To: – Defendant. RSA Insurance Group Ltd PO Box 256 Wymondham NR18 9DQ
Claimant: Andreas Investments Ltd
Claimant’s full address Registered Address for correspondence 6 Colwick Rd NG2 4BU Nottingham
Your Claim Reference number 202309019087
This letter is due to the claims made in connection with the partial collapse of the rear of 68 A Harold Street DN32 7NQ both in September 2023 and October 2023. The cause of both collapses are due to the explosion that pushed outward the reinforced side wall parallel to Castle Street in September 2023.
We write this letter as part of the standard procedure of pre court proceedings. This is stated on the following website https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
You can review it yourself, and we will be compliant all throughout the process leading up to court proceedings should it be necessary. We hope we can resolve this claim without resorting to court proceedings, we will make our outmost effort to avoid court proceedings.
We therefore invite you to comply with these statutory rules, which we are sure you are fully aware of, and we can find an amicable resolution instead of resorting to court proceedings.
The claim is for the collapse of part of the building insured with you. The building was under insurance cover during the event that led to the collapse in September 2023. Additionally, this collapse led to a further partial slow collapse which started in October 2023.
You have also been notified of this secondary collapse, as you had been notified as how this was clearly caused by the first collapse (due to explosion).
We are open to settling the claim without court proceedings, This is our preferred outcome, however compensation has to be matching the rebuild value of the damaged property.
It is our understanding that your company base the denial of liability solely on the report your company paid for made by Burgoyenes LLP. This is an LLP organisation that your company engaged and paid for. The appointment of this company was made without any consultation with ourselves. Therefore, it is clearly a company selects, engaged, managed and paid by you hence we believe firmly it has strong conflict of interests. Because of this conflict of interests, they produced a report which you are currently using to deny any liability.
Understand each other’s position;
Our position is that according to the policy we purchased, the liability for insurance cover stands and you remain liable to cover for the reinstatement losses of the incident. This is because the clear cause of the collapse was an explosion. Do you understand that we would expect the full reinstatement t costs for both incident sin September 2023 and Late October 2023? Do you understand that it seems clear that the incident of October 2023 is a direct consequence of the incident in September 2023?
Our position in connection with the report paid by you is that this is clearly biased and made in order to avoid your liability. We base this on the facts of the incidents and that you engaged this company, you paid for it. Because of this and more, it is only natural that the clear intent in employing this company is to avoid any due liability. You would not possibly employ a company and pay for a report that shows your clear liability on any large claim. For this reason of the clear conflict of interests (which make this company clearly biased) and the false statements on the report, their conclusions are regarded as unreliable and with deceptive intentions. This report you paid for seems the only basis you claim denial of liability on the first collapse in September 2023 and the consequent second that started at the end of October 2023.
If our position is not clear, please get in touch with us within 10 days and we will be explaining further.
We would rather come to an amicable settlement without court proceedings.
Our preferred outcome is to save the costs of court proceedings and settle the claim amicably without recourse to court proceedings.
We are open to arbitration.
It is our understanding that based on the report made by Burgoyenes LLP your company denies all liability for these two incidents.
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.
In the kight on the above, we kindly ask you:
1Do you have any other basis for denying liability other than using the report by Burgoyenes LLP? If you have any other basis to deny liability, so state all other basis for denying liability.
2 How many incidents does this self claimed “scientists forensics” carried out in year 2023, year 2022 year 2021. In other words how many reports does the company produced for the insurance company and how much for each in the years of 2023, 2022, 2021?
3 The basis of the report produced by them as “forensics”, what forensics analysis have been carried out?
4 What equipment to collect samples from the site was used?
5 Please provide the names and qualifications of the people that produced the report you sent us
6Was the biased reporting company aware of the insurance policy liability wording prior to making preparing the report?
7Was Burgoyenes LLP in contact with the insurance company during or before the drafting of the report?
8How much was the reporting company paid for this report in particular?
Please inform your client that failure to answer fully to the above point will very likely leasd to further penalties should this case be brought to full court prodeedings.
We will be open to informal discussions to settle this claim amicably over the phone or in person. Therefore, should you consider an amicable resolution we welcome it and please do not hesitate to contact us.
It is deemd reasonable to provide full answers to the above questions within 20 working days.
Given the nature of the claim we deem the minimum time before formal proceddings begin to be 3 months from this letter date.
We may have further questions in connection with this case and we will ask them as they arise, you would be expected to reply promptly to those too.