E5 — FOS positions on subsidence Stabilisation as repair, Sum Insured, semi-detached

← Subsidence course

EXPERT Subsidence · Further Knowledge · E5 of 6

The four common FOS subsidence complaints

1. Insurer rejects on basis damage is not subsidence (e.g. settlement, thermal, roof spread, wall-tie failure) or excluded
2. Poor administration — delays, communication, alternative accommodation
3. Settlement insufficient — PH wants underpinning, insurer says less
4. Poor repair quality / further damage during repair

FOS positions — the ones to know

Patios, paths, pools, outbuildings

Many policies exclude subsidence damage to these unless main residence is also damaged. FOS does NOT view this as unusual or onerous. Key test = is main structure damaged.

Stabilisation

Not always underpinning. Can be drain repair, vegetation removal, additional strengthening. FOS weighs expert evidence; may seek further independent evidence.

Reduction in value post-repair

FOS generally decides: if stabilised + properly repaired, no reduction expected. Most policies exclude this.

Sum Insured cap

When an insurer chooses to repair, it has entered a "contract to repair" — separate to the insurance contract. FOS likely to require insurer to continue beyond Sum Insured for stabilisation + repair.

Pre-inception damage

Insurer only liable for damage post-policy-start, UNLESS impossible to repair without addressing previous damage too — then included. Continuous cover trail (no gap) → ABI Change of Insurer Agreement applies.

Stabilisation as repair vs prevention

Proper repair needs a lasting fix, not a patch-up. If movement will continue without stabilisation, insurer must pay stabilisation cost.

Tree work cost

Usually refused as "preventative" but FOS accepted in one case that tree reduction = method of repair (cracks would close once tree reduced, avoiding underpinning). Distinguish "work to enable cracks to close" from "future damage prevention".

Semi-detached neighbour refusing co-operation

Insurer must find an alternative technically harder + more expensive solution that doesn't need access. PH still entitled to proper repair.

Retaining wall failure as "landslip"

In layman's terms — a wall holding back soil that would otherwise slip = landslip damage. Engineering definition isn't binding on policy interpretation.