The story so far- Discovered we had a leak as could hear water moving through the stopcock in kitchen, rang insurance who informed me we were insured for the water damage but not for locating and fixing the leak. I discovered a leaking pipe under the concrete floor slab in the kitchen, i had to get up some tiles, take out kitchen units and dig up a section of floor to access pipes and temp fix it. We the noticed the walls behind the units were very damp and mouldy, the skirting on the wall opposite was also then noticed to be swollen (mdf) and the mdf wall paneling in lounge had bowed out. All walls were plaster board dabbed onto top of original plaster. An assessor from bvs came out, agreed was a genuine claim and were covered. Gave me an estimate for refitting units,plaster repair and to re-tile floor. I mentioned that the tiled floor seemed uneven, advice was to get tiles up so drying company could come out, if slab had moved it would be cracked and need replacing. Tiles were removed and large cracks were found,slab has raised due to swelling of the sub soil, was told to send in pics, drying company put on hold. It has taken 2 whole weeks to access the pics to decide it just needs drying and latex screed put on top! I have had a company in to quote for floor and they agreed it needs replacing, sent them an email with the quote and they are insisting the drying company still come out, are they on commission??? Last few days have taken some walls down to bare brick as the plaster board was very damp and had black mould on the back of it, original plaster just crumbled off. Have today discovered the laminate floor in the lounge near the party wall is also water damaged as it has swollen up, joists are wet along with the sub soil, nasty damp smell aswell. Advice im after is if after the drying company has been out and BVS still say floor only needs a screed over the top and do no nothing about the laminate flooring what is my nest move? Are loss adjusters like morgan clarke worth using??? Its now getting on for a month since the claim was put in. lots of stress, house in a mess and nowhere to cook properly. Hope the nightmare ends soon, next insurance company will be one that does not use BVS, as not impressed with them so far!

Hi, just after a bit of advice here. I have been behind and over my limit for about 12 months but had been making regular payment all be it not enough for my account to be up to date. Today I recieved a letter. It said the following. Overdue amount: £..... IMPORTANT YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY Notice of Default served under section 87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974 Youve broken your agreement ........ You must pay the amount overdue shown above. This payment must reach your account within 28 days of this letter. If youve already paid this or have made a payment agreement with - thank you. Please ignore this letter. Then it lists what they will do if I dont do the above ie shut account, chase debt. What I want to know is, I spoke to them monday and paid 70% of the above and agreed to pay the remainder of the arrears by friday. He did mention that a letter had been sent out but told me if I paid this it would be canceled. What I want to know is will they stick to there word?. Is this an actual default notice as I dont remember recieving a warning? Should I ring up and pay it today and argue that I didnt recieve the letter till friday or something because of the snow(foot deep here today). When he says canceled does that mean its already been put on my file and they will just change to satisfied or will it actually be removed or not even be added?. Will they have recordings of the call where he promised it would be removed on payment of the arrears and could I request that if need be?. Sorry to waffle, I know I have been a bit slack with payments but have my reasons and despite my current position, being 29 I could do without any nasty marks on my credit file and the letter seems a bit confusing, maybe deliberate to get me to pay I dont know? Thanks for your time, any advice would be much apprecieted.

Hi, Anyone with any experience of proving a flood for insurance purposes due to heavy rainfall. I have had damage to my property due to water rising up through the floor every time we get a heavy rainfall. It is not rising ground water. It seems just to be surface water. Zurich has said I'm not covered, because I can't actually prove a flood and that my damp proofing is not adequate. Does anyone know if any experts (not too expensive) who can help with this. My building surveyor was useless. And does anyone have experience of Zurich buildings insurance. Are they usually quite reasonable? I've made a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman, but it didn't get me anywhere. Thanks!

Hi, I would really appreciate some guidance on how best to deal with loss adjuster handling my claim. My bungalow suffered with flooding following the August Bank Holiday 2013, storms. I had up to 1ft of water throughout the property. All the furniture in the house had to be removed. This included bed, fitted wardrobes, fire surround and gas fire, dining table etc. The sofa was also flood damaged but was left in the property to leave me with something to sit on. However, this has since fallen apart. I also work from home so had to put together a make shift desk from a plank of wood from the shed. The loss adjusters refused to pay costs for alternative accommodation on the grounds I could boil a kettle and flush the toilet, even though both kitchen and bathroom suffered damage. For the last 8 months I've had to sleep on a sun lounger mattress on the concrete floor. All skirting and architraves have been removed. The chimney breast has been exposed back to the brick work and dust is constantly everywhere. By contrast, my adjoining neighbour who was also flooded, yet had access to a kitchen and bathroom were given alternative accommodation straight away. How is this justified? I have asked to be moved out while building repairs take place but this has also been refused. I contacted the Association of British Insurers to find a definition of 'uninhabitable' and they said that having access to cooking and bathing facilities are key factors - they are not they only ones in determining if alternative accommodation should be provided. I went back to the loss adjuster with this information and he ignored it. The insurance company have backed him up and said that as there is sleeping facilities at the property, it was regarded as habitable. Does a sun lounger mattress constitute sleeping facilities? My other question is about the kitchen repairs. The kitchen is 4 years old. The flood damaged décor panels, plinths and some base units. The kitchen supplier has said the décor panels in my kitchen are no longer made. My builders and I have contacted other kitchen suppliers to find a match and none can be found. This means that I cannot get panels of the same colour, thickness or finish. Any replacement will make the kitchen look like a bag of liquorice allsorts as the end panels on the base units will not match those of the wall units. Do I have to accept this? The loss adjuster has refused any notion of replacing the kitchen and has offered £600 in compensation. Furthermore , in order to get the panels out, the kitchen units, worktops and appliances will all have to be pulled out. Clearly, £600 won't cover the work involved and also, if the units get damaged in this process can I make a claim for any such damage? I feel that I am not being treated fairly here and that the modus operandi of the loss adjuster is to diminish my claim as far as possible. Please can you give me any advice on how best to deal with this in order to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you.

