Oh dear

Aug. 26th, 2010 01:14 pm
peterbirks: (Default)
[personal profile] peterbirks
Well,it could well be that, red-flagging or not, I might have to upset Liverpool Victoria and make a claim.

DynaRod turned up this morning and worked away for a few hours. They cleared the blockage. As the Thames Water rep said, the 4-in drainage channel appears to go underneath the extension next door. It then joins an 8-inch channel that comes from we know not where, before heading down to the main sewer at the bottom of Lewisham Hill.

Thames Water continues to deny any liability, despite it being a shared connection. Since the connection appears only to be between number 2 and number 4 (numbers 6 and 8, being larger houses and differently designed, have their own pipes travelling in a more logical fashion down to the main sewer pipe), legally the area appears to be as grey as the water.

The Dynarod guy said I shouldn't even bother trying to fight the case with Thames Water -- "better people have tried", he said, before saying that council tended to do fuck all in fighting the consumer's side in cases such as this. That meant that Thames Water would probably win. In any case, the stress involved there would hardly be worth even fifty grand.

The reason I am mentioning all of this is that, about 15 feet into the pipe, there appears to be a blockage, and that blockage (from the colour of the water coming out in the inspection chamber in front of the house next door) appears to be clay.

That probably means a cracked pipe, quite deep, possibly underneath the extension next door.

A camera guy from DynaRod is coming round ASAP (because the guys reckoned the whole thing would block up again in a week or so) to get the precise layout. Then they could give me an estimate for the cost of fixing it. And that cost could run from a grand to twenty grand -- the latter being because, if the pipe needs to be replaced, the houses would need to be underpinned before any work can start.

It's a lose-lose scenario no matter what. Even if I go to my insurer (which I will probably have to) there's the horrific question of where liability lies. I'm either looking at a lot of money going down the toilet (in more senses than one) or a lot of time filling out forms and talking to solicitors or the CAB or the council or the insurers or, indeed, all four. Time which, really, I don't have. In fact it's the time and stress, rather than the money, which is bothering me.

In a sense I am lucky. All problems are solvable if you throw enough money at it. And for most people it would be the money that would be the most worrying factor (and with good cause). But you can always get the money back, through economizing elsewhere, or working harder, or whatever. You can't get time back.

So, generally, it could all be better, but I suppose it could be worse. And, although it's a lose-lose scenario, it might not be a worst-case lose-lose scenario. Let's just hope.

_____________________

pipes

Date: 2010-08-27 07:16 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Could you just ignore the existing arrangement - and get a completely different connection made?
Elizabeth Birks (Facebook friend of Jonathon Palfrey)

Re: pipes

Date: 2010-08-27 11:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peterbirks.livejournal.com
Hi Elizabeth: Well, if the worst came to the worst, it could come to that. But it would involve a pipe going underneath my house (number 4), and that would cost at least £30,000. The nicest solution would be to "line" the existing pipe, this sealing it. That might come in at about £2,000 to £3,000.

Pete

Re: pipes

Date: 2010-08-27 11:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peterbirks.livejournal.com
The new pipe is £30k rather than £20k is because an entirely new hole/channel would have to be bored, and a new connection to the main sewer created. To replace the existing pipe would still require underpinning, but not the boring of a new channel. That latter prospect necessitates new surveying and lots of horrible other bits and pieces.

PJ

Insurance Claims

Date: 2010-08-27 08:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miltonkeynesman.livejournal.com
Peter - rather sad that on a Bank Holiday weekend I am reading this blog. Rather unpleasant circumstances for you. Not had this actual problem and I appreciate that you have the additional issue of only just moving to a new insurer. However they took on the risk and accepted your premium. They could be looking at a large bill here and I would have thought they would be keen to minimise said bill. So I reckon you should make certain they are fully informed of the situation and ask them for advice - these people usually have preferred suppliers to do the business (not intended to be a pun). If you are upfront with them they usually are helpful and / or you look better if a claim has to be arbitrated in some way. You probably know all this, so will just wish you well with it. At least the rain looks like it has gone.

Re: Insurance Claims

Date: 2010-08-27 11:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peterbirks.livejournal.com
Hi Richard,
I've actually decided to let DynaRod handle this side of the matter -- which might well upset my insurance broker. I actually raised this matter with Dynarod, pointing out that in the commercial sector, you first notified your insurer, even if you didn't know how much it would cost. But that isn't quite true. In the commercial sector, you notify your broker, and THEY notify the insurer.

Point 1 here is -- insurers like talking to people they know, people who talk their language. In this sense, I think letting someone else do the communicating and (hard to do, this) trusting their judgement, is the best route.

2) I think the insurer's "preferred supplier" is DynaRod! But buildings is not like motor, where you have "preferred garages" and other systems by which the insurer spends less money. The major reason for this is to avoid over-billing from cowboys/fraudsters. All of this is, I think, more reason to let DynaRod's specialist insurance department talk with Liverpool Victoria.

As you say, I've paid the premium (indeed, I checked today to see that the cheque had been crashed!) and the whole thing just means that Aviva have been lucky and LV= have been unlucky. I shouldn't beat myself up over that. I know it's not fraudulent; the tenants know it's not fraudulent and DynaRod know it's not fraudulent.

Of course, there's always the worry that the insurer will quote the small print and find a "get-out", but I'm not going to worry about that until it happens.

Yep, it's all a bit of a downer. But if I just focus on process (a mental technique very useful in poker) and do what I can to the best of my ability, then, well, there's nothing more that I can do. No-one's going to die. It might add yet another year or two to my working life before I can afford to retire, but buying downstairs has already added three or four years to that anyway!

Sleep was worst on Tuesday night. On Wednesday I flaked out through exhaustion and slept a good seven hours. Today I've spoken to Winkworth and to DynaRod, and the process is in hand.

Hope you are well!

PJ

Re: Insurance Claims

Date: 2010-08-28 07:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] miltonkeynesman.livejournal.com
Hi Pete - yes, we are fine. I forgot about the broker business, tending to do without that part of the process myself. Anyway hope it is sorted sooner than later.
Saturday night in. Going to watch the Swedish version of Wallander on BBC4. Having watched series 2 first, its weird now watching (the repeated ) series 1 and seeing the characters develop to where they were in series 2. Good fun though. There's something interesting in reading the subtitles and occasionally thinking that the character's actions or expression dont quite match the translation.
Cheers
Richard

Re: Insurance Claims

Date: 2010-08-28 08:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peterbirks.livejournal.com
I've recorded all of series 2, but when they started showing series one again (I'd seen some of them, but not all) I decided to watch that before starting on series 2. This is good, because clearly the character development is important.

I received a PDF from the broker this morning, so now I'm back with having to decide who to claim through - the broker or DynaRod. The claim for is fairly useless, actually, in that I basically have to write "between £2,000 and £30,000" in the "amount being claimed" bit. But, hell, I can send it back to my broker (and an identical one to DynaRod) and let them both hassle the insurer and argue amongst themselves).

I'm watching the Reading Festival at the moment -- Wallander tomorrow. Weird thing is, I was raving about the Swedish version to people about 18 months ago, but the Radio Times seems to have caught up only now.

PJ

Re: Insurance Claims

Date: 2010-08-28 08:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peterbirks.livejournal.com
That should read, "the claim form" rather than "the claim for".

August 2023

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13 14151617 1819
20 212223242526
27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 17th, 2025 05:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios