and had all upheld although one company strung out the process for a year and then withdrew their advert which meant the ASA didn't publish their findings. You don't win anything except the satisfaction that nobody else will be caught out.

Edited August 12, 2017 by Temp

[Jeremy Harris]

Depends in which country the web site is owned.  I've been struggling to stop a certain individual from giving false information and using photographs without my consent on his website for well over a year.  I've been advised that I have to go to the EU courts to get it resolved, believe it or not, and so far the case has been sat there for a year, as they have a big backlog to work through.

[Temp]

Good point. One I made was against an Irish company and they have their own ASA so that worked out ok. I'm not sure what happens if a UK based company uses an overseas web host? Pretty sure the UK ASA would still take it on if they think the advert is aimed at UK residents.

[Jeremy Harris]

15 minutes ago, Temp said:

Good point. One I made was against an Irish company and they have their own ASA so that worked out ok. I'm not sure what happens if a UK based company uses an overseas web host? Pretty sure the UK ASA would still take it on if they think the advert is aimed at UK residents.

 

The web site is run by an RoI citizen (the same one that caused the demise of Ebuild), but is hosted by a US hosting company, and is using a .co.uk domain, so is clearly aimed at the UK market.  So far neither the ASA or the ASAI have been able to help, the hosting company want me to pay them a $10,000 deposit to cover any initial legal fees they may incur (!) and the best advice I've had was to pursue it through the EU courts (which I'm doing).

 

The problem is that I still get people contacting me, having seen the images and false description on that website, and I'm getting fed up with telling them that the information is wrong and that the owner is using images that are my copyright, without authority. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by JSHarris

[Tennentslager]

Ethical hacking at the local Uni...? Or some of your old dark side contacts?

That'll do it.

[Jeremy Harris]

11 minutes ago, Tennentslager said:

Ethical hacking at the local Uni...? Or some of your old dark side contacts?

That'll do it.

 

The thought has crossed my mind, more than once, as I'll never recover the cost of legal action, simply because I don't think the web site owner has the money to cough up.

[Ferdinand]

12 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Depends in which country the web site is owned.  I've been struggling to stop a certain individual from giving false information and using photographs without my consent on his website for well over a year.  I've been advised that I have to go to the EU courts to get it resolved, believe it or not, and so far the case has been sat there for a year, as they have a big backlog to work through.

 

What are the hosting company refusing to help you with. Just removal of the content?

 

One approach is to invoice them for the use of the pictures at a commercial rate, then follow up the debt in the small claims or Irish equivalent.

 

Or are there any routes via Google to remove them from the search engine?

 

F

Edited August 12, 2017 by Ferdinand

[ToughButterCup]

18 hours ago, Temp said:

If you don't get any joy out of Duisol you might care to submit a complaint to the ASA. Web sites are considered adverts and adverts must not be misleading. Can all be done online these days. You must provide a screen shot and state why you think it's misleading. [...]

 

Hmmm, didn't know that.

They are coming out on Tuesday to help with the build (pouring on that day). Our instinct is to tread softly and diplomatically despite our irritation.

[Onoff]

Let's not forget suppliers likely read these pages! 

[SteamyTea]

I would encourage suppliers to read these pages, it helps inform and educate, and maybe entertain.

[Jeremy Harris]

14 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

I would encourage suppliers to read these pages, it helps inform and educate, and maybe entertain.

 

I agree, but with the proviso that self-builder and renovators are a pretty small part of the market, so many of the larger companies may well not be too bothered by what we have to say here.

 

I'm sure some of the smaller companies that are more focussed on self-builders do read this forum, and I suspect they find the feedback they get from here useful.

[craig]

We read a few of the sites ourselves, our focus is to all but our appeal tends to be with the self builders / one off builders.

 

We find the topics / posts extremely useful and think supplier / client interaction, should be encouraged more.

[Ferdinand]

On 12/08/2017 at 20:21, recoveringacademic said:

 

Hmmm, didn't know that.

They are coming out on Tuesday to help with the build (pouring on that day). Our instinct is to tread softly and diplomatically despite our irritation.

 

Aiui that relates to the category of 'promotion' which can be broad, but there is also perhaps a time limit over publication.

 

Though in the past in English defamation law each time a page is loaded has been considered as a new act of publication.

 

OT: I have sometimes considered using it as a tool to deal with fake claims on 'facts' or FAQ pages by single issue campaigns, but never got around to it. They receive a huge number of complaints .. hundreds a week.

 

If Durisol cooperate as they seem to have done, a request for a correction or a change of wording might be as effective in updating the website.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Ferdinand

[ToughButterCup]

Well, some you win. See below.

 

Dear Mr & Dr Simpson,

I refer to the above matter (our claim) and all previous correspondence., and all of you for making the process a little less painful.Having now completion addition enquiries I am please (sic!) to confirm Insurers acceptance of the claim.

 The amount claimed was set out your email of 26 July in accordance with the estimate from Durisol UK in the sum of £1,298.34 inc VAT. Labour was confirmed to be free.

The policy carries an excess of £250 and so the net settlement is £1,048.34.

 

There was an element of luck in our claim, I think. Lancaster University has a full scale weather station (if you use the M6, you will have seen the windmill as you drive past the university grounds: the weather station is there). The guy who maintains the data has an office round the corner from Debbie's. 

 

His brief email (below) was important.

[The wind] seems to have been averaging up to 11 m/s (~25mph) during the night. We no longer measure gusts but looking at some older data with the wind in a similar direction, you can be pretty sure it would be regularly gusting at least 1.5 times the average. From memory, it was particularly gusty, so the highest speeds may have been more like double the average.
This is pretty unusual for July - especially from that direction.
(Signed Dr. xyz)

 

And  the advice given in this thread.

So, a big thank you to @Barney12, @JSHarris, @Stones, @Russell griffiths @Onoff and all of you for making the process a little less painful. As well as putting some lead in our pencil.

 

A moment's reflection

• Without your support this claim would not have been made - we felt like shrugging and carrying on - head-down-keep-going-itis
• Without supporting data we would not have been able to demonstrate exceptional weather circumstances - and how many of us have direct access to a fully qualified meteorologist : and if we did would we also be in line of sight of a national level weather station?
• Durisol did not think hard enough before drafting their website content

I'm thinking that we are lucky. Most people without access to the level of support itemised above might well have either not claimed or not had access to data to support their claim. And so failed in their application.

 

That's why the companies win: lack of verifiable, objective data on the part of the claimant. The sheer luck of living within sight of a full-blown weather station......

 

I'm off to buy a decent dash cam. Any recommendations?

 

 

[Barney12]

Result, nice work  

[Onoff]

Glad it's all blown over now and that we could be here propping you up...