Hi everyone,

Firstly, We have a hole in the bathroom ceiling that was first found in January 2007, we have a shattered double glazed upstairs window pane from which we came home from work to find in this way, we also got flooded under the downstairs flooring recently (from these heavy floods). We moved into our property over 2 years ago and have had this insurance company since we moved here.

Someone came from the insurance company to look at our damage and went away...We then got a phone call stating we have to make 3 separate claims, therefore having to pay the excess three times (3 x £100). We wanted 'one big claim'. They said it was FLOODS ONLY that they are paying out for, which wasn't the agreement we took out !

They said they probably wont pay for the ceiling anyway and we can get the window fixed for around £100, so defeats the object really.

What are we actually paying the insurance company for ? It was 'Home & Contents' - in which the home is what got damaged !

Is there anything we can do ? Are they ripping us off ?

Thanks again,

Lindaaa

Basically yes - the splitting of claims is common as it works to their advantage, you need to be able to convince them that the insured 'event' is one and the same, not cumulative. They'll be dealing with Floods as a matter of priority due to the recent problems, so you may find not urgent claims are temporarily shelved. Since it is probably impossible to link them, get as much as you can from the flood claim and remember ALL insurance companies work this way.

Hi,

Thanks for the reply. All are linked in a way as the heavy rain came through the ceiling, caused the shattered window to fall out into the garden and obviously under the downstairs flooring.

A drainage/flooding company called Rainbow are going to be sent by the insurance company, so we cannot ask for more money as they are working alongside them. Could we just choose who we want to inspect the flooring ? The guy on the phone did seem to go a bit quiet and was lost for words when we challenged their decision...

Best Regards,

Lindaaa

It's a stretch, because if the rain came though the roof then it would not be in good order so whilst they may agree to settle on that basis, they may insist on a re-roofing (at your expense as it's fair wear and tear). You do not have to accept their repairers unless your contract/policy specifically gives them this right - but you may have to get up to 3 independent quotes, and at times like these, firms are too buy trying to get the work done than doing quotes for work they might not get!

I have to correct what buzby said - it has nothing to do with the insurer wishing to work to their own advantage.

How did the hole in the ceiling in January contribute towards your house being flooded 6 months later?

You are insured against specific insured events so as 3 individual events have occurred you would be liable to pay 3 excesses. This is completely correct.

I'd forgotten about the January bit... in no way could that be construed as being part of the flooding of recent weeks, sorry.

The rain only came through the ceiling when the heavy rain came (during the floods). We noticed a slight hole in January, that got bigger when the heavy rain came.

I was just wondering what our monthly payments to insuarnce are for ? I don't understand why we have to make 3 separate claims, when its all at the same house, all water damage and all with one company.

The rain only came through the ceiling when the heavy rain came (during the floods). We noticed a slight hole in January, that got bigger when the heavy rain came.

I would class that as a contribution...Don't worry we want to do everything 'by the book' and its not an 'insurance job'.

It is all based on an 'insurable event', the other considerations are not relevant to the company (appalling, I know). Although the floods exacerbated the leak, it was pre-existing and should have formed the basis of a claim then, not rolled up with others. If a loss adjuster attends, we may well rule that the hole did not appear as a result of the flooding, and block any claim for this work - this would make the excess per event seem quite reasonable.

In essence you could find that no cover is provided for the further damage (following the original hole) as you have done nothing to correct the pre-existing damage.