Storm Katie, house and car damage

quango2k

quango2k

Suspended / Banned
Messages
343
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

wondered if anyone has any experience with a similar situation that I am currently in.

I live in a rented house which has building insurance taken out by the house owner. a couple of years ago after a storm a load of ridge tiles came off the roof, narrowly missing my car. The landlord got these fixed pronto by a local roofer and all of them were replaced and re-bedded.

so, here we are not even two years later and storm Katie hit and all those brand new roof tiles came off..this time hitting my car and causing some serious damage! A pillar seriously dented (possible write off) windscreen, side window, driver side wing, bonnet, driver side door and door handle all taking damage.

the following morning the brother of the original roofer came to remove the loose ridge tiles before they also came off, when he come down the ladder he said to me "he has put too much sand in the mix"!!! and now when I look, it just looks like slightly hardened sand rather than cement.

take a look at the video I have made HERE

my car insurance have not come to take the car away yet and I have given them all this info but they are saying it is unlikely they will be able to claim from them! so that is leaving me with my excess to pay (stupidly £1000), windscreen excess and losing my no claims...all because of someones shoddy work!
I know we had a bad storm, but no one elses tiles on my street came off! and theirs are all very old. These could have easily came off and killed someone.

I dont know where to turn next so it would be great if anyone had some advise.
 
Landlords insurance should pay for it surely?
 
Have a read of this thread, Rick

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/storm-damage.620699/

It does look as if the sand/cement mix is too sandy but proving it could be difficult and costly. It is unlikely the second roofer is going to provide you with a view that his brother was incompetent. If it can't be shown that someone was negligent then, like the other thread, it is likely to be classed as an Act of God.

Dave
 
Last edited:
If not then he is liable by himself I'd have thought, bits of his house fell off and damaged your car. If he used the insurers preferred tradesman to fix it first time them the insurance should pay. If he went with some bloke from down the pub then the landlord is liable.
 
I would have thought the landlords insurance would pay for that.
If not, I'd be going to court. It is the landlords responsibility and it is him/her that hired a shoddy roofer.
 
Tringa said:
Have a read of this thread, Rick

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/storm-damage.620699/

It does look as if the sand/cement mix is too sandy but proving it could be difficult and costly. It is unlikely the second roofer is going to provide you with a view that his brother was incompetent. If it can't be shown that someone was negligent then, like the other thread, it is likely to be classed as an Act of God.

Dave
Click to expand...

I forgot to add, I had another roofer come out last night to inspect and quote and he said there is too much sand and looks like a 6/1 mix where it should be a 3/1 mix. I will upload some images of the roof which you can see just looks like sand and not grey cement.
 
ImageUploadedByTalk Photography Forums1459327320.395248.jpg

Here is the roof.

Tonight I'm going to take drone footage of all the houses.
 
Seems like you might have a case. As mentioned in the other thread, a trip to a solicitor who offers free 15 minute consultation might be worth doing. Knowing the generosity (or lack thereof) of landlords I expect you will have to fight. And Id be tempted, if you do win a payout off the landlord to start looking for somewhere else to rent shortly after too.

Of course the landlord might just say "Oh yeah, fair do's, how much do I owe you me old china?" although I'm betting not. Happy to be proved wrong.
 
Do you have legal assistance on your car insurance? They should be able to help if you do.
The windscreen pillar damage doesn't look too severe. A good panel shop should be able to weld rods to that and use a slide hammer to pull most of that out, then a minimal skim of filler to smooth out, then paint.
 
quango2k said:
but they are saying it is unlikely they will be able to claim from them! so that is leaving me with my excess to pay (stupidly £1000), windscreen excess and losing my no claims.
Click to expand...

Don't claim on your car insurance and you won't loose your no claims discount. If the landlord's insurance pays or if you end up suing the landlord/builder it has nothing to do with making a claim on your car insurance so you should not loose your no claims discount. I would definitely take advice before doing anything with your car insurance company. Car insurance generally does not cover you when on private land and with a £1000 excess it's worth getting a quote and doing it with out involving your car insurance.
 
nilagin said:
Do you have legal assistance on your car insurance? They should be able to help if you do.
The windscreen pillar damage doesn't look too severe. A good panel shop should be able to weld rods to that and use a slide hammer to pull most of that out, then a minimal skim of filler to smooth out, then paint.
Click to expand...

yeah, the problem is (which you cannot see) is the combined damage. the A pillar, bonnet, driver side wing, windscreen, side window, mirror, side skirt (which is another colour)

its a fair amount of work all in, two lots of paint (where most of the cost it) and glass which is expensive.
 
