Had 250ltr of our hot water tank leak through the ceiling recently.

There was a little damage there before (shower leaked a few years ago) but it was too much hassle to fix. Now the damage is much much worse.

The insurance are paying for the flooring but are refusing to pay for the ceiling saying I've not experienced any financial loss because it was damaged already?

Is this normal?

Surely its like saying you can't have a new carpet if its wrecked because there was a fag burn on one corner?

Yes. That's correct.

It would be like buying a car with a smashed front end, buying insurance and then claim on the new insurance.

Its pre existing damage, its not the concern of the insurance company.

Also, do they pay out net of vat?

Confused. Insurance offered me £1850 which I thought was a bit low....

So I got a quote for £2160.

Now they're saying sorry we're only paying £1800 now because thats what your quote was net of vat.

Hows that fair? Its still going to cost me £2160 to replace the floor....

sgtbush said:

Yes. That's correct.

It would be like buying a car with a smashed front end, buying insurance and then claim on the new insurance.

Its pre existing damage, its not the concern of the insurance company.

Ha ha yes I agree to a certain extent.... But you could argue the other way. Small dent on the bonnet that you don't bother claiming for then you have an accident that totally wrecks the front end. Surely here you'd expect to be able to claim?

Hard to be sure without knowing what the damage was. In principle I'd expect the insurer to pay the cost of repairing the new damage less what it would have cost to repair the pre-existing damage. But if all that was needed to repair both lots of damage was, for example, repainting the whole ceiling then there would be nothing payable for the second damage.

I don't understand the VAT bit. The policy should pay whatever you have to pay out. Unless what they mean is the insurer would instruct and pay the builder/decorator direct and the insurer can then recover VAT.

Seems a bit too open to interpretation to be honest....

This is the cash settlement figure they've offered. Net of vat....

How did they find out about the previous shower leak ? Have you got accidental damage cover ?

Time to name and shame then we can look at their T&Cs

Andy

I guess you can see one small dried bit in the corner. The rest was soaking but they assessor did mention at the time.

Things is they're trying to say its caused by an ongoing leak from the shower. Its not. The small shower leak was a few years ago. The 250 ltr of water leaking from tank next door to shower made it a lot worse.

Its AXA. And they use a company called BV solutions...

Well if they accept the floor was damaged due to the new leak and have agreed the claim...then obviously it had to come through the ceiling to get to the floor...whether there was existing damage or not...250 ltr it still came through the ceiling.

And pre exiting damage due to a shower leak is completely different to a 250 ltr leak.......they are looking for get out loopholes...instigate a complaint to the Ombudsman

Thread title updated

The insurer is paying less the VAT as no VAT invoice has yet been presented, once you have paid the builder you can present the full invoice for reimbursement of the vat element. The insurer knows you may get the job cheaper and therefore never present a vat invoice.

With the flooring they should pay the repair replacement cost less the repair/replacement cost of the pre existing damage. I’d ask for a compromise in the basis the floor whilst damaged was in good working order. Ask for 50% of the cost.

There is no pre existing damage to the floor ...its the ceiling.

Sorry misread that, on the basis of it being the ceiling and it maintaining strength after the last bout of damage then the claim should succeed, unless the insurer can prove that ceiling in its perfect state would not collapse with that amount of water pouring into it in one go.

Apologies for the error earlier op, go to the FOS with this one.

Yes good point. I think I will do that if they refuse....

It was a quote from a carpet place to replace the flooring. Obviously, it included VAT. But this was for a cash settlement not direct payment by the insurer.

Very clever from insurer then. If they offer "cash" then they know they can save on the vat. Every time I speak to BV they end the conversation with "so we'll close this off and make payment then?". Very keen to get me to accept.

Yeh the insurers play a tight game between being morally right by making sure that by deducting the VAT the customer

"has" to get the builder to invoice the VAT in order to claim the full amount, therefore the customer and builder all play by the HMRC rules, and the bottom line that they know the majority of the time the customer will get the job done cheaper anyway, and therefore never invoice for the VAT amount.

