Subsidence insurance claims are one of the most lopsided processes in UK property. The insurer appoints a loss adjuster. The loss adjuster appoints a surveyor and a contractor. Their job, perfectly reasonably, is to manage the claim in the insurer's interests. Yours is to make sure the claim is decided on the evidence and that the remedial scope is proportionate. An independent subsidence consultancy, paid by you, reporting to you, is the professional counterweight that levels the room.
The three claim situations we support
- Live, accepted claim. Your insurer has accepted that subsidence is the cause and is working through scope and remedy. Our role is independent verification, does the proposed scope reflect the evidence, or is it over-stated? Most savings come at this stage, where a contractor-led method statement can be reduced to a cause-removal intervention plus monitoring, at a fraction of the cost and disruption.
- Disputed claim. The insurer has accepted that there is damage but disputes the cause, the scope of repair, or both. We produce an independent engineer's report that sets out the alternative view with evidence, typically the document that unlocks a constructive conversation with the loss adjuster.
- Rejected claim. The insurer has declined the claim outright, usually on the grounds that the damage is long-standing, gradual deterioration, or caused by a peril not covered. We produce the independent evidence pack you need either to reopen the claim, to escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service, or to support a legal action. A high proportion of well-evidenced rejected claims are overturned at internal escalation or Ombudsman stage.
What an independent claim report contains
- Site inspection record by a chartered engineer or RICS surveyor.
- Crack mapping, BRE damage classification, photo pack.
- Engineering opinion on cause, with reasoning.
- Critique (where appropriate) of the insurer's surveyor or contractor report, specific, evidenced, not polemical.
- Recommended remedial approach, proportionate to the evidence.
- Independent monitoring data where commissioned.
- Drainage CCTV findings where commissioned.
- Statement of independence and PI cover.
The "claim rejected" letter, what to do next
If your subsidence claim has been rejected, do not accept the rejection at face value. Insurers reject a meaningful share of valid subsidence claims every year, often on grounds that do not survive scrutiny, "this damage is pre-existing", "this is normal settlement", "the property was already affected before the policy was taken out". The structured response is: commission an independent inspection, gather the documentary evidence (previous reports, sale paperwork, dated photographs, drainage records), and ask the insurer in writing to reconsider with the new evidence. If they refuse, escalate internally to their complaints process, and if that fails, to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which handles complaints free of charge and has upheld many subsidence rejections.
The "they want to underpin and I don't agree" situation
This is by far the most common reason homeowners commission us. The insurer's contractor has proposed traditional underpinning. The works are intrusive, expensive, and will sit on the property's record for the rest of its life. You suspect the recommendation is over-stated and want to know what an alternative engineering view looks like. We will tell you. Often the right answer is monitoring through a season followed by cause-removal works (drain repair, root barrier, resin injection if needed) at a small fraction of the underpinning cost. The Ombudsman has repeatedly endorsed the principle that the proportionate response is the smallest intervention that demonstrably resolves the cause.
Working with loss assessors
Loss assessors (the policyholder's representative, distinct from the loss adjuster who acts for the insurer) often instruct independent technical consultants on the engineering side of a claim. We work both directly with homeowners and on referral from loss assessors. The report format and independence statement are identical in both cases.
What an independent report costs versus what it saves
An independent claim engineer's report is, in almost every case, a small fraction of the difference it can make to the eventual settlement. An over-stated underpinning scheme on a typical UK home costs five figures more than a proportionate cause-removal intervention; an unjustly rejected subsidence claim costs the full remedial bill out of pocket. Against either of those numbers, an independent report is the cheapest professional spend in the entire process.
How to instruct an independent specialist on an insurance claim
Send the insurer's most recent correspondence, any prior survey or engineer's report you have, and photographs of the property and the damage. Use the form on the enquiry page and mark your situation as an active or rejected claim. A qualified specialist will reply with a clear quote for the right combination of inspection, monitoring and engineer's report.
What "proportionate response" actually means
The phrase "proportionate response" appears repeatedly in Ombudsman decisions on subsidence claims and is the principle on which most contested scopes are reduced. It means the smallest intervention that, on the evidence, can be reasonably expected to resolve the cause and stabilise the structure. In practical terms: if a leaking drain is the demonstrable cause, repair the drain and monitor, do not underpin the corner. If clay shrinkage influenced by a single overhanging tree is the cause, consider a root management programme or a root barrier, do not strip and re-bed the foundation. If the seasonal pattern shows the movement has already arrested, monitor through one further cycle before committing to any intervention at all. The principle is in every insurer's panel-engineer briefing pack, but it is not always applied in the field, which is where an independent counterweight report becomes useful.
How long claims typically take and what the milestones look like
A typical UK subsidence claim runs across at least one full year from first notification of loss to settlement, and frequently longer. The standard milestones are: claim opened and excess confirmed, loss adjuster appointed, initial scoping survey, monitoring programme (usually a minimum of one summer-winter cycle to confirm seasonal activity), cause investigation (drainage CCTV at minimum, root and soil work where indicated), engineer's method statement and approval, schedule of works tendered, remedial works executed, post-works monitoring, and finally a Certificate of Structural Adequacy. Where the claim is contested at any of those milestones, the timetable extends. Independent technical input is usually most cost-effective when commissioned at the scoping or method-statement stage, before the bulk of the spend is committed.
If the loss adjuster's surveyor disagrees with us
Disagreement between two competent engineers is normal and the process anticipates it. The standard route is a constructive meeting between the engineers, with both reports on the table, to identify where the evidence genuinely diverges and where it can be reconciled. A joint statement is then produced summarising the agreed and disputed points. Where the disagreement cannot be bridged, the policyholder has the option of escalating internally to the insurer's complaints function, then to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and finally, in the small minority of cases that warrant it, to court. Our role through that escalation is unchanged: the independent technical opinion based on the evidence we gathered on site.