Building Insurance claim - water damage

[whufc77]

Hi Guys

I really do need some help with the situation that I’m in. About 3 weeks ago the upstairs maisonette had a leak from their boiler on their 1st floor (upper of two stories). The couple that occupy are renting through a local estate agent, but as luck would have it we have the number of the owner of the property we have known each other since kids.

The water travelled all the way down to our 1st floor bathroom, then settling on the ground level soaking the boxed in water mains pipe from ground level to first floor. (Now this is not the first time that this has happened). That’s another story!

The damage in the bathroom was considerable, the front bedroom damage is visibly slight, (see notes), the downstairs w/c catastrophic and the hallway moderate.

I have come to a sticky point with the insurers that my bathroom suite (w/c, bath, sink) are all designed to a shell effect including the accessories that are cemented to the existing tiles.

The accessories are consistent with this shell design i.e. (loo-roll holder, large towel, small towel holder, shower tray shelf, sink soap dish, tooth brush holder are all cemented to the tiles. ok still with me!

The building insurance company that insures my property along with every other dwelling in our court, and on the estate can’t find matching floor or wall tiles so have asked us to source alternative tiles (which means that a completely new tiled bathroom will take place (re-plaster etc. etc.).

 

But as i have pointed out the accessories that match the suite will have to be smashed of the existing wall tiles that are going to be removed.

 

I have also been notified that the bathroom will take 7-10 days to complete so they have mentioned alternative accommodation (for me to source a local hotel etc.!)

So i need some advice on the fact that i cannot find matching accessories for the existing bath toilet or sink (shell effect).

 

My only options as i see it is for me to pay for a new bathroom suite with matching accessories. My building insurance company say they will not replace the existing suite because it was not damaged in the incident! Or is this so?

Talk about come at the wrong time in our lives, i don’t drive due to my medical condition and my wife is 7/8 months pregnant but drives. So getting out and about trying to source materials is proving near on difficult, but we know it’s a necessity because of baby on the way.

I really will appreciate any feedback on my situation no matter how small or large, as they say ‘every little helps’!

Kind Regards

 

Whufc77

I say visibly. This situation happened again 18 months ago but we just bit the bullet and put a few cosmetic bits right.

It was when we decided to decorate the front bedroom a whole wall had plaster coming off in chunks; the plaster had blown, so we had to brunt the costs of a plasterer!

Edited March 9, 2010 by whufc77
fonts description all over document

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Have a look at this link to the FOS Ombudsman News, you be able to search Ombudsman News there are case studies about problems between customers and insurance companies, two such studies are 75/07 and 75/08 however there are many more. Financial Ombudsman Service

[JonCris]

Tell 'em OK if they won't pay for the bathroom & as it will devalue your property if you don't repair it too it's previous high & matching standard & to comply with their demands you'll have replacement items made to order by an artisan & they can meet the costs of those

[MicheleFloyd]

There might be something in your policy wording about matching furniture and decor that limits the cover in this respect. Please have a careful read.

 

I am a little confused. Are you saying that you would be satisfied with replacing the accessories from a high street chain as long as they match the toilet and sink? My opinion is that if your accessories were not custom-made originally, you are not owed custom-made shell motif accessories now. Could you please clarify this?

 

Secondly, you are owed indemnity (or reinstatement) but you must be reasonable. If the bathroom accessories are now out-of-date and no longer available for purchase, then you must accept comparable alternatives. If that personally appalls you, then you should have asked for a specified items cover.

 

This advice is given because you say your own insurer is picking up the initial costs.

[MicheleFloyd]

By the way, congratulations on your baby!

[JonCris]

There might be something in your policy wording about matching furniture and decor that limits the cover in this respect. Please have a careful read.

 

I am a little confused. Are you saying that you would be satisfied with replacing the accessories from a high street chain as long as they match the toilet and sink? My opinion is that if your accessories were not custom-made originally, you are not owed custom-made shell motif accessories now. Could you please clarify this?

 

Secondly, you are owed indemnity (or reinstatement) but you must be reasonable. If the bathroom accessories are now out-of-date and no longer available for purchase, then you must accept comparable alternatives. If that personally appalls you, then you should have asked for a specified items cover.

 

This advice is given because you say your own insurer is picking up the initial costs.

 

As I understand it the OP want's their 'matching' bathroom reinstated & as the incident was not of their making they are entitled to have their 'matching' bathroom restored

 

An example would be if a car had a damaged wing the repaint might have to extend over the whole car to ensure it matches & the same applies here

 

Mitigating your loss by accepting a lower quality repair is not mitigating your loss unless you include the loss in house value in your claim Either way they have to restore your home to it's former condition The fact that they are the insurers of both properties is colouring their judgement

[MicheleFloyd]

This is probably not going to be a strict case of indemnity. The first party's insurer typically restricts cover for matching sets in their wording, and I'll bet it's because of situations like these. You must remember the claim has to be reasonable.

[JonCris]

This is probably not going to be a strict case of indemnity. The first party's insurer typically restricts cover for matching sets in their wording, and I'll bet it's because of situations like these. You must remember the claim has to be reasonable.

 

But being reasonable cuts both ways

[MicheleFloyd]

Jon, I completely appreciate you want to do the best for this consumer, but let's consider this further.

 

If the shell design was purchased off the high street and is now obsolete, the insured has no choice but to choose comparable alternatives. Most household insurance policies attach special wording in these instances. And even if they didn't, the courts won't look at anything that isn't reasonable. Obsolete decor is far from uncommon. If it fits the definition of an antique, it's probably excluded anyway, unless the insured SPECIFICALLY asked for cover.

 

To leave this on a positive note, I would stress again that when I buy an insurance policy, I walk through my whole house and consider what are the most tangible, important things to me. If it were my matching bathroom fixtures, for instance, I'd put that concern in writing to my agent or broker.

 

If it makes you feel better, I put this query to the most senior person I know, and he said the same thing.

[SabreSheep]

Spamming posts removed -SS and thread closed