RSA Group - Water Damage Claim

[Barnsleydan]

Hi,

I currently live outside the UK - but still have a property in the UK.

We changed our insurance policy for non occupancy, and paid a premium of 100%, even though contents where excluded from the policy.

We have had a leak, which has caused exstensive damage and RSA are saying that in the small print of a booklet we never received water damage is only covered for the first 60 days of non occupancy. Heres the catch:

1. When we changed the policy we specifically asked if water damage was covered as we had had an issue before. It was confirmed it was - without limitations.

2. When we received the amended documentation we placed another call to check the kitchen etc was covered as it said contents where not. Iy was confirmed we were 100% covered.

3. We received documentation stating we were covered, without limitations - this document advised us to have the water switched on at the mains between the months June to September. We actually received this contract twice.

4. I called the emergency hotline to log the fault - and they confirmed we were 100% covered but I needed to speak to someone else.

5. I logged the call on Monday morning with RSA and on the call the assistant confirmed I was 100% covered after checking with her manager.

So, the house has been assessed and the RSA rep who came round has informed me that our claim is under review and it is likely we will be rejected for loss of claim because of this 60 day rule - which we've never seen nor had the documentation that it is included in.

Can anyone help? Am I missing something and taking verbal and written contracts for granted or are RSA just trying to get out of a potentially large claim by trying it on?

Thanks

[tiglet]

Is this 60 day rule mentioned anywhere in your written contract?

[Barnsleydan]

No - not once. The only wording towards water is:

During the months of October to March

- the water suply must be turned off at the mains and the heating system drained unless automatically controlled heating system is in operation.

The leak started in June, so that shouldnt be an issue and the property has been visited every single weekend.

[tiglet]

Then they can't claim the 60 day rule - you have not signed anything to agree with this.

Has the RSA rep put this in writing yet?

[Barnsleydan]

No - it hasnt been put in writing yet - they say its "being reviewed" and we will get an answer on Monday - but to expect it to be a no!

[tiglet]

Wait and see what they put in writing and then let us know.

Have you carefully checked your T & C's?

[Barnsleydan]

Hi there.

Ive extensively checked the contracts and there is zero mention to this 60 day policy or any other policy that we have broken. We have complied with everything they have stated including water being swithed off and someone visiting the property once a week.

[tiglet]

Then just hang on and see whether they put the "60 day" rule in writing - it is always better to get everything in writing before you act.

[cazzaswfc]

HI

Have you checked for exclusions under "unoccupancy" The clause your insurer seems to be talking about is quite common and certainly the insurer that I work for have similar terms and conditions.



However, having said that, if you have called to question this , and being told on tape that you would indeed be covered then you should pursue this under the companys complaints procedure. I have know claims being paid out when staff have made errors and advised clients they have cover for certain things regardless of what the T&C's say

[tiglet]

That's why I've said check the T&C's - they may show something which isn't shown in your contract (as such) but you have nevertheless agreed to.

[cazzaswfc]

I presume by RSA this is More than?

I've just read through there policy booklet and exclusions apply to escape of water ( and infact most things) when the property is unattended for more than 60 days. ( as stated before it's one that a lot of insurers have)

As stated above, what you want to get across is that you questioned this and was assured you'd get full cover.That your basis for actually taking out the policy was that it did cover you for whats a non standard situation.You were lead to believe the cover met your needs. I would pursue this and ask for calls to be listened to etc.

Whilst conditions do apply and insurers often use these to their advantage this could be an example of a policy actually been mis-sold to you. With these conditions this policy clearly did not meet your needs and your insurer has a duty of care to ensure that it does! Follow this all the was to the FSA if you have.

[Barnsleydan]

Hi,

I have checked all the documentation they have sent us. There is a section that is titled "All unoccupancy exclusions re-instated" and details around 9 sections, with one advising us to have the mains water switched on between the months April to September.

This is the only information we have been sent, and no booklet was included with the contracts and no reference to it made anywhere on the contracts.

We have been quoted as being "100% covered" on 4 seperate verbal conversations and hopefully they have been recorded.

[Barnsleydan]

It is Royal & Sun Alliance on behalf of Yorkshire Bank.

Originally Posted by cazzaswfc

I presume by RSA this is More than?

I've just read through there policy booklet and exclusions apply to escape of water ( and infact most things) when the property is unattended for more than 60 days. ( as stated before it's one that a lot of insurers have)

As stated above, what you want to get across is that you questioned this and was assured you'd get full cover.That your basis for actually taking out the policy was that it did cover you for whats a non standard situation.You were lead to believe the cover met your needs. I would pursue this and ask for calls to be listened to etc.

Whilst conditions do apply and insurers often use these to their advantage this could be an example of a policy actually been mis-sold to you. With these conditions this policy clearly did not meet your needs and your insurer has a duty of care to ensure that it does! Follow this all the was to the FSA if you have.

[cazzaswfc]

ok, best advise I can give you then is what I've already said, follow the complaints procedure, stating that you feel you were miss-sold a policy, that you clarified over the phone certain points ( full cover for unnocupancy) at point of sale and after.

As I stated before, if you recieve bad/wrong information over the phone the insurer will genrally honour claims. Tell them you are prepared to go all the way to the FSA.

[Barnsleydan]

thanks for your advice on this - much appreciated.

[LemonTwist]

When you submit a formal complaint, RSA should be able to listen to the phone calls to confirm what was agreed. If you were given incorrect information, which made you think you were covered for more than you really were, then they will have to honour the claim.

[Barnsleydan]

****UPDATE****

The claim is still being reviewed after nearly two weeks of being logged. The Loss Assessor says it is because of the claims we have made regards the telephone calls etc.....

Does it normally take this long to review? Should we take some hope in the fact its taking so long or is it just process and not a normally quick turnaround?

[tiglet]

I would say 2 weeks is a fairly quick turn around.