Public Liability Insurance for Roofer - Rectification of Defective Work Not Covered
Options
djimonia
Posts: 3 Newbie
Hello all. I'm in a bit of a pickle so am looking for advice!
I had a landscaper/roofer come in earlier this year to do some cosmetic repair work to my roof terrace decking. While doing this they caused damage to the membrane (poked lots of small holes in it) that was not caught when inspecting the work post-completion. Fast-forward to September and my floorboards started cupping and buckling due to water damage caused by water seepage (which I hadn't noticed until we pulled the floor up to inspect). :mad:
I call up the roofer and they come in to see the cause and agree that I should contact their insurer as they have public liability insurer. I made a claim, got quotes for the roof and floor repair, they sent a loss adjuster and now I have an email saying that a) they will cover repairs to the internal floors on an indemnity basis ("old for old" replacement) and b) the insurance does not cover the defective work and so they will not pay out on the repair/replacement of the roof. This leaves me out of pocket on the roof repair if I accept their offer.
What are my options now? Do I:
1) Push back on the nature of the defective work (i.e. they put holes in the membrane, which is the scope of the defective work but the incidental damage, which includes the internal floors, should also include everything under the membrane that is "damaged")?
2) Ask the roofer to pay for the roof repairs or take him to small claims court over the damages to the roof if he refuses?
I have buildings and content insurance but unclear if they will pursue damages from his insurer (or cover it themselves) as it was taken out after the repairs were done, but before they were discovered.
Would appreciate any help and advice here! Google has not been helpful and I do not want to reach out to the CAB or an ombudsman until I've explored the options above (and given the insurer and roofer a fair shake at resolving this first).
Thanks!
I had a landscaper/roofer come in earlier this year to do some cosmetic repair work to my roof terrace decking. While doing this they caused damage to the membrane (poked lots of small holes in it) that was not caught when inspecting the work post-completion. Fast-forward to September and my floorboards started cupping and buckling due to water damage caused by water seepage (which I hadn't noticed until we pulled the floor up to inspect). :mad:
I call up the roofer and they come in to see the cause and agree that I should contact their insurer as they have public liability insurer. I made a claim, got quotes for the roof and floor repair, they sent a loss adjuster and now I have an email saying that a) they will cover repairs to the internal floors on an indemnity basis ("old for old" replacement) and b) the insurance does not cover the defective work and so they will not pay out on the repair/replacement of the roof. This leaves me out of pocket on the roof repair if I accept their offer.
What are my options now? Do I:
1) Push back on the nature of the defective work (i.e. they put holes in the membrane, which is the scope of the defective work but the incidental damage, which includes the internal floors, should also include everything under the membrane that is "damaged")?
2) Ask the roofer to pay for the roof repairs or take him to small claims court over the damages to the roof if he refuses?
I have buildings and content insurance but unclear if they will pursue damages from his insurer (or cover it themselves) as it was taken out after the repairs were done, but before they were discovered.
Would appreciate any help and advice here! Google has not been helpful and I do not want to reach out to the CAB or an ombudsman until I've explored the options above (and given the insurer and roofer a fair shake at resolving this first).
Thanks!
0
Comments
-
I doubt your home insurer will cover defective workmanship either.
They may cover the resultant damage that the water ingress has caused though.
Subject to your excess, and meaning you'll have increased premiums for the next 3/5 years (depending on what's asked); unless they pursue the roofer for a recovery, which IMO they won't if their insurer has refused a claim already for the damage he's caused.0 -
Did they install the membrane? If so, its not a public liability issue - it is defective work which the roofer will have to fix. If it already existed, then it should be their PL that pays for it0
-
The roofer needed to have professional liability insurance to cover the work they do. Many trades people don't have professional liability and fob customers off by saying they have public liability insurance. This only covers the public, not the person who has hired them.The comments I post are my personal opinion. While I try to check everything is correct before posting, I can and do make mistakes, so always try to check official information sources before relying on my posts.0
-
Did they install the membrane? If so, its not a public liability issue - it is defective work which the roofer will have to fix. If it already existed, then it should be their PL that pays for it
No, they did not install it. They repaired the decking over it and made holes in the membrane that was already there. (using drywall screws that were too long!!). Their insurer is happy to pay out partially on the damages caused as a result but draw the line on internal to the flat (my floors and skirtings, etc) vs external (repairing/replacing the membrane itself and rectifying any damage to the concrete beneath it).paddyandstumpy wrote: »I doubt your home insurer will cover defective workmanship either.
They may cover the resultant damage that the water ingress has caused though.
Subject to your excess, and meaning you'll have increased premiums for the next 3/5 years (depending on what's asked); unless they pursue the roofer for a recovery, which IMO they won't if their insurer has refused a claim already for the damage he's caused.
They PL insurance will cover most of the cost of the internal damage. It's the cost of repairing the roof terrace that I'm trying to get damages for. Well, it's the total sum - obviously I will put whatever money I get to repairing the roof first!0 -
The roofer needed to have professional liability insurance to cover the work they do. Many trades people don't have professional liability and fob customers off by saying they have public liability insurance. This only covers the public, not the person who has hired them.
The person who hired them is public. Professional liability or professional indemnity is for professionals or maybe contractors with professional elements. A roofer doesn't need it.0 -
The roofer needed to have professional liability insurance to cover the work they do. Many trades people don't have professional liability and fob customers off by saying they have public liability insurance. This only covers the public, not the person who has hired them.
Good to know that. I believe they have tradesman's insurance which is a bit of both, but not much of either...
This would be their policy document: gladiator.co.uk/policyDocs/p21b-mstrtradesman-pol-may19.pdf0 -
Option 2 is likely your route long term. The point of his policy is to cover his liabilities up to whatever limits the policy he has decided to insure against. So if the policy doesn't fully cover them he is still liable for any difference that may be due.
So he could have had an all singing and dancing policy that covered him fully or he could have a cheaper one with less cover. Either way small claims court for the difference that his policy doesn't cover him for. If you have legal expenses cover on your home policy you could contact them for advice.
H.0 -
I work at insurance broker where we sell both home insurance and public liability insurance for roofers so can confirm the insurance side of things for you. It has already been said by various people above but just to clarify their points:
Your home insurance will almost certainly not cover faulty workmanship or the use of faulty materials. This is standard across almost every home insurance policy I have ever seen. This leaves the only option to claim against the roofer.
Public liability insurance policies are different in that some do and some do not cover faulty workmanship. It really is a case of looking at each individual policy. It seems unfortunately your roofer has taken out the latter policy.
Regardless of the insurance cover in place, you should make a formal claim against the roofer for repair of the roof and the resultant damage. It is up to them to make a claim on their own insurance, not you. If the roofer refuses to sort out all the issues then you would be advied to take legal action. Your home insurance may include cover for legal assistance so this could possibly help you going forward.0 -
ashburnham wrote: »Public liability insurance policies are different in that some do and some do not cover faulty workmanship. It really is a case of looking at each individual policy. It seems unfortunately your roofer has taken out the latter policy.
Which ones do cover faulty workmanship?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards