Document under construction.

Introduction.

As we will see generally insurance companies are not incentivised to pay out claims volountarily. There is no penalty or fines set up by the government to prevent a legitimate claim denial from insurance companies. The only incentive insurance have in order to pay promptly and volountarily is through court action. If an insured is prepared to take action htorught he courts thent he insurance company may face further penalties and further losses on top of the original  claim.

Insurance companies have in-house legal expertise that can assess risk/costs/benefots of evading paying out claims. This is because the internal legal expertise of an insurer includes generally legal professionals very familiar with the legal process required in order to enforce a claim.

The game is stacked against the insured in case the insurance company does not intend to pay out. This is because there is no guidance to enforce lagitimate claims available to the consumers ofr businesses who are insured. All guiadance is normally a specialised field of expertise thereforee it is

 

How the insurance business works and its incentives.

It is important to understand how the  insurance business works and how it is incentivized to understand how it operates in this particular type of claim. Once this is understood the action taken by the insurance comapoonies will make perfect sense  in this particaular type of claim.

It is well clear that the insurance business models relies on profits. Insurance companies make their revenue by collecting premiums and their main expenses are Claims, employees,  insurance brokers commission and other minor expenses. The major expense or “loss” are sucesful claims. The moment the claims and other expenses are higher than the revenue (premiums) the business loses its profitability and in the long run it becomes not viable.

There are three main types of claims :

1 small claims

2 Medium claims and

3  large claims

The strategies for insurance companies are different for each type of claim.

 

Small claims

Small claims are those claims that amount to the same or double the annual insurance premium . In these cases the insurance companies prefer to pay promptly without causing any major issue.

Small claims are usually paid in full and promptly. This is for two majour reasons

1 because the potential court costs due to possible lawsuit disputes are far higher than the claims themselves. It is not unusual for a small claim disputed through the courts to cost several times more than the claim itslef. For example a 2000 pound claim that gets disputed  through the courts due to litigation can cost the insurance company up to 40 to 50K in litigation costs just to pay  out 2000 pounds to the insured. This is a very well known cost to insurance companies therefore as soon as a claim that is potentially small insurance companies almost always prefer to pay out promptly to avoid major losses through litigation instead.

2 paying out a small claim promptly not only avoids major litigation costs, but also installs a sense of goodwill on the marketplace for a relatively small amount and therefore this can be seen as money well invested from a marketing and goodwill perspective.

 

Medim sized Claims

These are claims that amount to between 10 to 30 times the annual premium. There is a balancing act here the insurance companies need to make, generally the insurance company would try to deny liability in the first instance but they would start negociating once they realised the insured is prepared to take legal action. Usually the negotiations for this size of claims rarely goes to court and it is negociated well before court proceedings may begin.

 

Large Claims

The business model changes completely in case of large claims becasue the lossees are sevelar time the annual premium amount this ban be up to 100 times or more the annuam premium.

In case of large claims the cost of litigation is not as high compared to the claim. Therefore the cost of not trying to pay out a large claim is much smaller than the claim itself. For example like in this case the cost of the claim is in the region of 500K whereas the cost of litigation could amount to 100K or 200K depending on how the litigation is carried out. Therefore in the first instance the insurance company attempts to dismiss the liability based on excuses, closes, lack of evidence etc. It is then the insured that has to take the insurance company to court to enforce the legitimate claims. This does not mean that the insurance company will not be faced with much higher bills to pay once the courts found that the claim was legitimate in the first place.

These are:
cost of report preparation.
cost of withness statements
court costs
legal costs
plus their own costs that are comparable to the above.

In general it is untimately the court to establish the validity of the claim. Therefore if a claim is established to be legitimate the liability are as follows:

1 initial liability of the claim that could have bneen paid out without estra expenses due to legal fees etc.

2 insuread costs to take the case to court

3 insurance company court costs to defend the claim in court.

If the case goes through the courts, this and the extra costs to the insurer is generally more than doubled due to the fact that the sentence is generally to pay for all the costs incurred by the insured who needed to take the insurance company to court to enforce the claim. These cost can be comaprable to the amount of the claim itself and sometimes even higher. Therefore if the claim value is 500K for example the ultimate costs including the claim could easily exceed the 1 million mark in our exmaple.

 

How do insurance companies prepare to avoid paying for large claims

build a case for not paying or rely on whatever excuse to deny liability at all costs untill lawsuit has started. It  is well known to insurance companies tha most insured are not familiar and organised to fight a claim in court. Therefore the strategy of deying liability based on whatever excuse usually pays because most people not familiar with the procedure are overwehealmed with the requirements of a legal proceeding.

In order for the insurance company to protect themselves from large claim paypoouts they employ

1  “major loss Adjuster” whose salary ranges between 50K to 70K oer year. This is a physical person working directly  as an employee of the insurance company and not part of a separate company.  The job of a “Major loss adjuster” is to deny liability in connection with large claims. Remeber that the insurance company is a pro profit enterprise therefore fore the only motive for the insuarance comapny to employ somebody to oversee the claims is to find legal expedients to evade large payouts (losses), no matter whether the claim is legitimate or not.

2 A separate company who produces a report which is made and worded to give an aura of  legitimacy in order to deny all liability. Theis company is employed (paid for) by the insurance comapany. The separate company at times is referred to as independent but of course as it is engaged and paid for by the insurance company. Therefore it is very unlikely that it is independent (certainly biased) and it works in order to safeguard the interests of their employer (the insurance company). The adoption of this companies is smart move from the insurance company point of you because it certainly does provide an impression of a legitimate reason for denying liability, however upon further scrutiny it is easy to realise that this company is biased to produce reports favourable their employer. Inb case this company produced a truly unbiased report then it wouldclarly lose the business of the ir client (the insurance company). Would a client pay a company to produce a report unfavouravable to is infianncial interests even if unbiased? The answershould be clear.

There is an ongoing contract between this supposedly “independent  company” and the paying client (the insurance company), where this single company produces several reports on a different number of incicets that could results in large losses  to their client (the insurers).

This is a very good business proposition for both the client (insurance company) and the supposerdly “independent company” producing the reports. Those reports are produced at a very low cost.

The insurance company could use the same “Majour Loss Adjuster” an employeee of the insurer in order to produce the same reoorts, however it finds it much better to  to pay a separate entity to produce these reports so that the insurance company has a stronger perceived excuse to evade their liability by providong and enhanced aura of legitimacy. In the case of this claim the “Majour loss adjuster” referred to this comapny as “Scientists” and “forensics scientists”. A definition we found for forensics is:

1. scientific tests or techniques used in connection with the detection of crime.”

It is noteworthy to point out that in this case the forensics were carried out using a photo  camera only. No forensics were carried out at all as the meaning of “forensics2 in the english Language” . Only one person from tis suppoosed Scienticts company tuned up and it only hasd a photocamera and nothing else.Their paying client in a vast number of insurable incidents of a large value.

 

The overall building structure of the back of 68A Harold Street is a double-pitched roof single store#y building with double brick wall built approximately 100 year ago.  The collapsed roof was timber framed with tiles. The supporting wall of the roof that now collapsed did not present any structural issue, and it was of solid double brick construction. This is the same as the double brick wall on the opposite side, which is still standing. At it is evident, it does not present any structural issue.

The building is of solid construction, which never presented any evidence of structural defect. It has been standing for almost 100 years without presenting any structural movement, design defect etc. No wet or dry rot was found prior the incident, and not sign of rotted timber was found on the site of the collapse. So sign of structural issues could be noticed prior to this event not only in the collapsed part of the building but also no other sign if structural issue is present anywhere else.

Design and material defects present themselves within 20 years from construction. Therefore, the design and material defects cause of the collapse can be evidently ruled out. Also, these types of defects do not cause a sudden catastrophic collapse, but they are gradual in nature. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the original material or structural defect would have shown signs soon after construction was completed approximately 100 years ago.

 

The Solid  sound Structure of the building structurally defect free.

The whole building is of solid construction and free from structural defects. This also applies to the part of the building that collapsed, which was of solid construction and free from structural defects:

1 no record of structural defects.

2 no record of any structural movement

3 no cracks on any walls, indicating any possible sign of structural failure.

4. The building was rented wholly and used for several years without structural report issue

5 the original design was sound and no movement

6 no subsidence was reported, and no subsidence is present on-site.

7 as we will see later on the side wall that was blown outwards double brick and reinforced by internal pillars and the window openings were bricked up.

8 the property was subject to a secured loan. A requirement of secured loans on any property is subject to a structural survey for mortgage purposes. The structural survey needs to show that the building is of durable and sound construction, therefore not expected to collapse.

As points from 1 to 6 we also refer to the fact that the building was subject to mortgage security. This means that the property was subject tot a formal structural survey instructed by the mortgage company.

At the time of the first collapse, the property was subject to a secured loan (Specify the loan) Sound overall structure proof lacking defects of the building due to mortgage

It is very clear that the overall structure was of very good, solid construction which was not expected to collapse suddenly in September 2023. The overall structure did not show signs of subsidence or possible future structural failure, and no defects.  The property at the time of the first collapse in 2023 was subject to ta secured loan, or also known as mortgage security. For a property to be subject to mortgage security, it requires being of solid construction and have no structural defects. As it is well known, banks require surveys on the buildings securitized in order to issue their secured  loans on the property.

The property was subject to a mortgage at the time of the incident in September 2023 thief means that a survey carried out . Mortgage company do not lend on properties that have structural issues. And the structural issues alleged by the insurance company would not lead to the type of collapse in September 2023.

Therefore, the mere fact that the property was surveyed by a professional chartered surveyor approved by a financial institution further proof that the property was deemed structurally sound by an independent structural surveyor. Therefore, the hypothesis of the structural inherent defect is further excluded. As we have seen, the most a structural defect can lead to is a slow and predictable collapse and not a catastrophic sudden collapse like the one that occurred in September 2023.

Therefore, the above is a further proof that the structure was deemed of stable and solid construction byte an independent surveyor. As we know, solid construction cannot collapse in a sudden catastrophic fashion unless major event (all covered by the policies) took place.

The timber  found recovered on site on the 28th of September did not show any sign of rot. Therefore, the structural deterioration is ruled out. However, even if no structural fault evidence was found collapses due to structural faults are slow and predictable and do not result in sudden double bricked walls reinforced by columns to catastrophically collapse all at once like in this case. On the contrary, this side wall collapse is easily justified by the real cause of the collapse,  as per the neighbours’ testimony, was an explosion. Explosions cause sudden catastrophic collapses, not fires or structural faults. So much so0 that explosives are used in controlled demolitions to cause immediate implosion of the buildings in their footprint. In this case the explosion took place in inside the building close to the central part of the wall that collapsed.

As we will see the lateral forces imposed by the pitched roof is not sufficient to push outwards a double brick was reinforced with pillars.

As it is well known, for old building without any signs of subsidence that are built over 70 years prior they are good for mortgage security because the likelihood of developing any structural catastrophic issue is very remote. Also, even more remote if not impossible is the natural collapse of a structural reinforced double brick wall to be blasted outward instantly.

 

How was the external side wall which supported the roof constructed?

It is important to understand the way the side wall supporting wall that collapsed inn September 2023 was constructed. In this way we can better understand the level of strength and over engineering that was applied to the structure to make it impervious to any type of stress exerted by the roof at any time even during a possible roof failure itself. In other words, the original design and construction of the side wall was as such that it would have withstood any type of stress, including the lateral stress imposed by the roof.

Understanding the original construction of this supporting structure is essential because it was the collapse of this wall that caused the cascading collapses, the first being the roof in September 2023 that it supported and the second slow collapse of the adjacent roof  (late October beginning of November 2023) a couple of months after the first collapse of the side supporting wall in September 2023.

The original construction design in order to ensure sufficient strength of the side wall required the implementation of reinforcing internal pillars embedded in the double brick wall construction. It is important also to realise that the wall was further reinforced by the fact that all entrances and windows had all long ago been bricked up. The bricking up of any openings of wall caused the structure to be reinforced even further. Making this supporting wall even stronger than the original design and construction.

Therefore this wall was of solid double brick construction with internal  reinforcing pillars and all openings were carefully bricked up. As it is evident from the existing side wall, the embedded pillars have the function to reinforce the structure, making it impervious to static side forces imposed by the weight of the roof. In essence, the roof  structure can fail but none of side the walls will collapse as a result of the collapse of part or all of the roof. As further proof of this, despite the natural collapse of the second roof (Late October and beginning of November) this is not causing any strain on the  side wall which will or may cause it to collapse even partially at any point in the future. This type of construction is standard for building of this age and it make them really durable solid structures which are not expected to collapse due to deterioration of roof joist rot or any roof structural defect. In essence, this type of construction makes the side wall impervious from either partial or total collapse due to any stress imposed by the roof above.