sirch said:
Don't claim on your car insurance and you won't loose your no claims discount. If the landlord's insurance pays or if you end up suing the landlord/builder it has nothing to do with making a claim on your car insurance so you should not loose your no claims discount. I would definitely take advice before doing anything with your car insurance company. Car insurance generally does not cover you when on private land and with a £1000 excess it's worth getting a quote and doing it with out involving your car insurance.
Click to expand...

i've already had two quotes both at £2500
 
nilagin said:
Do you have legal assistance on your car insurance? They should be able to help if you do.
The windscreen pillar damage doesn't look too severe. A good panel shop should be able to weld rods to that and use a slide hammer to pull most of that out, then a minimal skim of filler to smooth out, then paint.
Click to expand...

just checked, I have legal cover.
 
Just spoke to my car insurance, they have said with the evidence I have submitted I have a good case and they will persue the house insurance to claim the money back..so I will have to pay for the work up front as it takes a while to get the funds recovered..but I will get it back and they will re-instate the no claims too.

sooooo bloody stressful!
 
Only just seen this thread.

Bear in mind that traditional mortar mix can be sand and lime with no cement powder necessary to create the set. This will largely take the colour of the sand albeit lightened by the lime putty. Such mixes (at 1:2 or 1:3) are perfectly workable and sometimes will set better than brittle cement that subsequently crack and lose key. A lot of builders these days are clueless about such traditional workmanship, and my local builder doing a similar job just called his mix 'gobbo'. However without testing the mix used previously, it is not possible to tell merely from a photograph. The good thing about lime mixes is they continue to develop strength long after the work has been concluded, whereas most cement mortars will 'go off' after 28 days and develop no further strength and are much more likely to shrink and crack.
 
shreds said:
Only just seen this thread.

Bear in mind that traditional mortar mix can be sand and lime with no cement powder necessary to create the set. This will largely take the colour of the sand albeit lightened by the lime putty. Such mixes (at 1:2 or 1:3) are perfectly workable and sometimes will set better than brittle cement that subsequently crack and lose key. A lot of builders these days are clueless about such traditional workmanship, and my local builder doing a similar job just called his mix 'gobbo'. However without testing the mix used previously, it is not possible to tell merely from a photograph. The good thing about lime mixes is they continue to develop strength long after the work has been concluded, whereas most cement mortars will 'go off' after 28 days and develop no further strength and are much more likely to shrink and crack.
Click to expand...


if you have a look at my original post I put a video showing how brittle it is.
 
Thanks for that.

Clearly there was no residue beneath the tile, so whatever remains on the roof hip hasn't seemingly ever connected with the tile, to provide a fix, except at a very small thin point of contact with the edges.

Unfortunately you dont need to pass a test of competence to be a builder, and a large number would fail in practice if they had to explain themselves properly.

(Not; 'I have always done it that way', or 'thats the way mate, don't you dare question what I am doing').

The source of so many problems.

If they had to adhere to a written specification and ongoing inspection, as they would on a major build, they would probably get chucked off site.
 
shreds said:
Thanks for that.

Clearly there was no residue beneath the tile, so whatever remains on the roof hip hasn't seemingly ever connected with the tile, to provide a fix, except at a very small thin point of contact with the edges.

Unfortunately you dont need to pass a test of competence to be a builder, and a large number would fail in practice if they had to explain themselves properly.

(Not; 'I have always done it that way', or 'thats the way mate, don't you dare question what I am doing').

The source of so many problems.

If they had to adhere to a written specification and ongoing inspection, as they would on a major build, they would probably get chucked off site.
Click to expand...

I actually know the roofer, and have done for many years which makes this all so much harder. My brother is also a roofer who used to work with him and said many times there have been complaints about jobs he has done for similar reasons, But try telling him he is doing a s***e job and you get your face chewed off.

I've already told him I dont care what it does to our friendship, I will not be out of pocket because of his competency. One way or another he will end up having to pay for all of the damage.
 
Well, there's no requirement for your landlord to have any form of insurance covering your property (or actually covering anything really - it's a surprisingly unregulated area). But if his building damages your property through no fault of yours then he could be liable. And if he's liable then if he has insurance then it should cover it. (BTW I just checked my buildings insurance. Storm damage is specifically covered and there's none of this nonsense about acts of god.)

But I'd forget all this discussion about whether the mortar was correct or the tiler knew what he was doing or whatever. Far too hard to prove any of that. The wind blew his tile of his roof and hit your car. Start there and ask him why he doesn't think he's liable.
 
JonathanRyan said:
But I'd forget all this discussion about whether the mortar was correct or the tiler knew what he was doing or whatever. Far too hard to prove any of that. The wind blew his tile of his roof and hit your car. Start there and ask him why he doesn't think he's liable.
Click to expand...

This^^^^^
 
quango2k said:
I live in a rented house which has building insurance taken out by the house owner. a couple of years ago after a storm a load of ridge tiles came off the roof, narrowly missing my car. The landlord got these fixed pronto by a local roofer and all of them were replaced and re-bedded.

so, here we are not even two years later and storm Katie hit and all those brand new roof tiles came off..this time hitting my car and causing some serious damage! A pillar seriously dented (possible write off) windscreen, side window, driver side wing, bonnet, driver side door and door handle all taking damage.

the following morning the brother of the original roofer came to remove the loose ridge tiles before they also came off, when he come down the ladder he said to me "he has put too much sand in the mix"!!! and now when I look, it just looks like slightly hardened sand rather than cement.

take a look at the video I have made HERE

my car insurance have not come to take the car away yet and I have given them all this info but they are saying it is unlikely they will be able to claim from them! so that is leaving me with my excess to pay (stupidly £1000), windscreen excess and losing my no claims...all because of someones shoddy work!
I know we had a bad storm, but no one elses tiles on my street came off! and theirs are all very old. These could have easily came off and killed someone.

I dont know where to turn next so it would be great if anyone had some advise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear about your damage. I haven't had a chance to read this thread fully but I imagine what I'm about to say has already you probably already know. I am currently dealing with storm damaged my house and my wooden fence was uprooted and landed in my neighbours drive - as was the case with hundreds of other fences in the County. Fortunately no damage was done to my neighbour but I understand the principle of what you're asking about. I clarified this hypothetically with my insurance company. This is what they have said - when there is a storm nobody is specifically held liable (notwithstanding obvious negligence - more on that in a moment) and the damage falls under Act of God. Hence if you undergo damage arising from elsewhere, the protocol is to make a claim as usual through your insurance company. This does of course mean that you will have your usual XS to pay. Remember that storm damage is not the fault of whomever's property fell on your property - unless you can prove they were negligent. You have raised the quality of the building work on the roof which fell off in the storm - it sounds like the job was done poorly. In which case, you would still put in a claim to your own insurance company but you would advise them of the negligence by your neighbour's builder - you may have to play hardball but your insurer can in theory then claim back the loss from your neighbour's insurer, based on negligence (including recovery of your XS). The caveat is that the neighbour may stress that he was not aware that the roofing job had been done badly, so in that case the claim may fall towards the builder. You have already had somebody clearly comment that the mortar mix was incorrect - you can quote them even without witnesses.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
This^^^^^
Click to expand...

Generally the neighbour would not be held liable for storm damage because it falls under Act of God - however he may become liable if he has been negligent in some way. For example having a rotten tree close to the boundary which gets blown over onto the neighbouring property, or perhaps in this case carrying out shoddy roofing which was not secure - as I mentioned above it is worth fighting this but as has been said this kind of negligence is very difficult to prove. I would guess that the OP may qualify for legal assistance from his own insurer so it would be worth him speaking to them.

Fortunately my fence did not damage my neighbour's car when it came down in the storm - but he made it quite clear to me that if it had he would have expected me to pay for the repairs, not his insurance company. That is not the correct way forward because it was not my fault that a storm happened and my fence was in serviceable condition. Had my fence been rotten and hanging by a thread then he would have had a much better argument.
 
Its not his neighbour Lindsay, but the landlord of the property he's in. (But similar logic probably applies.)
 
Lindsay D said:
Generally the neighbour would not be held liable for storm damage because it falls under Act of God
Click to expand...

In the UK, in general a storm is not considered an act of god. It's the weather. An act of god would be something completely unforeseeable and unusual like an earthquake. Whoever told you they didn't cover storm damage was possibly a "new member of staff acting on their own initiative who has now been selected for further training".

Some notes from the ombudsman - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/storm-damage.html - "Buildings insurance policies generally cover financial loss caused by storm damage.". Of course then the argument is whether it was a storm or not but since the Met Office called it "Storm Katie" I think it should be a pretty easy one.
 
DorsetDude said:
Its not his neighbour Lindsay, but the landlord of the property he's in. (But similar logic probably applies.)
Click to expand...

Ah I'm with you - yes, if the landlord/building owner used a shoddy builder (or did the work himself badly) then the OP's car insurer could in theory pursue the landlord's insurance company to claw back the loss. I think in the first instance the OP needs to get legal advice which will hopefully be available under his insurance policy.
 
