Mr A

Mr A was a freehold owner of a residential property which suffered subsidence. The insurer monitored his property for six years and concluded that his property was stable. It offered to pay for redecoration but for no actual property repairs. Our specialist law firm was instructed by Mr A. They obtained evidence that the property was structurally weakened and needed underpinning. The matter went to court where despite the insurer offering only £7,000 to settle, Mr A eventually received £192,000.

Mr B

Mr B also had a subsidence claim at that affected his home caused by tree roots from a neighbouring property. His claim was subject to extensive delays. Eventually the insurance company advised that all they could do was to put a root barrier in his garden, and in time his property should recover. Mr B was put in touch with our specialist law firm and they obtained evidence that the root barrier would not restore the property at all. The insurer only offered to pay £20,000 and so the matter went to court. Mr B obtained £300,000 for the full repair of his property.

Mr C

Mr C had a flood at his home. He had his contents and buildings insured with different companies. The contents insurer investigated his claim and made a payment. The buildings insurer declined his claim, insisting he was running a business from his home that he’d not declared. The insurer voided his policy. Mr C was put placed with one of our panel law firms who considered that Mr C had carefully answered all questions put to him about his insurance, and there was no duty for him to say anything about matters that weren’t subject to a clear question. Mr C commenced legal proceedings and reached a settlement figure of £100,000 with the insurer.