 

Lateral forces imposed on to the lateral walls by pitched roofs.

The force imposed by pitched roofs on the lateral supporting walls are vertical directed towards the ground with a slight lateral component pushing the external wall outwards. This is the reason for reinforcing lateral roof supporting walls with pillars or reinforced steel. This is a well known practice carried out in the design and construction of major buildings for centuries, and it is also present in majestic constructions like churches etc. These supporting reinforcing pillars can be either built externally or internally to the building. In our case, the reinforcing pillars are built internally. Hence, the external walls were designed and constructed to withstand any roof defect  that could increase the lateral outward force imposed on the side supporting walls.

 

Summary of the two incidents.

1) The First occurred in September the 13th 2023 which caused the total immediate outward collapse of a supporting wall which in turn caused the collapse of the roof which it supported. This primary collapse in September  was also the cause of the consequent second roof slow collapse the same year which started at the end of October 2023, which is referred to as referred to as “second incident” as below.

2) The second incident is consequential to the first incident and it involves the slow collapse on its own footprint of the second adjacent roof while the side wall  parallel to and facing Harold Street remains completely intact and uneffected. This side wall of course shows no signs of fatigue or over-loading and it is expected to remain standing given its strong structure. This second incident started at the end of October 2023 and had been slow and progressive in nature carrying on collapsing slowly all throughout November 2023. At the end of January 2024 this slow roof collapse seems to have slowed down to a stop due to seemingly having reached a point of equilibrium. The structure is temporarily stable.

It is important to understand that the second incident is consequential to the first, and the second incident would not have occurred if the first did not. In other words should the side wall (parallel to and facing Castle street) did not collapse in September 2023 the whole structure would have remained  intact and would have stood the test of time as it had done from its construction until September 2023. The cause of the collapse of the first roof in September 2023 and the slow collapse of the second roof was the primary collapse of the side wall in September 2023.

As we will see the wall collapsed and that caused a cascade of collapses in domino effect. Without the collapse of the main side wall collapse, the whole structure would have remained solid and stable as it had been since its original construction. Therefore, it is clear that the cause of these collapses is the primary collapse of the side supporting wall. Whatever caused the first supporting wall to collapse is the cause of all the other collapsed following it.

None of these collapses involved or seem to have compromised the main two-story building attached to it.

 

 

 

The incident on the 13th of September 2023.

The neighbours of 93 Castle street reported to have been woken up in the early morning/nighttime of 13th of September 2023 by a loud blasting noise, followed by another loud noise (of the wall collapsing outwards) which was coupled by what the residents reported as a minor earthquake. This minor localized earthquake was caused by the kinetic force of the wall parallel to and facing castle st collapsing outwards all at once onto the passageway and neighbours backyards. The residents of 93 Castle street described a blasting thunder noise followed by an earthquake type of ground movement.

The collapse was reported first to the fire rescue service, then to the council by the residents of  Castle Street, who were affected by the damage to their property. Neither the fire rescue service nor the council ever conducted forensics or investigations on the cause of the collapse. As we will see the report paid for by the insurance company did not state any cause for the collapse.

The collapse not only caused damage to 93 Castle street fence but also to the other adjacent proprieties backyards. Also, 91 and 89 and 87 Castle street suffered varying degree of damage to their back garden due to the side wall outward collapse and the roof tiles flying onto their garden causing damage. In particular, damage was caused to their sheds and their fences, walls and barriers in their backyards.

Dynamics of the collapse of 13th September 2023

1 the side wall supporting the roof was pushed outwards (by a centrally located blasting force). Additionally, as we will see, some of the roof tiles were blasted outwards onto the neighbours’ back gardens outwith the building footprint typical of a blasting force (explosion).

2 the roof suddenly lacked the support of the side double brick reinforced Side wall, causing the roof collapse.

Therefore, the collapse was sudden and occurred in a fast cascading fashion( within few seconds), typical of explosions.

Furthermore, as we will see the collapse of the first roof caused the whole structure to lack balance and caused the second roof slow collapse st the end of October 2023 and beginning of November 2023.

 

 

 

The cause of the collapse is a kinetic blast (or Explosion) as amply demonstrated

The collapse was reported at night when the neighbours were woken up by an explosion/earthquake type of event. The residents of 93 castle street reported a thundering explosion type of sound and a sort of earthquake. As we will see, only a sudden blasting force (explosion) can take down such a building all at once and in such a catastrophic fashion.

1. As we will see, the side supporting wall was over-engineered and designed to withstand both static and a high degree of dynamic forces imposed on the side wall by the roof. The collapse can only be explained by the internal explosion that caused it.  The twin wall opposite wall (facing and parallel to Harold St) is still standing, and it is not expected to collapse, this is despite the higher than normal forces imposed on this wall on the other side of the building,

2 the collapse was sudden, as typical of explosions. As we will see, natural collapses due to design faults or key structural failure due to wear and tear are very slow in nature.

3 It is very unlikely (almost impossible ) for the roof to be collapsing suddenly due to roof structural failure or any other cause other than explosion.

4. Both the side wall and some roof tiles fell outwards, outwith the building footprint, as typical of an internal explosion being the cause of the collapse.

5 Witnesses sworn testimony of the residents of Castle street whose backyards face the collapsed building.

The explosion caused the side wall to collapse outward, and the lack of wall support caused the roof to collapse. However, the roof did not collapse on its own footprint entirely, as it occurs in natural building collapses. Some tiles flew outwards onto the neighbours’ garden outwith the building own footprint as caused by explosions.

 

 

1) Collapse due to structural defect is progressive and gradual in nature. Structural defects never cause a sudden catastrophic collapse, and they provide plenty of warning. No collapse are sudden and catastrophic, like in this incident. See collapse due to fire, most of the time the buildings are left with all structural walls intact. If a timber frame roof collapses, this occurs in a slow and gradual progression, it does not happen all at once. In collapses due to structural defects or alike, the tiles all fall within the building footprint. Conversely, building damage due to explosive force is sudden, and it is followed by a thundering noise (blast) plus most of the time an earthquake kind of earth movement. Also, roof tiles and walls tend to be pushed outwards outwith the footprint of the building.

