Legal help with woodworm problems | Legal aid

Questioner

Longhorn beetle infestation. -March 2015: delivery of a completely ecological new-build house (timber frame construction) -May 2016: contacted a specialist, regarding damage to a wooden support pillar (round wooden column/trunk, part of a supporting structure). Specialist carried out an inspection on site. Conclusion: This is a variable longhorn beetle. Not harmful. Will go away on its own and will not return. -Feb 2017: Reported the above to the contractor. Response: 'keep an eye on it.' -July 2017: still audible damage (gnawing sounds). Email contact with specialist. He says: wait and see. Cycle is not finished yet. -Feb 2018: Still audible damage. Again email contact with specialist. His response: “This can actually be nothing other than the variable longhorn beetle. "I would wait for the fledging period before taking action. Can I arrange with you that if you hear anything in September, you will contact us and we will come and have a look?" -May 2018: 2 house longhorn beetles found indoors. A harmful beetle. Contacted specialist by email, incl photos of the beetle. Response: 'photo is indeed a house longhorn beetle. Then there is damage from this in tree trunk pole.” -June 2018: Colleague of the previously mentioned specialist comes by for a 2nd inspection. Again confirmation that it is indeed the house longhorn beetle. Two exit holes are indicated, which corresponds with the discovery of the 2 beetles in May. This person indicates that the larvae of the beetle were already in the post before placement in the house, in connection with the life cycle of the house longhorn beetle. (verbal) A quote will follow for a surface treatment of the pole with poison. This states, as was also stated verbally during the inspection, that there is no guarantee that this will permanently eliminate the damage. Warranty only applies if poison is injected into the pillar, which results in visible damage (large holes over the entire length of the pillar). In addition, we do not want any poison treatment, because of the ecological house and the proximity of the kitchen to the pole. -June 2018: We discover that a second wooden pillar (not part of the supporting structure) has been affected. -Aug 2018: Have a second company come for an inspection. This company works with microwave control, among other things. Confirmation again that it concerns house longhorn beetle (in both pillars) and that it was in the pillars before the pillars were placed. (in written statement) This person also indicates that it might be better (and cheaper) to replace the pole instead of working with microwaves. Aug 2018: Contacted contractor, based on above findings, with request for a meeting to discuss the different alternatives. Contractor first does his own research. Oct 2018: 19-10, conversation with contractor. He says what his supplier of the pillars says: "It concerns a natural product (wood), so that can occur in it. I do not feel called to do anything further with this." Agreement is still: Contractor contacts CAR insurer, to see if they can make a claim there. Contractor does not keep agreement by not making any contact. End of December 2018: Contacted legal aid. January 14, 2019: Legal assistance has summoned the contractor to replace the pillars within 2 months. If this was not complied with, the contractor would be put in default by legal assistance on our behalf. February 5, 2019: A lawyer reports to legal aid on behalf of the contractor, stating that he aims to respond within 15 days. February 22, 2019: Contacted legal aid, asking if the contractor's lawyer had responded. No response from legal aid. March 8, 2019: We contacted legal aid again to ask what the current status is, as we have not heard anything since February 5. March 11, 2019: Legal aid sends the lawyer a reminder and gives him a week to respond. To us, legal aid questions the feasibility of the requirement to replace the pillars. Replacement would be disproportionate, because working with poison would be sufficient. We are asked to send photos of the pillars showing drill holes. We do this, with the following response: “You indicate that you have doubts about the feasibility of replacing the columns. However, some things are being overlooked here. - The longhorn beetles have caused considerable damage to the columns for several years. Not visible, but of course present. The columns must meet certain strength requirements. It is possible that these are no longer met, or at least to a lesser extent. - The quote from MvL group clearly states that no guarantee is given on what they offer as a control solution. So there is absolutely no 100% guarantee of success. A follow-up treatment, in which large holes have to be drilled in the columns and poison is injected, which of course has major consequences for the visibility and the strength of the columns, would only give a 100% guarantee. The costs of this are not included in the quote. - The beetles have demonstrably been in the columns before they were placed. There can be no question of us having to accept a solution that offers no guarantee. We did not ask for columns infected with longhorn beetles during construction. And we did not ask for columns with holes treated with poison during construction. " March 22, 2019: Because we haven't heard anything again, we inquired again with legal aid whether we have heard anything from the lawyer and, regardless of this answer, we asked what would be the best thing to do. Today: Still no response. Confidence in legal aid has dropped to zero. Constantly have to chase after them. Advice is very minimal and in our eyes very incomplete (given the matters that in our opinion are overlooked, see '11 March 2019'). We would like to gain more insight into the strength of our legal position and advice on the best steps to take now. Also because we do not want the infestation to spread to the rest of the house now that the flying out period is approaching again.

Lawyer

You can always use your right to engage a lawyer or attorney yourself if you do not like the lawyer of your own insurer. What I do find very bad is the laxity with which parties respond. Or better not at all. There really needs to be some haste, what is the extent of the damage do you think? Beyond the liability and the negligence of the contractor, I think there is no other option than to summon, or if possible via an affiliated disputes committee of the contractor. That is somewhat more accessible and can be initiated immediately. I can help you with both paths, otherwise will you contact me immediately?

Lawyer

Unfortunately, experience shows that legal expenses insurers often do not adequately represent the interests of their insured. If you are not satisfied with the way in which the case is being handled, you have three options. You can file a complaint with the insurer about the handling of your case. If advice has been given regarding your legal position in the meantime, you can request a second opinion from a lawyer or legal expert of your choice. The costs of this will be reimbursed by the insurer. Since a response from the other party takes a long time, you can also urge the insurer to take legal action. If proceedings have to be initiated, you have the right to freely choose a lawyer and you may find a lawyer yourself. The costs of his work will then also be reimbursed by your insurer. I regularly act for the insured and have extensive experience with disputes about defects in construction. If desired and necessary, I am happy to assist you in this matter. If you have any questions or require legal assistance, please feel free to contact me without obligation and free of charge.