Building insurance claim.

Joined
23 Dec 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
I've put in a claim on my building insurance for what I know is a leaking gutter. They told me I wouldn't be able to get that fixed as it's "wear and tear" which is fine. Told that I could claim on accident damage one for fixing plaster and damp in bedroom.

So surveyor comes out decides it's not the guttering but a natural degradation of the mortar below the guttering which is where my leak is coming. And if it's not there then it is the cracked tile that has been repaired. Now I know for a fact it's the gutter as it has been sort of repaired by myself but needs further action to rectify it.

The surveyer used a camera on pole to take pictures but didn't prod around or anything like just looked and went that's your problem you are not insured for it. Now I have tried arguing but they have said fast that's the problem now where does it leave me. We all know they try to weasel out of everything woth 75 pages of small print about things you aren't covered for.

I think there are 2 options
1 suck it up and accept there word and pay for fixing it all myself
2 get a gutter expert out and see if they can find the problem then argue with the insurers.

Attached is the pictures he took of where the "problem" is. The last picture is of where the leak is in the bedroom which happens to be where I think the problem is.

Thanks for any help.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0063.PNG
    IMG_0063.PNG
    1.8 MB · Views: 254
  • IMG_0064.PNG
    IMG_0064.PNG
    1.9 MB · Views: 207
  • IMG_0065.PNG
    IMG_0065.PNG
    1.9 MB · Views: 224
  • IMG_0066.jpg
    IMG_0066.jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 226
Sponsored Links
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
39,238
Reaction score
4,874
Location
Retired to:
Country
Portugal
Well, applying logic -
how can it be natural wear and tear if they class the internal damage as 'accidental damage' - the result of an accident?

On the other hand, why should they pay for the internal damage if it is natural wear which you have not maintained?

Gutters are not fitted to keep water out of the property. If your walls leak, your walls leak. If the tile leaks, it will have to be replaced.

To be quite honest, I don't think this should be covered by insurance.
It may be but such things must increase premiums hugely.


Obviously you will have to abide by their rules.


Sorry.
 
Joined
11 Nov 2009
Messages
2,581
Reaction score
210
Country
United Kingdom
It's not storm damage and I doubt it classes as escape of water from fixed water apparatus. I don't think it's covered, either.
 
Joined
21 Nov 2008
Messages
6,922
Reaction score
1,213
Location
uk
Country
United Kingdom
Its the gutter leaking which has caused the damage! from experience they generally will not cover wear and tear of the gutter but cover the damage caused by the leaking gutter.
The degraded mortar fillet is acting as a water trap and wont be helping matters any but its not the cause of the water ingress.
The original gutters would have covered the whole plinth.

You can appeal to the ombudsman but after paying the excess on your policy is it really worth it.
 
Sponsored Links
Joined
23 Dec 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
So it's not worth it then I'll just have to find a roofer and hopefully it's a easy fix. Thanks anyway.
 
Joined
11 Jan 2004
Messages
39,733
Reaction score
2,018
Country
United Kingdom
FWIW, we had a leak from our flat roof which was not covered but the damage caused by it was...
 
Joined
23 Dec 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
That's what I got told the damage would be but they have said that it's not now. Just trying got get someone round to have a look and see how much I can get stung for.
 
Joined
30 Jun 2008
Messages
15,521
Reaction score
1,808
Location
Suffolk
Country
United Kingdom
I'd be tempted to do a proper repair on the gutter joint before calling out a gutter 'expert' who will simply tell you the lot needs ripping off and replacing. The problem with this sort of work is the guttering will usually extend over your neighbours house. Therefore they will get a new section of gutter at your expense. If, like a neighbour of mine many years ago, they offer to pay a small part for their section then all well and good but get it in writing! My neighbour offered to pay for his front to be completely done and because the builder said he would reduce the cost. The plan was I would have mine done on my insurance at a cost which would cover both houses and then said neighbour would give me half the cost of my excess, (which was £200 in the early 80's so a fair slice of cash to stump up)..
Suffice to say the neighbour refused to pay his share and got a new set of gutters gratis of my insurance. Couldn't even sabotage them as we moved out about a month later to have the house renovated and when we came back after 3 months we had new neighbours!
 
Joined
24 Aug 2010
Messages
3,907
Reaction score
774
Location
Ayrshire
Country
United Kingdom
Diy guy, good evening.

For my sins, I work in the Insurance industry, and have done for about 20 years [just seems longer] as either a Claims Surveyor, or Loss Adjuster, or as a Subsidence Claims Specialist. This is by the way my second career.

OK? Where to start?
1/. It would appear that when you "intimated" the claim, [made your claim] it was investigated as a so called "Storm Claim"
A/. A so called "Storm Claim" must fall within one over-riding criteria which is wind speed, on the day that the damage being claimed for is Intimated.
B/. Most Insurers "Storm Claim" criteria is a wind speed of 50. MPH or above, or, X No. of mm of Rain within one hour [Please do not go into depth of Snow, that is a real rat trap?]
C/. Almost all Insurers use a thing called "Weather net" to define the outcome of your claim, the information is gathered and computerised for the entire Country, the results are compiled hourly, and date back several dozen years.

As far as you are concerned, if the wind speed was less that about 50 MPH, and little or no rain then your claim would probably fail [sorry about that]

Insurance is there to indemnify you against an event [called a Peril in the Insurance Industry] meaning something unexpected has damaged your Property ][or possessions]
All Insurers will NOT under any circumstances pay out for damage to your property [or Possessions] for something that has occasioned damage over a period of time, such as Rising Damp. Wet / Dry Rot. Rodent damage. and something that occurs over a long period of time, lack of painting of Soffits / Facias causing wood rot.

As far as the previous post by "Securespark" there is a very high probability that the policy held in that case also had a clause covering so called "Accidental Damage" this condition [Peril] can at times repudiate the cause [a leaking flat roof?] but accept the internal damage caused.
As an aside, most policies will not pay for the replacement of a leaking copper pipe bend, but will pay out for the at times dozens of thousands of £ damage occasioned by that leaking bend??

Such are the confusions occurring within the insurance Industry.

Now Finally, [thank God you all say???]

All Insurers have dozens of Policies covering the [almost???] the same thing, meaning that one Policy will differ massively from another Policy Underwritten by the Same Insurer?
What this means is that, two adjacent Neighbors insured by the same Insurer claiming for the same event will result in one Insured will be covered, the other will not???

Such is the real world of Insurance?

If you considered the Building Game to be complex? just think about the Insurance "Game"

Ken.
 
Sponsored Links
Top