Nationwide Contents Insurance Claim

[Runners]

I'm hoping that someone could give me some advice, as I am now stuck and really don't know what to do.

My bath cracked when my partner was having a shower and water leaked over the floor etc. As i've been suffering from an illness for the last year, we decided to claim on the contents insurance, as it would be less stress than doing it ourselves. Well that's what we thought!

We paid £50 excess and the builders turned up for 3 days of work. They then said on the second day that they would be back some time to finish the job, as they had only been told to work 2 days not three. This was the contractors fault and we have been waiting 2 weeks with half a bathroom. I've been ringing up Nationwide's claim advice line, and the contractors have been waiting on a decision from the insurance company over what to do about the tiles that they ripped off the wall to remove the bath. The tiles are not made any more and we've searched everywhere and cannot find anything similar, as they have a speckled and then glazed finish. We can't even find tiles the same size. Nationwide have now said that they agree to replacing the tiles up to the daido border tiles (half way up the walls) but my partner and I have to pay 50% of the cost of the tiles and labour which is going to be about £1,000, and we just can't afford that. I specifically asked the insurance assessor if the tiles could be refitted and he said yes, though i dont have this in writing. So now i have half a floor, a new bath with bin bags gaffer taped around it to protect the walls were there are no tiles and the only thing Nationwide will do, is charge us £1000 to replace the bottom half of all the tiles that will be a different size and wont match the top half. But as we can't afford it, it looks like i'm going to be left with a half finished bathroom. Nationwide just say that it's their policy to only offer 50% of the cost and they just wont budge.

If anyone could offer some advice, i would most grateful, as i'm at the end of my coping ability with this.

Many thanks

[revolting peasant]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I think your insurers are correct.

I'll just summarize my understanding and if there is any part of this that is incorrect then let me know.

1) Bath cracked whilst in use. There was no external force or impact.

2) The insurers agreed to replace the bath and repair any damage caused as a direct result of the water leakage from the bath.

3) As a consequence of removing the damaged bath, tiles were removed, undamaged, by the contractor.

What I don't understand is why the original tiles cannot be replaced. If they were removed carefully then they should go back.

What you need to consider, and I know this sounds harsh, is it reasonable to expect the insurers to pay to completely re-tile your bathroom. Insurance is based on reinstatement i.e. restoring what you had prior to any insured peril. For you to have a completely retiled bathroom would give you more than the insured risk. It isn't their fault that the tiles are no longer available and I think that offering you 50% of the total cost is probably beyond the terms of the policy.

[mooreda]

Have you searched the Ombudsman's website to see if they have any comments about cases such as this that they have looked at?

[mrsc]

Hi,

I think you will find that is correct,I also had an insurance claim,due to water flooding the kitchen,only some of the units were damaged,as they were about 13 years old,they couldn't find a match for them so the Insurers paid for the damaged units plus 50% of the undamaged ones we had to pay the rest.

Sorry if that's not what you want to hear,believe me I know how you feel.

[Runners]

Thanks for the replies. The bath cracked when my partner stepped back in the bath. So the insurance agreed that it was accidental damage. The assessor that came round said that the tiles taken off would be put back so that no new tiles were needed. I was quite specific about asking if that could be done because they are special tiles. He said that the contracted company would be replace them. However the builder damaged damaged tiles when he took out the bath and fitted a new one. I know that they are responsible for replacing the tiles they damaged but i can't see how it can be acceptable to replace them with entirely different tiles. It ends up being a very expensive insurance claim that we can't afford, so will be stuck with a half finished bathroom and black bin bags gaffer taped to walls.

[revolting peasant]

The only thing I can suggest is that you go back to the insurers and ask for a copy of the assessors report but bear in mind they are not obliged to supply it to you.

It's a very long shot but if the assessor considered it practical to remove and replace the tiles and was specific in his instruction to the contractor about this then there MAY be some comeback on the contractor but I really don't hold out much hope of either the insurers or the contractor paying the full amount to retile the bathroom.

[ab123uk]

Hi Runners,

Under ABI (association of brit. insurers) guidelines, the role of the insurer in the event of a claim is, as previously stated, reinstatement.

the insurer MUST reinstate your position as it was prior to the claim. You cannot be left 'worse off' in terms of repairs/replacement than you were prior to this.

I would advise the insurer you are going to contact ABI and FOS (ombudsman), as you have advice regarding there responsibility, contrary to what they have advised, if they still dont budge, contact FOS & ABI.

Hope this helps

[sang33ta]

I would just settle for a border around the bath if a different but complimentary tile.

If you keep pushing for a whole re-tile of your bathroom you may end up with a visit from the loss adjustors.

[revolting peasant]

Originally Posted by ab123uk

the insurer MUST reinstate your position as it was prior to the claim. You cannot be left 'worse off' in terms of repairs/replacement than you were prior to this.

Agreed but they have no obligation to make your position better than it was prior to the loss so to ask the policyholder for a contribution in these circumstances is entirely reasonable and standard practice.

[ab123uk]

Durr! Think I was having a dumb minute... As RP states, Nationwide aren't being unreasonable in asking for you to contribution, i think we can safely say any insurer would do so

[indebtstudent]

Lots of companies charge people for not paying by direct debit is that ok too?

This seems unfair as the customer IS in a worse position. But for the actions of the builder the tiles would be fine. There must be some comeback to someone?

[Runners]

Thanks for all the advice, i went down the route of the assessor stating that no tiles had to be taken off. I had the works assessment report, which actually stated this too. In the end (after a lot of delays on the insurance company side) they have agreed to a cash settlement of £900.

It's taken a lot of effort to keep on at the insurance company, but it seems if you persevere, it's worth it.

[indebtstudent]

"but it seems if you persevere, it's worth it."

Something I find myself wondering more and more is how widespread this low balling technique is which companies use. A friend of a friend who works in insurance once said it was wise to always reject the first offer.

I think it is very likely lots and lots of people are losing out because they just accept what companies say. I had someone tell me that nothing could be done about charges for cancelling insurance. She had tried with home ins and got nowhere. So far I've gotten 50% back on my car insurance and the Ombudsmen are now looking at it.

Good news on your victory, if something feels wrong the it probably is!

[caro]

Thread moved to insurance forum.