Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

[stevemLS]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

If you have the report as a pdf if you click the Go Advanced button, you will get a little paper clip that allows you to attach files.

You should remove all identifying information first.

Alternatively, if you email it to [MENTION=49370]Kati[/MENTION] she may very kindly do it for you.

You have been given several views that this is nothing to do with the police.

[Kati]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Feel free to email to me :nod: kati@legalbeagles.info xx

[Guest]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Thanks for the info. I'll post the attachments.

Yes, I accept the views that this is nothing to do with the police, I just feel so resentful of what this insurance company has done to me and my family - 16 years, it's a long time.

[des8]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Thanks for the info. I'll post the attachments.

Yes, I accept the views that this is nothing to do with the police, I just feel so resentful of what this insurance company has done to me and my family - 16 years, it's a long time.

I appreciate your feelings in this matter, but until such time as Zurich complete their investigations and decide what they will do, there is little you can do beyond what you have already done.

When they have decide to repair and reinstate, or when you take court action (hopefully not) is the time to request compensation for the stress their poor performance has caused you, and your expenses.

[Kati]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Got them xx

[Guest]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Thank you Kati - you're a star

[Kati]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Thank you Kati - you're a star

:yo:

[Guest]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Is it possible to re-open this thread by asking for further advice please?

The update is that Zurich paid my costs in obtaining evidence and also obtained their own report which advises staying with the repairs they instigated by means of raising the garage floor and surrounding land by 4 inches etc. They say that as the garage is now stable, they see no point in partially rebuilding to put back in the original condition. When their engineer inspected, he managed to avoid that the twisted garage roof is letting in water (as confirmed by my engineer, who was also present during the inspection).

I would like to ask the following please (and I've linked it to Des8's post because of his comment that "to begin court proceedings now would invite the response that op is jumping the gun by not awaiting the final decision by the ombudsman and not allowing Zurich to finalise their response".

Some of you, as well as two solicitors I have discussed the matter with, advise that I am out of time to bring proceedings, but I couldn't have instigated legal proceedings without the professional report I obtained because I simply did not know what I might have to complain about. As well I do not yet have Zurich's final decision. So am I in time to bring a claim if necessary or not? It seems reasonable to me that I must first obtain Zurich's final decision and also that of the Ombudsman.

As well as information from this thread that my grounds would be Breach of Contract and Supply of goods and Services Act, I have spoken with two other solicitors. One told me that they will take a case Zurich for Breach of Contract but I have no grounds for compensation for the stress and distress that I and my family have endured for almost 17 years now. The other said I have a case for Breach of Contract and also negligence against Zurich and their contractors. The first would take a Breach of Contract case under Conditional fee agreement. The second won't take the case at all. Both solicitors argue that I am likely to lose because I am out of time. So can any of you advise about this please, I don't understand how I could have instructed solicitors over something I had no evidence of . I'm a housewife, not a builder! And even now, Zurich have not said "that's it, take it or leave it".

One further point, my daughter has suggested that, given that the property could reasonably easily be converted into two flats and that I also own the bulk of what may be termed a "ransom strip", instead of insisting that Zurich restore to its previous condition, I might see if I can sell to a developer, or even at a lower price to someone who is capable of doing their own restoration, in which case I would ask Zurich to pay the difference between what the property sells for in its present condition and what it would otherwise have sold for if in the pristine condition it was once in. Does anyone have any views on that?

Thanks for any advice/information.

[des8]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

Well it would be foolhardy of me to contradict solicitors, but I don't understand how you can be out of time to take action against Zurich for breach of contract.
You would be claiming they had not completed their side of an insurance contract.
In this instance their part of the contract was to put you back in the position you were in before the subsidence.
This they have failed to do, but only now are advising they feel the claim is settled (or are they still postponing a final decision?) and they insist the remedial works are satisfactory.
You disagree, and so can sue for breach of contract and request specific performance as a remedy.
IMO (not a lawyer bth) limitation period for initiating proceedings in court against Zurich would be when they declared a claim settled, as prior to that they would still be settling the claim.

Whether or not your home would be an attractive proposition for a developer, I couldn't possibly comment!

[Guest]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

You would be claiming they had not completed their side of an insurance contract.
In this instance their part of the contract was to put you back in the position you were in before the subsidence.
This they have failed to do, but only now are advising they feel the claim is settled (or are they still postponing a final decision?) and they insist the remedial works are satisfactory.

They haven't actually said that they feel the claim is settled. Having informed me that they have accepted their surveyor's opinion that the garage will not be rebuilt because it is now stable and they propose to complete the outstanding work by raising the gardens and drive etc, Zurich is now considering my argument that the stability of the garage does not fulfil their contractual obligation to me.

You disagree, and so can sue for breach of contract and request specific performance as a remedy.

As I have requested.
It has also been suggested to me that I may want to obtain valuations of the worth of the property as it is now, as it would be if restored to its previous good order, the cost of the restoration if not done by Zurich and try to sell at the lower value, seeking the differential from Zurich.

IMO (not a lawyer bth) limitation period for initiating proceedings in court against Zurich would be when they declared a claim settled, as prior to that they would still be settling the claim.

Thank you, I appreciate your opinion.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Civil or criminal - Insurance company or police?

They haven't actually said that they feel the claim is settled. Having informed me that they have accepted their surveyor's opinion that the garage will not be rebuilt because it is now stable and they propose to complete the outstanding work by raising the gardens and drive etc, Zurich is now considering my argument that the stability of the garage does not fulfil their contractual obligation to me.



As I have requested.
It has also been suggested to me that I may want to obtain valuations of the worth of the property as it is now, as it would be if restored to its previous good order, the cost of the restoration if not done by Zurich and try to sell at the lower value, seeking the differential from Zurich.



Thank you, I appreciate your opinion.

Go through your buildings/ home insurance contract, clause by clause, and remind your insurers of their contract. Look in particular fort 'third party' cover. There is no way a person would pay for buildings insurance if it did not cover neighbour's activities... it's foreseeable that joined up houses (terraces) will at some point result in problems. Scenario fire in home 1 spreads and damage home 2 and 3 in the row....third parties.