Hi Rita C,
I looked at the wall in question yesterday and I can make the following observations and comments on the failure of the material and your HOW claim:
Observations:
- The plywood material forms an external cladding to a box type structure adjoining one side of the building.
- The box structure has a dual function of creating a visual feature to the building plus serves as external walls and roof to parts of the internal building space;
- The box structure appears to be built with a lightweight framed substructure, a waterproofing membrane over this substructure and the external plywood cladding system to provide both protection to the waterproof membrane and an attractive external appearance;
- The plywood cladding system has failed at numerous locations mainly on the roof and wall directly facing the street due to severe rot in the plywood timber plus numerous cracks and weathering of the protective coating.
Comments:
- I consider the plywood cladding to be a “structural element of the building” (under Reg 71) as it forms part of the external walls and roof of the building (ie the box structure). It’s function is not only decorative but also is for the proper performance and function of the underlying waterproofing.
- In view of the severity of failure of the plywood material since its installation in 2006, I consider that the material used has not been suitable for the purpose (under the Act Part 18B (b)).
- Given the above, I believe that you would have strong grounds to appeal against the insurer’s rejection of you claim. The key issue now appears to be to demonstrate to the insurer that the plywood cladding is a “structural element”. As it is a legal definition, I suggest you engage legal assistance to approach the insurer together with further expert technical advice.
Please note that all of the above should be read in the context of my more detailed report which is available to you outside of the Forum.
I trust this has been helpful.
Regards,
Rob T