Additional reporting by Sofia Akin.
A pensioner worries his crumbling garden wall may collapse onto a child – but says he cannot afford the £20,000 repair bill insurers initially promised to pay.
William Dordoy says Tesco Bank agreed to cover the cost of fixing the issue after a large crack appeared in the brick boundary outside his Herne Bay home following a rough storm.
But the insurer has since u-turned on its pledge, claiming the damage is not weather-related and instead due to “wear and tear”.
Mr Dordoy, whose home in Spenser Road is close to two primary schools and a nursery, now fears a child or parent walking by could be hurt if the structure was to collapse.
“It is so dangerous,” he said.
“It could fall over if we get another windy day, and you can see cracks all over the place now.
“There’s always mums parking around here to pick up the kids – the wall could fall in when they’re walking past, and who knows what sort of damage would come then.”
The 76-year old first noticed the crack after a storm hit the town in January.
He contacted Tesco Bank and was initially told the cost of repairs would be covered under his policy.
But in a letter on May 1 the company declined his claim, suggesting the damage to the wall was not down to the bad weather.
When insurance inspectors visited the pensioner’s property, they pointed to weeds that appeared to be growing through the wall, but Mr Dordoy maintains the crack appeared long before any plant began growing there.
Officers from Canterbury City Council have put in place barriers to prevent people walking along the pavement, but Mr Dordoy says parents on the school run often move the temporary fencing aside.
A bricklayer quoted Mr Dordoy £20,000 to mend the structure, but on a pensioner’s income he says he does not have the money and is disappointed Tesco has reneged on its original offer to cover the cost.
“I’ll never go in there again, to be honest, even to shop,” he said.
“I just can’t believe it – at Tesco, really?
A spokesperson for Tesco Bank said: “We were sorry to hear about Mr Dordoy’s experience.
“We’ve declined his claim following inspection of the wall which established the damage was not caused as a result of a storm but due to its pre-existing poor condition and gradual wear and tear.
“However, we acknowledge there were unnecessary delays and miscommunication in handling his claim and have therefore offered Mr Dordoy compensation for the inconvenience caused.
“We’ve also agreed to meet the cost of the barriers that the council have erected to offer protection from the wall.”