 

 

 

 

The roof was of wooden structure and did not present any rot. Additionally, none of the wood recovered on site showed signs of any rot.

 

 

The dynamics of the first collapse on the 13th of September 2023

1. The side supporting wall (facing the properties in castle street) was blown by an explosive force that pushed the entire wall, all at once, outwards onto the neighbouring properties.

2 the roof structure lacked the support of the side structural wall and collapsed all at once immediately after the supporting wall collapsed.

All happened instantaneously, within milliseconds.  It was the lateral wall (reinforced by embedded pillars) that was pushed outwards instantly by the blast which in turn caused the collapse of the roof. The wall was blasted outwards all at once in its entirety, causing what the neighbours referred to as a minor earthquake.

The twin wall facing the properties in Harold street is still standing and not expected to collapse.

To this day, the side wall facing the properties in Harold street is still standing and not expected to collapse. This wall shows no signs of fatigue, cracks  etc, whilst its twin wall facing the properties in Castle street collapsed suddenly all at once in September 2023.

As further evidence of the difference in cause of collapse   despite the conditions of the existing side roof, the wall still standing is clearly not only standing , but it does not show any signs of stress of course. It has not collapsed, and it is not expected to collapse, not eve partially. Therefore this is a demonstration how the cause of the two collapses are very different.

 

The Central Pillar still standing.

It is essential to note that at the time of writing the central pillar, despite the static lateral force imposed on it by the roof, never collapsed like the lateral wall (facing the properties on castle street) did in September 2023. This is despite the fact the wall was overengineered for its intended purpose and several times stronger than the single central pillar. While the central pillar is several times weaker in construction than the lateral walls, despite all that, the central pillar never collapsed. It is leaning outwards but never collapsed.

The central pillar never collapsed entirely, it is only leaning outwards, due to the static forces that have been imposed on it by the remaining roof.

Why is it important that the middle column has not collapsed?. The fact that despite the second roof collapse, the middle column is still standing but leaning shows:

The real lateral magnitude of force imposed by the roof. The lateral component is not high enough to be capable to collapse the column onto the ground. Hence, it is  unreasonable  to believe the lateral wall that collapsed in September 2023 did so due to any force imposed by the roof. This is because as we have seen, the forces imposed on the central pillar by the roof was not strong enough to cause its complete collapse.

2 the type of force imposed by the roof is not comparable to the blasting force that forced the lateral wall to collapse outwards in September 2023.

3The capability of withstanding lateral stresses imposed on a single column is nowhere as high as the strength of the lateral wall that collapsed in September 2023. As we have seen, the lateral wall that collapsed was reinforced with internal pillars and the previous windows were all bricked up. Yet the force imposed on to a single pillar by the roof has not been able to collapse the pillar

It is clear that the type of lateral force imposed by pitched roofs on the side supporting walls are:

1 constant

2 do not lead to catastrophic immediate collapses

3 are not strong enough to affect the reinforced lateral wall that was double brick and reinforced with embedded internal pillars and further reinforced by the bricking up to the windows.

It has to be borne in mind that no structural defect free.

Therefore, given the above, it is clear that whatever structural failure to the roof the side wall could not possibly have been compromised in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

Design fault or structural weakening exclusion of the cause of collapse.

The design fault cause of collapse can be easily disproved by the fact that the structure never showed any sing of any potential stress which could cause to collapse. Should any claim be made as the being the cause of collapse it  needs to be proven how the structure showed cause of concerns prior to the collapse but historical pictures and surveys do not cause any such previous concerns.

Additionally if a design fault were the cause of the collapse this would have happened within the first 10 to 20 years of the building been first erected. Structural faults  also lead to slow movements and if collapsesoccuor these are relatively slow and occur in stages and are not dramatic like in the case of the collapse of September 2023.

design fault collases are slow in nature and not as sudden as occurred in September 2023.

 

Collapse due to structural defect is clearly ruled out because:

1Building did not present any evidence of structural issues prior to any of these collapses. No report or record of structural defects are to be found anywhere.

 

The type of collapse is not consistent with structural  defecrt due to timeber deterioration. This is because in case of structral timber deterioration, any structural fault would show gradually. If any collapse would occur this would be very slow and gradual over time. Meaning that if any collapse occurs due to structural wood rot or lack of maintenance this would be occurring in little and partial collapses providing plenty of warning and signs of this instability. Only small parts of the building at a time would collapse, for example the one part of roof would collapse ect.  The forewarning would be evident to any inspection however this was not .

Either structural fault or wood rot this would be very unlikely to collapse all at once a double brick wall 18 meters long all at once. We submit that that neither structural fault nor rot of the roof would cause   the side supporting wall to collapse  at all , however should a lateral  strong force would exerted on to the lateral wall due to a faulty roof this would show over time (with cracks which were not previously present) and if any collapse arose this would have been of the roof not of the side wall. In the unlikely case the farce exerted from the roof on the side wall were too strong for the side wall to bare this would have shown gradually and the collapse of the side wall (although unlikely would have occurred in parts only over a long period of time.

If structural fault where the cause this again the slow collapse in stages would have happened in 10 two 20  years from construction and this building is of solid construction stranded up for approximately 100 years without showing any sign of structural issue. Once again even in the hypothesis of structural defect this would not lead to a sudden catastrophic collapse.

As a clear example known to most people of collapse due to structural faults , we can look at collapse after fires that weaken the wooden structure of the building. There is never a sudden collapse of a whole structure immediately, this is progressive. This is in contrast with the studded collapse of the entire structure all instantaneously.

The wall that blasted   outward did was approximately 3 to 4 meter high this type of wall . This was a double brick wall and

Vertical Structural walls do not collapse outward all at once due to structural defects. even when there is structural defect and subsidence wall

The theory of the collapse caused by rotten roof joist is clearly pretexual and it is easy to understand even by people without any technical knowledge the absurdity of the hypothesis.

1 no sign of rot was identified on site at any time in the structural frame of the roof that collapsed.

