We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate roof
of a conservatory and is boxed in below that down to ground level.

The soil pipe has cracked and a chunk broken away above the level of the
polycarbonate roof. The soil pipe is made from some kind of asbestos.

When the upstairs bog is flushed, a trickle of water runs down the roof
and into the guttering.

None of this seemed to be causing a major problem however I now think
this water is also coming down the outside of the soil pipe and down
inside the boxed in section.

Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

If the work is to be done I would like to combine the soil pipe with a
second bath waste pipe which runs to a separate drain, to enable the
drains to be combined and the bath waste drain to be got rid of. Would
the insurers be willing to pay for just "their" bit but allow this extra
work to be done as part of the same job?

caledonianstill wrote in


We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate
roof of a conservatory and is boxed in below that down to ground
level.
snip
Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to
be storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years
old).

Wear and tear is not usually covered - we had drains collapse and received
the same information from our insurers. Fortunately, someone remembered that
a lorry had been driven onto the drive and that must have caused the
problem. Perhaps, now you think about it, you too remember a similar
incident

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

caledonianstill wrote:

Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to
be storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years
old).

Insurance won't cover this sort of thing, give up trying now.

Jon

caledonianstill wrote:

We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate roof
of a conservatory and is boxed in below that down to ground level.

The soil pipe has cracked and a chunk broken away above the level of the
polycarbonate roof. The soil pipe is made from some kind of asbestos.

When the upstairs bog is flushed, a trickle of water runs down the roof
and into the guttering.

None of this seemed to be causing a major problem however I now think
this water is also coming down the outside of the soil pipe and down
inside the boxed in section.

Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

As you say, fair wear and tear - not covered by insurance.
Even if your policy had accidental damage cover and it got
broken completely - say by falling against it whilst
cleaning the conservatory roof, you would have to admit its
previous state and the insurance company would pay little or
nothing. A loss adjuster would quickly spot that the crack
was long-standing and/or would be very suspicious if you had
aready disposed of the bits, should your memory get a little
vague about its previous condition.

You do have to fix it as it is a health hazard. IIRC, it is
actually a legal requirement.
If it is asbestos, then expect it to cost something silly.



If the work is to be done I would like to combine the soil pipe with a
second bath waste pipe which runs to a separate drain, to enable the
drains to be combined and the bath waste drain to be got rid of. Would
the insurers be willing to pay for just "their" bit but allow this extra
work to be done as part of the same job?


Depends on the insurer - many will simply take your three
quotations and give you a cheque. Others will appoint a
contractor - with whom you will have to negotiate for any
extra work. But your insurer is unlikely to pay anything at all.

--

Sue

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:44:00 +0100, "caledonianstill"
wrote:


Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

No, normal ageing is not covered.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:10:36 +0100, Palindr?me
wrote:


If it is asbestos, then expect it to cost something silly.

It will be asbestos cement if it is, which is harmless and does not
have onerous disposal requirement - not that will make any difference
to the many asbestos scam firms who will indeed try to charge you a
fortune.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:44:00 +0100, "caledonianstill"
wrote:


Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

No, normal ageing is not covered.


Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For
example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would
be covered right?

"Wear and tear is not usually covered - we had drains collapse and received
the same information from our insurers. Fortunately, someone remembered that
a lorry had been driven onto the drive and that must have caused the
problem. Perhaps, now you think about it, you too remember a similar
incident "

You are (nudge nudge, wink wink) advocating fraud lying and theft aren't
you? And I am sure that you see yourself as a respectable citizen.

Have a think. What you suggest means that the rest of us will have to pay
for a fraudulent claim.

Did your Mummy ever explain the words Right and Wrong?

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:05:56 +0100, "dakeb"
wrote:


Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For
example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would
be covered right?

For a catastrophic event - yes. However you have failed to minimise
your loss by repairing the leak as soon as you noticed it. Long term
damage caused by neglected maintenance is not covered.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

dakeb wrote:

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:44:00 +0100, "caledonianstill"
wrote:



Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

No, normal ageing is not covered.



Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For
example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would
be covered right?


The damage to the carpet isn't wear and tear. IIRC, most
policies have a bit somewhere about maintaining the property
- so if the damage is caused as a result of failing to
adequately maintain the property, they could refuse to pay
out. If the damage was caused over a long period, rather
than a one-off incident - then it would be hard to say it
was as a result of an accident rather than neglect.

