Hello and thank you very much for your reply.
The particular policy associated with my property defines the cover in the first two years as "part B Contractors Repair Cover"; it also states the period of this cover lasts "for two years from the date of the insurance certificate".
Under the Buildmark Choice policy the date goes from the inspection Finalled date and not the legal completion date. The inspection Finalled date on this policy was the 03rd June 2008. This means I am currently under section 3 of the policy, which covers NHBC obligations in years 3 to 10 if there is damage to certain parts of the property. Please see as follows:
PARTS OF A HOME COVERED IN YEARS THREE TO TEN OF THE POLICY
(BUILDMARK POLICY APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY REGISTERED WITH NHBC FROM 1 APRIL 2007)
- Foundations, load-bearing parts of floors, walls or roof
- Non load-bearing partition walls
- Wet-applied plaster
- External render and tile hanging
- Pitched tile and slate roof coverings
- All roof coverings
- Ceilings
- Floor decking or screeds (if they don't support normal loads)
- Multiple glazing panes
- Underground drainage
- Flues (if there's an imminent danger to health and safety)
You are absolutely right: everyone is running away from this!
First is my solicitor who has ignored all my requests for advice. Reporting him to the Legal Ombudsman would generate more work for me; however it is something I have considered.
Then the Housing Association: all they do is keep denying any accountability for any defect or problem with the flat. Since the building is "out of the defect period" and the fact that the flat "is sold as seen", any internal repair falls under the leaseholder's responsibilities.
You seemed to have understood (and described) perfectly what the problem is; however NHBC keep referring to "floor coverings" when the problem is indeed caused by the underneath layer that is not levelled. Considered what the parts of a home covered in years 3 to 10 of the policy are, can the defect with the floor of my property be deemed as a "structural problem"? (This seems to be one of the main requirements for the NHBC to accept and progress any claim). This is what I have found difficult.
I appreciate that, like any other insurance, the Buildmark Choice does not protect the owner against every problem that may occur; as we know several limitations and exclusions apply throughout the policy and the steps the leaseholder should take depend on how long the Buildmark policy has been in force.
When it came to the evidence provided, please read the response from the NHBC as follows:
"From the evidence provided, this does not appear to be a structural issue therefore there would be nothing more NHBC could assist with. If you have a local builder out to look at this and from there findings it shows a structural problem then please come back to us with a report and costing.
We would consider any further evidence to support your concerns regarding the floor at your property, however at this stage based on the information currently available to us, we do not believe the claim would be found valid therefore we do not consider further investigation would be warranted."
A picture of the floor plus a detailed description of the defect and current status of the floor has been enough evidence for the NHBC to establish the defect it's not a structural issue? This I do not consider particularly fair; without requesting further evidence to support my claim, NHBC could instead arrange an inspection of the property before making any final decision. I am sure an inspection would take place after I provided the NHBC with a report of a local builder that confirms the defect is of a structural nature.
The main reason why I have not notified the builders yet it's because the Developers Defects and Liability period has expired and I am now in the years 3 to 10 of the policy.
As the defect period has long since expired, the builders have been reluctant to accept liability as in many of the reported cases, they hold end of defect reports, signed off by residents. However, for problems related to windows, the Housing Association have required the builders to revisit a number of flats for verification if the problem is in fact an issue relating to defective installation or component. I am not sure why the same procedure has not been followed when leaseholders reported defects with the floor of their flat (a few cases within the building).
I also learned during the first 2 years the Housing Association asked the builders to put right any defect or damage reported by the leaseholders; one flat had its floor repaired twice and despite of that, it is still not right. This shows the quality of the job carried out by the builders.
My flat was formerly rented under the "rent to buy" scheme; therefore I am not the first occupant and I have no information of what was reported as defect, if any (not that it makes any difference to what the current status of the floor is).
I will contact the builders so that I have feedback from all parties, but I am not in the position to pretend them to resolve the problems the floor of my flat.
One of the options would be to sue the builders if there is an allegation that the floor was not installed properly by the builders. I understand that I need to seek specialist legal advice on whether I can sue my freeholder or if I have a case under any piece of legislation such as the Defective Premises Act 1972.
Thank you for your time. As always, I very much welcome your feedback and suggestions.
Kind regards.
Peter