2 even if  a structural timber of the roof suffered such rot it would clearly not have lead to the sudden collapse  of the side supporting wall. It would have only have lead   to a  partial implosion of the roof  within its footprint, not in its entirety but only partially and slowly. It is clear that the side wall would have remained intact as the other side wall is still perfectly intact despite the lateral force imposed by the now collapsing  roof. It is important to note how the lateral force of the second collapsing roof is exerting greater force on the side wall than previously, however despite that it ti not expected to collaspe. What it is expected to collapse instead is the centrally pillar but even that is pillar , despite the fact that hold only a fraction of the static withstanding posewer than the side wall it has not collapsed completely and it is only slowly leaning outward., whereas the side wall collapsed abruptly and in a dramatic fashion characteristic of an explosive force causing such collapse.

3 in such case the collapse would have been only slow  and partial of part of the roof affected by the structural damage.

4 the side wall would have remained standing.

 

The reasons are as follow:

1The external wall was blown outwards and the bricks were all detached all scattered. This is typical of a blasting explosion. In a progressive collapse a double brick wall would not fall outward all at once, this is not heard of ,,. Should it fall it would in a monolithic way where chinks of the bricks would stay together. As it is easy to see from the pictures and evidence gathered the remains of the building are all in relatively small pieces all characteristic of an explosive demolition. In collapses due to explosions, the remains of the building are of relative small dimensional and vertical structural walls that were in the vicinity of the source of the blast are usually demolished by the kinetic force of the blast itself.

1 The cause of the collapse of the part of the building is the collapse of the wall supporting the roof. As the supporting wall was blown outwards the roof above not only lacked the support but also suffered structural damage from the blast. However the roof collapsed suddenly due to the sudden outward collapse of the supporting wall due to the blast.

2 it is evident by the debris that the blast pushed the roof tiles outwards and they fell outwith the footprint of the building. In the event of a natural collasope due to either a design fault or a deterioration of a structural component the roof and all the tiles would have fallen within the building footprint./  as they would be expected to fall in the event of a natural collapse. Typical of explosions. A good number of roof tiles have been found outside the footprint of the building this is shows how the kinetic force of the blast blew the roof tiles outward making them fall outwith the footprint of the building. If this collapse were due to a natural occurrence not only this would have occurred over months and years but also the side supporting wall would still have remained intact and any rooftile would only fall inside the building footprint.

Whereas

The base of the the wall does not have any bricks close by indicating the explosive force have blasted out the base of the wall first.

Any hypothesis of  wood end roof structure design fault to cause the collapse can be easily excluded because:

1 if the roof structure were to implode due to rot of any type this: not sudden and does not cause a catastrophic collapse all at once in a matter of a few seconds, the collapse would occur over several years

2 Collaspe would only happen gradually were the alleged rod would be affecting the part of the roof in question, not the whole roof.

3 no evidence of rotten wood was wound on site.

4Even in the event of a gradual collapse of a wooden roof structure this will case the roof to gradually implode on itself it would not force a lateral supporting wall outward (There appear to be no previous record or example of this)

Sudden collapsed are due to:

Explosive force like in this case

or weakening of the structure after extensive fires but even then this is gradual and does not occur in a few seconds.

 

Second collapse started End of October 2023

This collapse was consequential to the first collapse. This stated at the end of October 2023. The reason for the second collapse is the fact that the lack of the roof which collapses in September caused a imbalance of opposing forces imposed on the central column supporting both roofs.

The central pillar in the middle of the original structure was supporting two RSJ (Roll Steel Joists) which were supporting the middle of both pitched roofs. The lateral forces that those roofs exerted on the RSJ were canceling themselves out therefore the building was stable and never expected to collapse under almost any natural occurrence. The central pillar was more than sufficient to sustain the structure indefinitely even in the event of rot deterioration of the roof. The original structure was self balancing and therefore stable as long as both roofs were standing side by side as they were originally. Although it was only one pillar this was sufficient to keep the structure stable without any risk for several decades since its original construction.

Once one of the roofs collapsed the was a lack of balancing force which cased the structure to lose stability. The part of the roof still standing as we already explained exerts a force with two components one directed towards the ground and another one directed laterally (in the outside direction).  This is common for pitched roofs this is the reason for roof supporting walls to be reinforcesd with pillars.

 

It is important to note

1 the second roof collapse is very slow and stabilised at the end of November 2023.

2It was never catastrophic or sudden

3 it never caused any visible strain on the supporting side walls opposite to the one that collapsed all at once outwards in September 2023. Additionally, of course this wall which is of solid construction and over engineered ,  does not show any sign of structural stress and it is not expected to fall at any time.

4As we can see on one side the lateral force is wholly imposed on the central pillar, even then the pillar never collapsed suddenly and if it is undisturbed it will be standing (even if leaning outwardly). Therefore this cannot  explain how the side wall that collapsed in September 2023 would have been due to a natural structural defect or any other cause other than the blasting force located centrally.

5. Most tiles are still on the collapsed roof structure, and no roof tiles fell outwith the footprint of th building as occurred in the collapse on 2023. this is because the cause of the collapse is completely different.

therefore it is clear that the second collapse is

1 a direct consequence of the first collapse in 2023, without which it would be still standing.

2 the second collapse had followed the course of a natural slow collapse due to structural fault caused by the missing roof which collapsed in 2023.

As seen in this video the structure seem to have  stabilised as February 2024 and the central supporting pillar has not collapsed.

The following video shows the building extension in february 2024

 

Nature of natural collapse due to deterioration.

The way building collapse due to building structural deterioration is gradual and never dramatic like seen in this case of the side wall collapse in Septemeber 2023. Natural collespes provide plenty of warinings like cracks, leaning walls and other signes that are self evident to any building surveyors including those instucted by mortgage lenders. These types of structural failures lead to slow, gradual and predictable collapse and they are not dramatic or drastic. Most of all when the failure is with a structural part of the roof collapses are gradual and most of all they all occur within the building footprint without causing debris to fall outwith the building footprint.

As it is possible to see in respect to buildings that are damaged by fire, all verticalstrucutral walls remian intact and are not considered a dangerous strucutre. This is because abny remaininfg verticals tructuiures are not expected to collapse  either dureing or after a fire. Only the roof and some horozontal structure of the building will collaspe or will be considered dangerous. The same applies to any other type of collasoe due to natural causes (is structural defects or deterioration)

How it is impossible or very unlikely for the side wall to collapse on their own in a sudden event that destroys the entire structure.