JonathanRyan said:
In the UK, in general a storm is not considered an act of god. It's the weather. An act of god would be something completely unforeseeable and unusual like an earthquake. Whoever told you they didn't cover storm damage was possibly a "new member of staff acting on their own initiative who has now been selected for further training".

Some notes from the ombudsman - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/storm-damage.html - "Buildings insurance policies generally cover financial loss caused by storm damage.". Of course then the argument is whether it was a storm or not but since the Met Office called it "Storm Katie" I think it should be a pretty easy one.
Click to expand...

I wasn't told that storm damage wasn't covered (unless its fences and hedges which most insurers do not cover!) - I was specifically told by every source I consulted that when damage arises from a storm nobody is held 'at fault' unless there is specific negligence. Because of that, if you sustain storm damage you should always go through your own insurance company in the first instance, and if appropriate also ascertain if your insurer can recover the loss from the other party if you feel they are specifically liable. In that regard I was told it was categorized alongside 'act of God'. There is plenty about this on the Internet because it is such a common scenario following a storm!

As you rightly say, determining when a storm is a storm can be a hurdle in itself. I didn't think there would be any issue with that regarding storm Katie, but the insurance guys who visited me today obliquely suggested that they found it unlikely the winds would have been strong enough to cause my damage - that is utterly ludicrous and just goes to show how far some insurance companies will go to evade a claim.
 
Lindsay D said:
I wasn't told that storm damage wasn't covered (unless its fences and hedges which most insurers do not cover!) - I was specifically told by every source I consulted that when damage arises from a storm nobody is held 'at fault' unless there is specific negligence.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So they are basically saying that a storm blew the tile off a roof but god decided that the tile should hit the car. It's no wonder insurers are so rich.
 
JonathanRyan said:
Interesting. So they are basically saying that a storm blew the tile off a roof but god decided that the tile should hit the car. It's no wonder insurers are so rich.
Click to expand...

o_O:LOL: I know! I can't believe they still use that kind of wording in this day and age. With that kind of logic there are lots of disfavoured b*ggers around. I think I must be one of them, judging by the trajectory of my own tiles - although on this occasion my neighbour must've been smiled upon.

I do wish they would replace the term Act of God with something like 'unforeseen catastrophic event' or similar.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
I do wish they would replace the term Act of God with something like 'unforeseen catastrophic event' or similar.
Click to expand...
Isn't an 'unforeseen catastrophic event' more like when I have an 'incident' the morning following a Naga Jalfrezi and 6 pints of kingfisher and have to return home to change my lower garments though?

I've lowered the tone again haven't I? Sorry. It wont happen again.
 
DorsetDude said:
Isn't an 'unforeseen catastrophic event' more like when I have an 'incident' the morning following a Naga Jalfrezi and 6 pints of kingfisher and have to return home to change my lower garments though?
.
Click to expand...

Well, you might be able to claim on insurance for that - for replacement of the garments and any seating you were on at the time? ;) You may have to word it nicely on the claim form though.

I knew someone who was sick all over his bed (goosedown duvet and expensive cashmere mattress) after having 8 pints of Guinness - the insurance did pay up without question.
 
I've handed in lots of evidence of incompetent work done on the house, I also had a third independent building inspector take a look and he concurs and will give me a letter to that effect.

Here's another video of my entire street. Note the colour of the mix vs everyone else's houses. Ours is the newest ridge tiles of the lot too.

View: https://youtu.be/qR_wYFvBQs0
 
Ultimately, you do not need to claim on your insurance (as mentioned above.)

Landlord insurance is next port of call which the landlord needs to do.

His insurer, should then make a claim to the roofer's ins co (assuming the roofer wasn't a "mate of his" who did it on the side for £50.

I don't see why you should have to pay up front.

If there is structural damage to the A pillar that impinges on the strength of it, chances are will be a write off.
 
quango2k said:
I've handed in lots of evidence of incompetent work done on the house, I also had a third independent building inspector take a look and he concurs and will give me a letter to that effect.

Here's another video of my entire street. Note the colour of the mix vs everyone else's houses. Ours is the newest ridge tiles of the lot too.

View: https://youtu.be/qR_wYFvBQs0
Click to expand...

Why did you not mention to the LL at the time?
 
Lindsay D said:
Sounds like it may have been - it has the markings of a botch job. And with that in mind, one has to wonder about this particular builder's insurance status. In which case liability would probably then fall back on the landlord's insurer.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top