This generally work with building works. - some insurers just pay out the amount with the VAT, BV are there to keep costs low and will go back to the insurers telling them how wonderful they are by saving this money.

either way. .... with a Carpet they should be offering the VAT element, they wouldn't deduct the VAT for a TV if they were replacing, so shouldn't do this for the carpet as it is goods you cannot purchase without paying the VAT element.

I'd just go full complaint on them now, they are just trying to do you over, don't complain to BV, make a complaint to the CEO of AXA, that way AXA's customer relations team will pick it up.

Tell BV you will accept a payment as an interim payment, but not in full and final settlement.

Yes its become obvious that BVs aim is to screw the payout down as much as they can.

Its laminate flooring not carpet but its the same I guess. As you say, I'd have to pay the full price because I can't not pay the vat.

I guess they know that a lot of people will take the cash, never get the work done, or get it cheaper and pocket a few quid. Insurance company happy then they've saved 20% of the claim, customer got some cash.

AXA customer relations are looking at the moment. Mainly for the refusal to allow the claim for the ceiling.

(BV are trying to tell me if I claim for that it'd be a separate claim that would go against my name now. How on earth they deduce that I'll never know - it was one incident of water leak surely?)

All one claim ..same incident

Heres what they said:-

"Our surveyor confirmed that you were in agreement to this and he advised that if you wants to submit aclaim for that damage from the shower you are more than entitled to do so. He also confirmed thatanother claim would carry another excess payment but believes you will speak to your insurer aboutthis directly."

Lying again as well. I was NOT in agreement.

Apart from discussing an interim payment (which you can also do through AXA), I'd close down any communication with BV, let AXA know you have no confidence in them.

Glad to say I've spoken to lovely lady at AXA whos sorted it all out and paying me £50 compensation.

They've now agreed to pay for the ceiling, added on more to cover the extra floor etc.

Over £500 more now. Still no VAT but they have offered to refund if I stump up the invoice. Clever that.

BV are complete cowboys. I really think they basically make up the figure and see if they can get away with it.

Thread title amended to reflect the outcome.....well done.

Andy

Yes good news. Although they have said they will wait two weeks and expect to see the invoices for the work done so that I can have the VAT back.

I do intend to get the work done but I had consider getting some done myself. Am I now obliged to provide invoices? I thought the idea of cash settlement was that it was now up to me.

With my recent claim, I was surprised to find that insurers will not pay out the VAT on any cash settlement they make but they will do so if you provide them with a VAT invoice.

Have had a bit of an argument with my insurer (see other thread) but now they've offered me a decent cash settlement. However, probably because I mentioned it, they said they'll be in touch in two weeks so I can get the VAT invoice to them.

What are the t+cs of a cash settlement like this? Am I obliged to prove where I spent the cash they gave me or they just being helpful here and saying they will pay the VAT if I come good?

Not trying it on here by any means, the claim relates to ceiling and floor damage. I was just considering maybe doing something slightly different to the ceiling, pulling up the old floor myself, maybe laying myself, and then having more left to pay for the flooring. Or is this fraudulent in any way?

If you have lost £XX value then you are entitled to be reimbursed to that value and after that it's what you want to do with the money

So they can't insist I provide VAT invoices after the cash settlement then?

I don't like to agree with the insurer, but I'm not sure why you think they should pay VAT on the invoice if you haven't paid VAT. Maybe I've missed something.

HB

No you misunderstand. I'm not after something I haven't paid myself.

For the sake of argument, they pay me £1000 in cash settlement. Am I then obliged to provide invoices up to the value of £1000+VAT (after which they will pay an extra £200 on to top).

Or am I free to do it myself if I want, or pay a mate, or pay someone whos not vat registered? (which is my favourite option). Or ultimately, not that I'm going to, leave it as if is and trouser the cash?

I thought it was a case of heres the cash now go away but they were obliged to stump up the vat if you proved you'd paid it. If you never went back to them with an invoice they didnt care about it.