The Association of British Insurers and the Government today struck a new deal to develop a not-for-profit scheme called Food Re to make sure flood insurance remains widely available and affordable. The new agreement will put a cap on flood insurance premiums and link them to council bands. Flood re will charge member firms an annual £180 million, representing a levy of £10.50 on annual household premiums. The aim is that Flood Re will be up and running by summer 2015 and last at least 20 years. Until then, ABI members will voluntarily continue to meet their flood cover commitments under the current Flood Insurance Statement of Principles. http://www.independent.co.uk/property/government-and-insurers-agree-deal-on-flood-insurance-for-atrisk-homeowners-8676701.html Flood insurance deal sees fears recede over future cover http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jun/27/flood-insurance-deal-industry-government Flooding deal 'to cap insurance premiums' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23082174

Failure to reach flood insurance deal is 'playing with people's lives' Government accused of game of bluff with insurers as thousands of flood-risk properties could soon lose cover The chairman of a national charity that helps householders affected by floods has accused the government of "playing with people's lives" as it looks increasingly likely that thousands of homes will be without affordable insurance from July. Last week environment Secretary Owen Paterson admitted he was disappointed at failing to secure a new agreement over the insurance of homes and businesses at high risk of flooding. The government has been locked in talks with the insurance industry for months over the future of flood cover as the existing agreement – the Statement of Principles – runs out in June 2013. This agreement between the government and the industry obliges insurers to offer flood insurance as part of standard policies at reasonable rates, providing the government invests in flood defences. The two sides are trying to thrash out a new arrangement, but talks seem to have stalled. In the latest twist to the tale, Paterson raised hopes last week when he was also reported to have said that the Statement of Principles would "almost certainly" be extended beyond June. However, the Association of British Insurers denies this, even though the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed to The Observer that "a temporary extension is one of the things that is being looked at". http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/mar/31/failure-flood-insurance-deal

Had a flood in the house and insurance-provided drying contractor didn't inspect or mention the underfloor space in their scope of works. Asked another drying contractor to look and they actually made holes and inspected the underfloor space. When raised the concern to the insurer about the scope of works they said that drying the room above with dehumidifiers will dry the underfloor space as well. Is that physically possible? The floor is quite thick wood. It also didn't align with the insurance contractor saying that if we want to add underfloor space to the quote it will be for the price of an extra room. The problems with the scope of works made me think that the insurance contractor is incompetent so I went with the non-insurance driers who used the holes in the floor to dry the space underneath and supporting timbers inside it. I couldn't argue with insurance forever while the house is not dry. Now the insurance will of course only pay for their own contractors discounted rate and scope of works which is much below what I paid for drying. I complained but insurance's final reply doesn't contain any statements about the competency of their contractor. I hope that by law I don't have to use insurance contractors if they are incompetent, so insurance should cover the cost of the contractor that I have used. Is that correct? If yes, what is the best way to go about it - should I go to FOS or court? Can I use FOS 92/10 decision in court? Some years ago the insurance contractor dried my house and it wasn't done properly. Also it didn't show much competence that the insurance contractor would only give a time estimate for drying after I complained to insurance about the service being offered on a week-by-week basis with no estimate on when it would be dry.

Hi All I bought a sofa from Paul Simon on Thursday on my debit card. The sofa is an ex-display model. I declined their delivery service and arranged my own. My courier company called me from outside the store to say that the store has been flooded and the employees were sweeping the water out of the shop with brooms. My question is how long would I be expected, by law, to wait before I can cancel the order? Thanks

My friend lives in a small block of flats (all owner-occupied). They each have their own contents insurance, but the building insurance is paid jointly via the service charge. His washing machine has flooded the flat below. Is this something that is covered by their joint building insurance or the contents insurance of the flooded flat? The insurance company wants proof that the machine has been fixed. If the problem occurs again, who is responsible?

Hi, i recently purchased a used car from a private garage in London (Shahid Motors) for £2,900. I still have not received a receipt for the car, even though its been 2 months since I purchased it. There was a delay with payment (due to merchants fault) and I was promised a receipt after payment was cleared. I paid using my debit card so have proof of purchase though. A few days ago, it started to rain and the boot of the car was completely flooded! I took it to the garage, assuming there was a small hole somewhere but was horrified to discover that the car was involved in a accident. If you remove the carpet in the boot, all the parts are loose and clearly damaged. Only the exterior of the car was fixed after the accident.The garage estimated £600 to get it fixed. Before purchasing the car, I was not informed of any accidents or damage to the car. Now that I've informed the Shahid Motors garage owner, he denies not telling me about the accident (he is lying) and said that all his cars have been involved in accidents and it is clearly stated in the receipt. The only problem is that I have not been given a receipt and I was not told beforehand about the accident. Instead I was assured that the car is fine. I have also checked his website, and there is no mention of his cars being involved in accidents. He is refusing to refund me the car or pay for the cost of fixing the boot. The car boot now floods every time that it rains. I literally have to scoop the water out using a bucket. Where do i legally stand? Can I make him legally pay for the damage. If I had known about the accident, I would have never brought this car :[