The side wall that collapsed in September 2023 was built all at once with its twin wall (the one facing Harold Street). As we can see its twin wall was constructed in double brick structure adding internal pillars embedded into the structure to reinforce its capability of withstanding both static and dynamic forces.

In the collapse of the adjacent roof that started at the end of October 2023  due to the lack of counterbalance of the previous wall, it is possible to inspect how the side wall facing the properties in Harold street is completely unaffected and it is completely immune cprm being compromised or collapse in any way. Also examining the reason of this more recent failure it is clear how this is due to the central pillar failure that like in any naturel collapse  it is not sudden and it is gradual.

The contrast between the collapse onto he 13th September and the natural slow collapse of the end of October 2013

 

Nature of collapse due to explosions.

Any collapse due to explosion are sudden and depending on the positioning and force fo the explosion, they are sudden and dramatic, they cause debris to lass outwards and and perimeretral walls to blasted outwards. Aslo in cae of roofs involved in an explosion these will have the tiles to fky outwards.

For the reasons of the dramatic and sudden nature of explosions in the demolition of buildings this is one of the most popular way to demolish tall building using controlled demolitions which cause the building to collapse within seconds and the speed of free fall if the demolition is carried out correctly.

The aftermath of explosive force are very easy to discern and the debris left by explosive forces are difficult to find as they disintegrate into miscue pieces. Any proper forensic has to be done by analysing the debris of the site immediately after the fact and sent to the to specific laboratories to verify the presence of certain chemicals

In essence natural building collapse due to deterioration or poor design are slow and predictable, consequently do not cause sudden and systematic collapses. This types of collapse take time and provide plenty of  warning. whereas collapses due to explosions are sudden and the collapse occurs mostly during the time of the explosion.

This is the reason for controlled demolition to be carried out mainly using explosives, the collapse is sudden and (if the controlled explosive discharges are timed correctly and placed correctly within a building) the building will implode in fee fall within its own footprint.

 

 

The difference between the two collapses is dramatic.

In September  2023 the lateral wall collapsed all at once outwards causing the roof that it supported to collapse with it. The lateral supporting wall collapse was immediate and happened instantly all at once. This caused the roof to lose support and to collapse alongsied the wall while some tiles of the roof were launched outside  the building footprint onto the neighbouring propertys’ back gaarden.  As we have seen this was due to the internal explosion blasting force that pushed the roof tiles  outwards making them fly onto the neightbours’ back garden. The collapse of the 13th of September was due to the outward sudden explosive force that caused the lateral supporting wall to collapse outward into the passageway and the neightbours’ back  garden . This also caused some tiles to fly onto the neighbours’ back garden and most of the tiles were broken by the explosive event.

The missing  roof which collapsed in September caused the balance of the two lateral forces which were exerted on the central RSJs resting on the central pillar to be disrupted.  Before the collaspe in September 2023 the two roofs were exerting two lateral forces on the RSJ which were cancelling themselved out.  This means that the presence of the two roofs made the building stable and durable while the fact that one roof was missing made the whole structure prone to natural failure. The building was designed to have two roofs side by side.  Prior to the collapse in September 2023 the two opposing lateral forces exerted to the central RSJs where in balance therefore the whole structure was not only stable but was also perfectly in balance and the whole structure was long lasting not showing any signs of potential imminent or predictable collapse or possible structural weakness.

While the first collapse in September 2023 was sudden, on the other hand the collapse of the second adjacent roof started slowly due the the column supporting the two a RSJs to slowly lean outwards becuse of the lack of counterbalancing force from the missiong roof which collasped in September 2023. This was due to the lack of counterbalance force of the missing roof which fell in septemebr 2023.

The second collapse started gradually at the end of October 2023, this was a natural collapse due to the lack of the counterbalancing lateral force of the missing roof on the two RSJs and consequently on the centrally brick pillar supporting the two RSJs . Especially during this natural collapse the force exerted by the remaining roof is lateral on both the external double brick wall and the central pillar. Of course due to the nature of the reinforced double brick wall reinforced with pillars the wall is safe and immune from any collapse because it had been not only over engineered but also reinforced by the bricking up of all the previous windows openings and doors openings.

Therefore only lateral force of the existing roof is exerting on the pillar made the structure to be unbalanced by only one lateral force not been canceled out by the previous roof’s lateral force. Therefore over time the lateral force on the RSJ was enough to cause the cental pillar to be pushed outward but this is a slow process. The pillar never collapsed suddenly despite the fact that it is clearly of lesser strength than the roof. Onstead of been pushed forward all at once the pillar was pushed only a little  by the lateral force. (The insurance company wants us to believe that the lateral wall. collapsed suddenly due to a rotten roof joist?)

On the other hand the collapse that started at the end of October 2023  and carried on throughtout the month of November  2023 was very different. The movement was slow and gradual. It did not affect the lateral supporting wall. It only affected the central pillar supporting the two RSJs. The pillar started leaning slowly outwards due to the lateral force imposed by the remaining roof. However even the single pillar although leaning outwards,  never collapsed immediately like the lateral wall did in September 2023 (only a few weeks earlier). During the second collaspe the roof started imploding on its own footprint very slowly and gradually. Very few roof tiles  roof tiles fell from the collasping roof and  and those few that fell only fell within the building footprint. Thiis was a completely different scenario than the dynamics of the in Septemebr 2023. The lateral external wall of course never showed any sign of stress, it is still standing and not expected to collapse because it is of course built to withstand this type of lateral force and and much more.

As seem despite the fact that it is only a single column supporting the second existing roof this column did not collapse completely and suddently as it happened with the lateral wall in September 2023. This is despite the fact that the central column is several times weacker than the the wall that collapsed in September 2023. As as the mid of November 2023 it is still standing even if leaning outward. It is clear that it is unreasonable to suppose that despite the fact that the side wall was much stranger than a single colument yet the single colum never collapsed entirely entirely in the same dramatic fashion as the muchh stronger wall did in Septemebr. Additionally if we look at the wall still standing we can see how it was constructed with supporting columns embedded in it . This was done to strengthen the structure and have it to withstand great forces Both static and dynamic in nature. As we can see the perimeteral wall facing the Harold street not only is it still standing but it does not show any signs of stress and it is of course not expected to be collapsing.

 

The column and the wall.

