Double glazing unit problem

[rbel]

You may remember a recent post of mine when I asked about possible d-i-y remedies for the internal misting up of a large double glazed panel following the 14th February storms.

I decided to contact my insurers and a surveyor visited. I explained to the surveyor there was absolutely no sign of misting prior to the storms, we noticed it on the 15th February and that there was no apparent sign of deterioration on the three other (smaller) windows on the same elevation.

A letter arrived today. "Our surveyor reports that the double glazed unit in the living room has failed due to normal age deterioration processes, in which the units seal deteriorates over a period of time and the silica particles contained within the spacer bar and which normally absorb moisture have burnt out and are no longer effective. Impacts and vibrations do not cause units to fail in this way."

I phoned the surveyor's employers today and, after struggling for ages to get someone to talk to me, was advised by a manager that they do not question their surveyors reports at all and that 'we don't know if the misting up wasn't present before the storms'. When I asked if she was suggesting that I was not telling the truth she would not answer.

I then spoke to my insurers who, while very polite, said that they had used the surveying company for years and abided by their findings. They have, however, agreed to look into the matter and contact me.

I entirely agree that double glazing seals do deteriorate with time but as I have explained, there was no sign of any problem whatsoever until immediately after the storms, therefore it seems very likely that flexing of the panel during the 80+ mph gusts did cause the seal to fail.

I do appreciate that there are people who routinely defraud insurers but I am not one, in fact I cannot remember the last time I made a buildings and contents claim.

Rant over.

[newshound]

Good luck with this. In my professional opinion it is bollocks, to describe the dessicant "silica gel" as silica particles is inaccurate, and while they may become saturated, they don't become "burnt out". And it is certainly true that *sufficiently extreme* exposure to "impact and vibration" could cause seal failure resulting in moisture ingress and (eventually) saturation and hence condensation under unfavourable conditions.

If the units are old, they might argue that they had reached the end of life and while the storms might have tipped them over the edge, perhaps they were ready to fail any time. I don't know whether there is a generally accepted "life" for DG units. I wouldn't expect seals to degrade in less than a decade, but this could depend on the degree of exposure to sun and wind.

Insurance ombudsman?

[Jim K]

Dg unit life depends on loadsa factors, spec of glass unit & frame design, exposure to thermal stresses & uv to name most.

Can't say I'm surprised they won't pay for an old unit that failed in a storm. Do new for old policies apply to glass & "acts of god"?

How much is a new unit anyway? Worth the protracted argument with co insurer & their pet surveyor? Doubt it

Jim K

[rbel]

Thank you for your comments.

The units are all quite elderly, 15+ years and I would not have been surprised if they had suggested that age was a contributory factor. What annoys me is the assumption that for the misting to be present on the 15th February it must have been present for longer and that I am trying to make a fraudulent claim.

My view is that if the inside pane was flexing sufficiently for it to be noticeable it was, in all probability sufficient to allow the seal to be breached. I did comment on the silica being 'burnt out' but it did not register.

I will look into contacting the ombudsman.

[rbel]

The surveyor's report makes no mention of the age of the unit. When I first spoke with the insurers they suggested that as I had stated that the unit had been fine before the storm and evidently misted internally immediately following the storm, it probably was covered by my policy.

I don't know as yet what the replacement cost is likely to be. Fairly expensive I would think as the panel is 2.5 x 1.6 metres toughened glass.

[Bob Minchin]

Do you have an excess on your policy? Chances are that the DG unit will be about the same or less than a typical excess. I had one about half the size you quote and it was £80 last year.

[GMM]

Probably about £200: It's 50/sqm at my local, give or take. A bit of a grunt and heave to fit a pane that size but it's not a hugely difficult job.

I agree about the injustice of those of us who never claim somehow never manage to do as well as those who claim for every last thing. And I could also rant about how the cost of insurance rises if you don't keep an eye on it, then suddenly drops with some special deal when you tell them you're going elsewhere. Grrr.....

[Jim K]

/ The surveyor's report makes no mention of the age of the unit. When I fir st spoke with the insurers they suggested that as I had stated that the uni t had been fine before the storm and evidently misted internally immediatel y following the storm, it probably was covered by my policy/q

Yebbut the silica granules in the spacer bar absorb moisture until they are saturated THEN the condensation appears... The saturation phase takes time so they are concluding that the seal had gone BEFORE the storm... At 15yrs at that size, in an exposed location, I think you've had your money's wort h? YMMV

Jim K

Jim K

[Roger Mills]

Sadly, I'm not surprised at their response. ISTR suggesting a few days ago that you provide some concrete evidence that the unit wasn't misted prior to the gale - such as a recent date-stamped photo of the window in a clear state. Do you have anything like that that you could use?

[fred]

In article , rbel writes

Good input from all so far, particularly the hassle factor vs the cost of personal replacement, excesses and so on.

On the insurance route I suppose it's down to how good a letter you can write to state your case.

You'd need to offer an objective analysis that counters the surveyor's report and the obvious point is that this was a sudden failure rather than a gradual deterioration. You could call into question how the surveyor could tell whether there had been previous gradual deterioration or not.

Even if you do get them to pay for it then expect them to claw back the cost on your renewals over the next few years.

If you go for personal replacement then at least you could get the unit build that you want and personally I'd consider getting a unit with a thicker laminated inner pane (for rigidity and safety) with a slightly thinner airgap to give the same external dims. You can get laminated as low-E too so you can still have an energy saving unit.

[rbel]

Many thanks for the comments to date. I will seek a couple of quotes from local glaziers I have used in the past and see what they come up with.

The excess is ukp100 but I have a feeling that a decent spec panel will be somewhat more than that.

As you have gathered it is the principle that has been driving me, that and a fairly old fashioned view of what constitutes ethical practice, but I imagine that pragmatism will win in the end.

[meow2222]

apart from the 'burn out' phrase, what they say is right. The odds of your failure being caused by anything else is tiny.

its not likely in the least. In fact its close to impossible, since misting only occurs some while after seal failure.

Sorry but this time theyre right.

[stuart noble]

That's no walk in the park either. The mass of detail and the time they take puts most people off.

[meow2222]

and some

Why dont I hear glaziers or diyers reusing the existing glass?

NT

[Andy Burns]

£220'ish (plus delivery) according to

[Brian Gaff]

You can see their point though, after being caught by opportunists, there is a temptation to assume all such claims are just jumping on the storm bandwagon. There really is no way to prove it one way or the other without spending money on another survey, which would probably be similarly vague, as the silica gell probably is out of date now, and how you prove the seal failed in a wind, not when removing it from the frame is going to be difficult. Brian

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 19:19:25 on Wed, 26 Feb 2014, rbel remarked:

You have now, even though it was declined. There goes your NCD.

[Capitol]

Wait six months before doing anything except get prices. It may cure itself.

[rbel]

I take it that sufficient wind loading to cause the interior pane to flex noticeably is not likely to impact on the seal?

In the event that this is the case I am sure that you would agree that it really is an amazing coincidence that it only became visible immediately after the storm. It is not as though this window is located in an unused room where such an event is likely to go unnoticed, it is the focal point of our sitting room and we look through it many times every day and would definitely have noticed if the misting had occured at any time prior to the storm.

I agree entirely that they are right that misting is invariably due to gradual break down of the seal but on this occasion on the 14th no misting was evident and on the 15th it was quite obvious.

[Jim K]

am i in your killfile perchance?

oh well, never mind

Jim K