OTOH, I have been amazed by how understanding some insurance
assessors can be - I had a pipe come apart (solvent weld
plastic and the plumber had apparently missed one joint) and
yet they agreed to cover the damage. The joint had held
together for at least a decade and only fell apart when we
had guests that used their shower, rather than their bath.

--

Sue

Bystander wrote in


"Wear and tear is not usually covered - we had drains collapse and
received the same information from our insurers. Fortunately, someone
remembered that a lorry had been driven onto the drive and that must
have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you think about it, you too
remember a similar incident "

You are (nudge nudge, wink wink) advocating fraud lying and theft
aren't you? And I am sure that you see yourself as a respectable
citizen.

The former assertion is flawed - the latter is _certainly_ not the case and
I would contest it vigorously.

Have a think. What you suggest means that the rest of us will have to
pay for a fraudulent claim.

Have a think - you may find that you are extrapolating too much from a wink


Did your Mummy ever explain the words Right and Wrong?

Not only that, but the concepts behind them as well. That explanation, by
implication at least, included guidance about the civilities of not making
personal comments without considerably more information than seems to have
been available here. And, for much the same reason, I shall assume that no
offence was intended to the memory of my recently departed mother.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"PeterMcC" wrote
| caledonianstill
| We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate
| roof of a conservatory ...
| Fortunately, someone remembered that a lorry had been driven onto
| the drive and that must have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you
| think about it, you too remember a similar incident

I'd love to be in the insurance office when that one comes through ... lorry
on a conservatory roof.

Owain

Owain wrote in


"PeterMcC" wrote
caledonianstill
We have an external soil pipe which goes through the polycarbonate
roof of a conservatory ...
Fortunately, someone remembered that a lorry had been driven onto
the drive and that must have caused the problem. Perhaps, now you
think about it, you too remember a similar incident

I'd love to be in the insurance office when that one comes through
... lorry on a conservatory roof.

Thank you, Owain - at least someone got the smiley.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to
be
storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

No, normal ageing is not covered.


Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For
example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would
be covered right?


Yes, that would be covered, but the insurers would probably try to claim
their money back from the owner of the drain as their lack of maintenance
caused the spill.

Resulting water damage is usually covered. The source of the leak, a
pipe, that is leaking due to wear an tear or faulty workmanship is
rarely covered in insurance policies.

Mabon


SimonJ wrote:
Will an insurer cover fixing something like this? It does not seem to

be

storm damage just the general age and wear on the pipe (50 years old).

No, normal ageing is not covered.


Surely damage to other things caused by wear and tear is covered? For
example, if sewage from a worn out drain flows onto the carpets they would
be covered right?



Yes, that would be covered, but the insurers would probably try to claim
their money back from the owner of the drain as their lack of maintenance
caused the spill.

In message , Peter Parry
writes
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:10:36 +0100, Palindr?me
wrote:


If it is asbestos, then expect it to cost something silly.

It will be asbestos cement if it is, which is harmless and does not
have onerous disposal requirement - not that will make any difference
to the many asbestos scam firms who will indeed try to charge you a
fortune.


Hmm, have a google for asbestos cement and then decide whether it's
"harmless". General consensus seems to be that it contains 10-15%
asbestos fibre, and can be pretty nasty stuff.

Unfortunately I have 1.5 sheets to remove from a pretty inaccessible
(badly made, butts right up to the garden fence) extension to make way
for a conservatory, so I've been doing some reading on this. Seems to be
that as long as I keep it wet and have a suitably high standard mask and
overalls that I'll be fine. Providing of course I don't attack it with
an air hammer, power tools are also a no-no. Looks like I'll either be
removing it by pushing it from the inside, or spending a looooong time
removing the roofing nails they've secured it with :-(

--
Mike Buckley
RD350LC2
http://www.toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk
BONY#38

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:13:44 +0100, "mike. buckley"
wrote:


Hmm, have a google for asbestos cement and then decide whether it's
"harmless". General consensus seems to be that it contains 10-15%
asbestos fibre, and can be pretty nasty stuff.

It is 10-15% Chrysotile - white asbestos - you breath dozens of
fibres of it every day. The only recorded harm caused by Chrysotile
is amongst those who have worked in atmospheres laden with it for
decades.

Seems to be
that as long as I keep it wet and have a suitably high standard mask and
overalls that I'll be fine.