It is important to understand the differentce in strngth between the central pillar and the lateral supporting walls. The reason for understanding it is due to the facct that the oxplosive force in September 2023 caused the lateral wall to collaspe all at once whereas at thhe end of October the lateral unbalanced force imposed by the remaining roof  cuased the column not to collapse , instead to lean outwards only. This clearly demonstrate how thhe two types of force involved in the two events were completly different in nature and also completely different in force. Clearly as the force tah caused the lateral to collapes all at onlice in septmebr was very frong and concentrated in an instantaneous period of time in order to cause the wall to collapse all at once. While the one that coause  the partial movement of the central column was of many times lower in mangitude and the contacnt in nature.

The lateral supporing walls once of which collapsed in September 2023 were constructed using a double brick construciton method and they had pillars embedded in them to reniforce the structuse, also they were interlicked witht he rest of the structure therefore very strudy anfd durable.  On the other havd the singklke pillr thta supported the two RSJs was stanfing on its own and built using bricks and it was not a steel column so to speak. Thereofre the difference in strength between the single columnt and the lateral walls is significant.

We can safely say that the overall strength to withstand lateral forces of the  wall is several times of the insernal column that supported the two RSJs and yet the internal column never collasped suddently whicle the external wall wich is several times stronger collasped suddently in septemebr 2023.

 

Thew main difference between the two collapses

September          October

Immediate         Slow and gradual

Cause                                                                   cause

Lateral supporting wall blasted outward all at once      Lateral force excreted by the remaining roof pushed the only column outwards (this never collapsed it remains there leaning)

It is important to understand that the two roofs were of the same construction

While one collapsed immediately in September 2023 the other collapsed slowly in October November

Duration of the collapse                                    Duration o the collapse

Immediate (milliseconds)                               Weeks

 

The difference is significant

It is important to note how the force imposed by the roof caused the central pillar to only nean outwards while we are led to believe by the insurance comapny that the roof in September caused the lateral wall to be blasted upwards all at once in one int#stant. We have seen how

1 the supporting wall was reinforced and designed to withstand this type of force

2 how  in reality if the event is natural the lateral force imposed on a supporting lateral structure is relatively minimal and even a single supporting column cannot fall all ot once. How is it possible that a reinforced wall falls  outwards all at once instantly if the cause is a rotten roof joist? We are led to believe that the same structure can lead to a very strong reinforced wall to be blasted outwards instantly where the same roof structure later on can only pusha central column that it several times weaker thn the lateral wall only slightly outward without having the column to even fall outwards all at once. It is clear that the cause of the two collapses are fundamentally different,a dnt eh absurdity of the insurance company’s claim which is made only to evade due liability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/142364525#/?channel=COM_BUY

“This small plot of land was formerly known as 55 Temple View Terrace but a boiler explosion many years ago led to its demolition along with a number of other adjoining properties.”

 

 

The appointment of Burgoynes LLP

This company was appointed and paid for the insurance company. No consultation with the insured was made in connection with an appointment of a truly unbiased independent expert to investigate in an unbiased manner the real cause of the incident in 2023 . Also, despite the insurance company was notified of the  secondary collapse at the end of October 2023 (which was caused by the first) the second collapse was not even investigated by the insurance company at all.

This company Burgoynes LLP was appointed and paid for by the insurance without any consultation with ourselves. Therefore, it is clearly a company with biased interests in trying to help evade the liability of the incidents on behalf of their client  (the insurance company).

 

Burgoynes LLP Report is misleading, unscientific and unreliable.

On Page 2

It is stated that Someone made an “investigation”, we have talked and have written confirmation from the firefighters that no investigation was made.  Also, we have written confirmation from the gentleman of the firefighter department that NO investigation was made on the cause of the collapse. Therefore, the information in writing we have from the firefighting department is in clear contradiction with this statements.

In light of the above already false information of page two, the “no bang “statement, it may well be intentionally or unintentionally False. We think it is intentionally false due to their conflict of interests. However, even if the “no bang” statement were true at, all we do not know is where the witness was situated in the house at the time. Also, it has to be borne in mind that the explosion occurred inside the building, not outside the building. Additionally, the building is several meters away from the neighbouring properties. We had in total between the explosion inside the building:

1 the internal wall of the building itself that was blasted outwards by the explosion, this wall caused also a degree of sound attenuation.

2 The mere distance between the two buildings is in the region of 20 to 30 metres.

3 also the external wall of the house where  the resident lived

4 any number of  partition wall or other obstacle between the external house wall of the house and the room the resident found themselves in at the time of the explosion.

All these 4 points explain easily how, even if that statement were true, it would be reasonable to understand how the bang noise would not be heard. Also this shows how biased the report was and certainly unscientific at all. Any real scientist would at least have asked all these questions and more.

The names have been obscured to disallow cross-examination of witnesses. Yet another piece of evidence attempt to place us in a disadvantaged position deliberately.

The “Gust of wind” statement, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant as no building collapses due to “gust of wind”. Unless, what was felt was the force of the internal explosive blast wave, which was referred to as a “Gust of wind”.

The “rain” and bad weather of the 12th has no relevance with a collapse of this building, clearly. N0 structurally sound building with double brick wall reinforced by internal pillars collapsed due to rain. Also of course there had been rain and no structural wall had collapsed or shows signs of strain due to “rain”. Therefore, even if all these statements were true, they are completely irrelevant to the investigation of the cause of the collapse. We are surprised that this has not been picked up by the self-proclaimed ” forensic Scientist/s”. We can only think of only two reasons for this failure to recognise these facts that  are obvious to almost anyone, either the scientists are incompetent or are engaged in building a biased report on behalf of the insurance company that pays them.    These statements  are simply used to mislead and divert attention from the true cause of the collapse.

Therefore, if these were a true forensic report, it is clear that there are  two possibilities here for the deceptive way this report have been made:

1 the maintioning of the above statements witch are completely irrelevant and deceptive are made intentionally to deceive, by diverting the attention from investigating the real cause of the collasope

2 this is done unintentionally due to mere incompetence.

We deem option 1 is the most likely because it is clear how the mention of the above statements are completely irrelevant to the creal cause of the collasoe. This is clear to anyone, independent from any qualifications. Therefore, the most likely reason for this type  of decetion is ioption 1, which is intentional due to conflict of interests.

 

How is it expected to find traces of explosions a month after the event?

Questions about Burgoynes LLP the organisation that produced the biased report on behalf of the insurance company.

