Help needed with Cornhill home insurance

[edgemav]

I was wondering if anyone can help me. Just over 2 months ago my daughter bless her, accidently dropped the shampoo bottle in the shower and cracked the shower tray. I wouldn't have claimed at all on the home insurance but thought i'd better incase the tiles had to be taken off.
I phoned to claim and they were fantastic, someone came out the next day to assess and took some photos but did alot of head shaking!
He told me that the insurance policy will only cover the broken tray and if they couldn't match the tiles or the size of the tray, the cubicle would have to be re-tiled and floor might have to be taken up because it's laminate and cut to the size of the tray and I may have to pay all or some of the costs.
Is this right? I mean it's not my fault if they can't match the tiles or all the other work that wants doing.
To top all this off, 2 months later i am still waiting for any notification from anyone as to whats happening, about three weeks ago I did phone to see what was going on and was told by Cornhill that it was being looked into and that's that!
Fair enough it is someone's job to decide this but opinons aside, it's common decenty to at least send one letter with some infomation.
I have looked through policy documents and can see nothing that state that only responsible for broken item and not work having to fix it.

Does anyone have any ideas or help for me?
Thanks

[clint1974]

My dad has a claim with them also there slow at processing there claims and will try and wriggle out of anything. I would advise writing to there complaints dept.

[craigwalton]

With regards to the basin, it might be worth your while looking in B&Q, etc, or preferably where you bought the tray from to see if there is one of the same colour and size. Get an estimate and submit that to the Insurance Company. That will save you a lot of hassle in the long run.

With regards to the tiling (bearing in mind it is 1 yr since I dealt with buildings claims) they have to pay for the first 2 rows of tiles, any more rows than that then they have to contribute 50%.

With regards to the flooring they are wrong. The policy does not provide cover for repairing exploratory damage, but if they have to damage the laminate to get the shower tray out, as long as they accept the claim for the shower tray (which I cant imagine why they would not) they will have to honour the costs for the laminate (If it is click type they would recut and relay)

So in answer to your question - yes and no!!

If you have a friend in the trade, or know of a competitive builder, it might be worthwhile getting him to do an estimate, as the Insurance Company should pay goods to the value.

Good Luck!

[edgemav]

Thanks for all your reply's! Have an update. Got a call from company who will do the repairs and they said Cornhill made a decision on repairs and they said that we have to pay 50% of cost for tiles because they can't be matched but after looking through policy documents there's nothing in it that states we would have to do this.
I have to ring them on Monday but can anyone tell me if this is right? I know their argument is that they are replacing the broken item which is the shower base but i've never heard of anything like this before. You think that when you pay your insurance that other than the excess you know you have to pay, that's it, but it's going to cost us nearly £250 in total!
And to top it off my poor daughter thinks it's all her fault!
Would be grateful for anymore of your advice!

[mooreda]

Have a look at the Financial Ombudsman's News Letter here @ household disasters - October

matching sets
For many years, we have awarded compensation to customers who have referred complaints to us about ‘loss of match’ where, for example, one part of a three-piece suite has been damaged and it has not been possible to obtain an exact replacement for the damaged item. Our typical award is 50% of the cost of replacing the undamaged items. We have applied this approach to buildings insurance as well as to contents insurance.
However this approach is not always appropriate. For example, bathroom tiles give rise to similar disputes, but we are not usually sympathetic to demands for compensation when only a few of them need to be replaced. In these cases, we will assess the claim to see what effect the loss of match has on the remaining items. If there is no substantial loss, then we are unlikely to consider that any additional compensation should be paid. Conversely, where matching is intrinsic to the value of the objects, we will make an award for full replacement.

case study:

Household buildings – replacement – loss of match – tiles – whether policyholder entitled to compensation for loss of match in replacement of damaged tiles.

Fourteen tiles in Mr and Mrs J’s bathroom were damaged. The insurer agreed to replace these tiles but refused their request to re-tile the entire room. It explained that the policy specifically excluded ‘the cost of replacing any undamaged item or part of any item solely because it forms part of a set, suite, or one of a number of items of similar nature, colour or design’.
After the couple expressed their dissatisfaction, the insurer made an additional payment representing 50% of the cost of re-tiling the remainder of the room.
complaint rejected
The insurer had drafted its policy carefully. There was no reason why the policy should be disregarded or distorted simply because Mr and Mrs J had not appreciated that the wording might not allow them to claim for re-tiling the whole room. On the other hand, strict application of the terms would leave many householders – if not most – with a finish they would regard as unacceptable. The insurer’s payment of 50% of the cost of total re-tiling was in line with our usual approach and we were satisfied it was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.