Hello
I have a friend who experienced an incredible water damage in their "summer house," which is actually a permanent residence.
Anyway, the water heater leaked in the attic and was there spraying water for two months... which amounts to about 2500 cubic meters of water through the house, resulting in quite a bit of renovation... :
The house is solidly built, and we tore everything down to the frame, which is made of planks, quite sturdy ones. The house was dried out and treated against possible mold spores by Anticimex.
I was there about a week ago to inspect how the insurance company (the damage is being repaired by the company's own carpenters) has handled the reconstruction work, and I'm dismayed...
The exterior walls have been insulated inward with 45 mm, framed 60 cc, and then the plastic.
BUT, then they skipped the plywood/OSB and directly put up the plasterboard instead, which, with a stubborn insistence, I claim is qualified construction malpractice and that it simply needs to be torn down and redone.
Who wants a 60 cc framed wall with just 13 mm plasterboard to hang a large flat-screen TV and all sorts of other stuff on the wall?
What does the collective expertise here think?
Should there be a dispute with the insurance company???? >
I have a friend who experienced an incredible water damage in their "summer house," which is actually a permanent residence.
Anyway, the water heater leaked in the attic and was there spraying water for two months... which amounts to about 2500 cubic meters of water through the house, resulting in quite a bit of renovation... :
The house is solidly built, and we tore everything down to the frame, which is made of planks, quite sturdy ones. The house was dried out and treated against possible mold spores by Anticimex.
I was there about a week ago to inspect how the insurance company (the damage is being repaired by the company's own carpenters) has handled the reconstruction work, and I'm dismayed...
The exterior walls have been insulated inward with 45 mm, framed 60 cc, and then the plastic.
BUT, then they skipped the plywood/OSB and directly put up the plasterboard instead, which, with a stubborn insistence, I claim is qualified construction malpractice and that it simply needs to be torn down and redone.
Who wants a 60 cc framed wall with just 13 mm plasterboard to hang a large flat-screen TV and all sorts of other stuff on the wall?
What does the collective expertise here think?
Should there be a dispute with the insurance company???? >
Well, calling it fraud is a bit of an exaggeration. It's more about ignorance and lack of interest from your friend. He should have specified to the builders how he wanted it. Apparently, he is considered the client for the job even if the insurance company is covering (most of the) costs. As the client, you need to be a bit more involved...
A snippet from a thread under insurance:
A snippet from a thread under insurance:
hempularen said:
Ok ... I understand what you mean, but in terms of quality, I think it's crap to use just plaster...
I don't think anyone wants to restore it to its original standard...Tretex.... ;D
I just think it's sad when you always take the easy route and hope that no one notices anything. The owner of the house would never have reflected on this if it weren't for the complainer like me.
Otherwise, the house is turning out great!
I don't think anyone wants to restore it to its original standard...Tretex.... ;D
I just think it's sad when you always take the easy route and hope that no one notices anything. The owner of the house would never have reflected on this if it weren't for the complainer like me.
Otherwise, the house is turning out great!
styrman1: no, 45 c/c for single plasterboard, c/c 60 requires double boards with plasterboard on the outside. The requirement for bending stiffness on the floor for tiles is equivalent to c/c30 + 22 mm floor chipboard. Easy to mix up
What is standard is fairly uninteresting in an insurance claim, as companies compensate for "restoration to existing condition with modern rational building methods."
Existing condition is difficult to achieve if the house is old, hence the depreciations.
Likewise, the policyholder must bear all improvements, even if they are required to meet today's construction standards.
Existing condition is difficult to achieve if the house is old, hence the depreciations.
Likewise, the policyholder must bear all improvements, even if they are required to meet today's construction standards.
Hmmm....
If the original standard was Tretex, then the wall was hardly framed with cc60?
In that case, it was probably a solid wood wall I guess. Replacing a solid wood wall with modern standards to "original" condition is, at least in my world, not just drywall on cc60. In that situation, it should be obvious to have OSB behind. Otherwise, the new wall will have a completely different function than the old one.
/pinebar
If the original standard was Tretex, then the wall was hardly framed with cc60?
In that case, it was probably a solid wood wall I guess. Replacing a solid wood wall with modern standards to "original" condition is, at least in my world, not just drywall on cc60. In that situation, it should be obvious to have OSB behind. Otherwise, the new wall will have a completely different function than the old one.
/pinebar