Britain’s record-breaking heatwaves in 2025 and 2026 have led to a surge in subsidence claims, as dry conditions cause clay soil to shrink and destabilize house foundations. In the second quarter of 2026 alone, home insurers paid out £72 million for such claims, with the average individual payout rising to £20,000, up £2,000 from the same period in 2025, according to data from the Association of British Insurers.
Clay shrinkage resulting from persistent hot weather has caused widespread damage including cracks in walls, jammed doors and windows, sloping floors, and other structural issues. Homeowners are advised to report any cracks wider than 3mm to their insurers promptly to mitigate damage.
Dean and Gina Butti of Hertfordshire are among those affected. The couple first reported cracks at their three-bedroom bungalow in June 2021. Five years later, their property still shows extensive damage, including cracks around the house and conservatory, a warped roof, damaged windows, sloping floors, misaligned doors, a distorted driveway, and potential drainage issues. The Buttis say their home has become unsellable except by auction. Their annual insurance premiums with Aviva have risen sharply from £337 to £1,700, and they have been unable to secure coverage elsewhere while repairs remain incomplete.
After filing their claim, Aviva assigned a loss adjuster who initially denied subsidence despite not holding formal qualifications in structural engineering or surveying. After nearly nine months and the Buttis’ own complaints—Dean is a building surveyor with four decades of experience—Aviva acknowledged subsidence was the issue and promised repairs within 30 months. However, the adjuster failed to dispatch a qualified structural engineer until January 2026.
Instead, an arboriculturist suggested partial tree removal in 2022; subsequent removals by the housing association and the Buttis themselves took place over the following years. Because soil consolidation typically requires about a year post-tree removal before repairs begin, significant delays have ensued. Disagreements among adjuster staff about the subsidence cause and related tree involvement contributed to further holdups.
In late 2024, after over three years without substantial progress, Aviva assigned a second loss adjuster. A surveyor from this team admitted in early 2025 that he had not reviewed the case history and delayed commissioning a necessary roof report until September—only for Aviva to reject it as inadequate. The Buttis then obtained an independent report confirming severe structural roof damage requiring urgent work, and they requested an asbestos survey, which was not provided by the adjusters.
Only in January 2026 was a structural engineer appointed, who identified errors in the initial monitoring and recommended comprehensive repairs. Yet by March, no repairs had started, prompting Aviva to pass the case to a third loss adjuster. This team’s senior surveyor admitted to not reviewing the structural engineer’s findings and disputed some of the repair needs despite the engineer’s detailed recommendations covering floorboards, roof tiles, windows, driveway, and drains.
Following a joint site meeting in July 2026 involving the Buttis, the structural engineer, the adjuster’s surveyor, and a contractor, the adjuster’s surveyor proposed bringing in a second engineer to reassess the cause and extent of the damage. The Buttis view this move as a tactic to delay resolution, noting the surveyor lacks formal engineering qualifications and questioning his authority to challenge an experienced structural engineer.
Dean Butti criticized the ongoing handling of the claim, suggesting the process is being intentionally prolonged by the insurer and its representatives. Meanwhile, the couple remain burdened by an uninhabitable and devalued property and mounting insurance costs after half a decade of unresolved subsidence damage.