How is it possible to find traces of explosions 4 weeks after the event when the area of the explosion was subject to the open weather? The rain between the event and the visit of the only representative of Burgoyenes LLP had already washed away all possible traces of explosion. Additionally no laboratory forensics was carried out in anyway targeted at finding the true cause of the collapse.

1 Burgoyenes LLP (the company employed by the insurance company) sent only one representative who brought a photo camera and did not carry out any real forensic investigation which usually involve laboratory tests. Also, any traces of explosion residues would obviously be washed away by the rain, wind  and the weather in general; especially one month after the event took place.

Traces  of explosions are present only immediately after the event and they can be investigated with real forensics only immediately after the event. This is because  traces of explosions and debris are washed  away by the weather very easily in an open space like the one in this case.

It is very important to emphasise that no serious, unbiased investigation was carried out by anyone. The fire brigades never conducted any investigation on the cause of the collapse.  As we have seen the fire brigades never carried out any investigation on the cause of the collapse, their only purpose was to establish whether their presence or intervention was needed, and it was established that such intervention was not needed. This is conformed in writing. Therefore, once again another false and misleading statement in included in the so-called scientific report.

The only alleged investigation was the one carried out by the insurance companies which are for obvious reasons already explained above biased, since they are aimed at avoiding any possible liability, especially when the loss is major like it is in this case.

Therefore, it should be clear how not finding traces or evidence of explosion is misleading:

1 The alleged “forensic Scientist” was employed by the insurance company, hence has obvious conflict of interests. Their interests align with those of their employer (the insurance company, whose interest is to avoid liability)

2 The only representative of Burgeyenes LLP never had any equipment targeted at truly investigating the real cause of the collapse, he only had a photocamera.

3 the remains of the collapse was already one month old at the time of the visit and therefore traces of explosions would have been washed away even if real lab forensics had been carried out.

4 When you do not want to show aa cartain outcomen disfavourable to the interests of your paying client it is relatively easy to overlook the real evidence of the case which point , for example in teis case to an explosion. In essence if you neeed not to find a specific cause for an incodentg, you will certainly look for the evidence to dismiss the real cause of the incident, even if that is obvious.

 

 

The reason for not providing a cause of collapse in the insurance biased report produced by Burgeyons LLP (employed by the insurance company).

It seems as if the purpose for the report is to attempt to exclude the real cause of the collapse in order to help their client evade due liability, despite the fact that a explosion is the clear the only plausible cause for the sudden collapse in September 2023.

Of course, a building that collapses suddenly has a cause for collapsing. It cannot collapse for no reason, especially when this occurs suddenly. No building can collapse suddenly due to no cause or due to minor rot in some structural wood. This just does not happen that way. Especially when a structural double brick wall reinforced with pillars collapses all at once instantaneously, there must be a cause of collapse. As we have seen above, even the circumstantial evidence all point clearly in the direction of an explosion that was located close to the centre of the double brick wall reinforced by pillars.   The report that the insurance company paid for does not provide any cause for the collapse, and it attempts to exclude the clear cause of the collapse at the same time. The reason for not porvissiong it is clear to any independent reader as the clear cause of the collaspe would immediately trigger liability of the insurance company who paid for the report.

In the biased report paid for by the insurance company, no clear cause was stated for the collapse. It is very clear the reason for not providing a cause of collapse because the only clear cause of collapse would immediately trigger the liability of the insurance company. This is not an acceptable outcome the employer of Burgoynes LLP would be happy paying for. They of course appoint and  pay  companies that allow them to evade liability for the longest period of time.  Of course, admitting to the true cause of the collapse (explosion) automatically triggers liability, even if this is clearly the only plausible cause of the collapse.

 

The qualifications of these allegged Forensic Scientists

The formal qualifications of these alleggest forrensic scientists are irrelevant in our opiinion because the report and th conclusions are clearly biased as seen above.  The conflict of interest is evident and therefore despite the qualifications , it does not matter what the conclusionas are , this is because it seem very clear that the motives of the Burgoynes LLP is to safeguard the interests of their paying client.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ony plausible cause for the collaspoe in September 2023 is an explosion.

Despite all  the evidence above. Even if evidence of the cause of the collapse was not present, unbiased the balace of evidence points clearly to the explosion as the cause of the suddend collaspe  in 2023.

As we have seen the cause of the collapse was an explosion and most of all the only plausible cause of the collaspe could only be an explosion. Additionally even if no other evidence was available the only plausible cause of the collaspe in Septemebr 2023 could only be an explosion and nothing else. If the insurance company “self proclaimed” forensics report were truly unbiased it would come to the exact same conclusion that the only plausible cause of the collasoewas an explosion located claose to the centre of the wall that collasped.  However as discussed this would hve triggesred an automatic liability of the client and clearly burgoyenes LLP dismissed the obvious cause of the collapsse due to “no evidence of” explosiosn where presumambly the allegged forensics expet armed only with a photocamera was assumed to find traces of exploasion a motnh afgter the event with a photocamera alone. Of course as we know even if traces of the explaosion were available at the time of Burgoyenes LLP these would heve been overlooked on purpose given the profound conflict of interest of the allegged forencs expert employed by the insurance conmpany.

 

Balance of probability, the only plausible cause for the collapse in September 2023 was ean explosion.

Not widthstanding all the evidence proves the explosion as the only cause of the collaspe in September, There is no other way to explain the collaspe than an explosive force pushing outwards the side wall .

Even in the absence all the evidence the balance of probability of the dynamics of the collaspe clearly points at the exploasion as the only plausible cause for the siupporting wall to collapse in Septemebr 2023.

The Balance of probability in any case strongly supports the real cause of the collaspe been an explosion of course. However there is no need to make reference to the balance of probability as it is clear how all the evidence the collapse was cause by an explosion.

 

Was the biased reporting company aware of the insurance policy liability wording prior to making preparing the repord?

Was the reporting company in contact with the insurace company during or befor  the drafing og the report?

How much was the reporting copany paid for the report in particulal

how may reports does the company produces for the insurance company and how mush for eash in the years of 2023, 2022, 2021

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/standard-directions/general/pre-action-protocols

https://prettys.co.uk/newsletters/principles-apply-when-court-has-decide-whether-one-parties-involved-litigation-should

 

Letter of claim

structural engineer collapse a strucural report on the mechanics of the collaspe

Expert evidence/ expert witness