Any reasonable mask will do - it doesn't need to be exotic. Use
water with some detergent added and if you are really paranoid wait
for a nice wet rainy day.

an air hammer, power tools are also a no-no. Looks like I'll either be
removing it by pushing it from the inside, or spending a looooong time
removing the roofing nails they've secured it with :-(

If you do the latter you would certainly be exposing yourself to the
greatest, and well known, risk of asbestos cement. Old asbestos
cement sheets are very fragile and a number of people have been
killed falling through them.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In message , Peter Parry
writes
It is 10-15% Chrysotile - white asbestos - you breath dozens of
fibres of it every day. The only recorded harm caused by Chrysotile
is amongst those who have worked in atmospheres laden with it for
decades.
Slightly contradicts what I've read elsewhere...


an air hammer, power tools are also a no-no. Looks like I'll either be
removing it by pushing it from the inside, or spending a looooong time
removing the roofing nails they've secured it with :-(

If you do the latter you would certainly be exposing yourself to the
greatest, and well known, risk of asbestos cement. Old asbestos
cement sheets are very fragile and a number of people have been
killed falling through them.

Hmm, well seeing as at worst I'd only be falling through a wall (the
sheets are on a sheltered wall that butts up to a garden fence), I'm
feeling pretty sure that I'm safe as far as this goes. You're right
about them being fragile, I pulled off a piece last night with my hands.

--
Mike Buckley
RD350LC2
http://www.toastyhamster.freeserve.co.uk
BONY#38

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:13:44 +0100, "mike. buckley"
wrote:


Hmm, have a google for asbestos cement and then decide whether it's
"harmless". General consensus seems to be that it contains 10-15%
asbestos fibre, and can be pretty nasty stuff.

It is 10-15% Chrysotile - white asbestos - you breath dozens of
fibres of it every day. The only recorded harm caused by Chrysotile
is amongst those who have worked in atmospheres laden with it for
decades.

Absolutely wrong. Chrysotile causes mesothelioma. I don't know quite where
you believe harm is "recorded" but there are numerous claims every year from
plumbers, carpenters and decorators who have contracted mesothelioma due to
exposure 10 or more years ago to (relatively) small quantities of chrysotile
eg when sawing panels or removing asbestos guttering. The epidemic is a
growing one.

A concise summary of the health hazards of asbestos can be found at
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...9/rp99-081.pdf

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:27:39 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote in message
.. .

It is 10-15% Chrysotile - white asbestos - you breath dozens of
fibres of it every day. The only recorded harm caused by Chrysotile
is amongst those who have worked in atmospheres laden with it for
decades.

Absolutely wrong. Chrysotile causes mesothelioma.

Did I say differently?

I don't know quite where
you believe harm is "recorded" but there are numerous claims every year from
plumbers, carpenters and decorators who have contracted mesothelioma due to
exposure 10 or more years ago to (relatively) small quantities of chrysotile
eg when sawing panels or removing asbestos guttering.

Claims encouraged by opportunistic lawyers should not be confused
with facts. There are no cases where a link between occasional
exposure to chrysotile and mesotheliomas have been shown. There is a
pretty standard dose/risk relationship at high (industrial) exposure
levels and the mesothelioma rate increases both with severity and
length (in years) of exposure.

From the document you referenced:-

"It has been estimated that the annual incidence of developing a
mesothelioma in persons with no history of asbestos exposure is about
1 per million. In the majority of cases there is good evidence of
exposure to asbestos and the risk is proportional to the duration of
exposure. The incidence is highest in those who have worked directly
with asbestos. However, the degree of exposure necessary to cause
mesothelioma is considerably less than that associated with
asbestosis and lung cancer, and it may be a risk for people who may
have had regular contact through washing workers dust-laden clothes,
or those who have lived close to asbestos factories in the past."

The epidemic is a growing one.

The epidemic, much to the chagrin of compensation lawyers who have
found it a nice little earner, is declining faster than expected. The
total number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is now
predicted to peak somewhere between 1,950 and 2,450 annually between
the years 2011 and 2015 although 2004 data may lower this estimation.

Of those deaths the vast majority are people who were past shipyard
workers, involved in railway carriage and locomotive building or in
the construction industry.

As one American lawyer remarked "Asbestos litigation has become a
malignant enterprise which mostly consists of a massive
client-recruitment effort that accounts for as much as 90 percent of
all claims currently being generated, supported by baseless medical
evidence which is not generated by good-faith medical practice, but
rather is primarily a function of the compensation paid, and by
claimant testimony scripted by lawyers...".

http://reason.com/9806/col.olson.shtml is also worth looking at.
Possibly the UK compensation industry is marginally more honest.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/