Tesco Home insurance refused flood claim.

pampam

Help and advice needed please.

Following the floods in hull in 2007 many people are now finding they have problems with "secondary flooding"
In other words damp is now creeping up the walls and floor boards and carpets are getting damp and smelly.
My daughters home is one of the affected properties.

she made a claim to her insurers and various buiders, surveyers, damp specialists and loss adjusters have visited her home to assess the damage.
They all agreed that the damage was due to the floods.
Many houses down her street and the neighbouring streets have made successful claims from their insurance companies.

However, she has received a letter from the loss adjusters stating that :-

"The insurer has decided that there is no evidence that the damage caused is a direct result of the flooding on 2007.
It would appear that the rise in the water table has caused the damage. Under the Accidental Damage section of the policy there are exclusions in respect of "any other gradually operating cause" and also "changes to atmospheric conditions"

On this basis your Insurer regret to advise they are unable to deal with your claim on this occasion.

Can anyone help me to draft a letter of complaint for her?

Many thanks
Pam

withabix

Write to them ONCE, telling them to reconsider or you will go to the Insurance (Finance) Ombudsman.

Give them 7 calendar days notice that you will go to the Ombudsman in this letter, send the letter Special Delivery and then just go straight to the Insurance Ombudsman.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

FlameCloud

withabix wrote: »

Write to them ONCE, telling them to reconsider or you will go to the Insurance (Finance) Ombudsman.

Give them 7 calendar days notice that you will go to the Ombudsman in this letter, send the letter Special Delivery and then just go straight to the Insurance Ombudsman.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

Thats silly advise. The FOS will not deal with any complaints until you have been through the insurers own complaints procedure- which is a acknowledgement of the complaint within a week and then full resolution after 8 weeks. After this, you can then take the final decision to them if you are not happy. The absolute most they will at this stage do is send the insurers an email after their 6 month back log telling them to contact the policy holder to sort it out. In addition, there is the added problem that the FOS can only give binding decisions on claims worth up to £100,000, and if this is secondary flooding there are lots I have seen gone over this limit.

It is up to the OP to prove that they have a claim- have you obtained any written reports from surveyors? If so, have the insurers commented on them at all?

withabix

FlameCloud wrote: »

Thats silly advise.

No sillier than the insurance company's initial response!

Insurance companies take the p1ss, so just take the p1ss back.

A week should be plenty of time for them to reply. It's the timescale they usually apply when you owe THEM money after all!!

FlameCloud

withabix wrote: »

No sillier than the insurance company's initial response!

Insurance companies take the p1ss, so just take the p1ss back.

A week should be plenty of time for them to reply. It's the timescale they usually apply when you owe THEM money after all!!

But it is completly irrelevent in this situation, and gives false hope.

7 days to have a complete technical review of a big claim like this simply isnt possible- let alone start to rectify the problems.

rudekid48

withabix wrote: »

No sillier than the insurance company's initial response!

Insurance companies take the p1ss, so just take the p1ss back.

A week should be plenty of time for them to reply. It's the timescale they usually apply when you owe THEM money after all!!

Right, so that helps the OP does it? Bad advice is bad advice whether you are a fan of Insurance Companies or not.There will be details of the complaints procedure in the OP's policy booklet. There is no point in trying to go around this and jump to the FOS early as it will just cause more delays in the long term.Flamecloud is correct, you need to back up the complaint with evidence to help your cause. When you write to them keep emotion out of it, be factual and concise and do not make threats.I hope you get somewhere with this, good luck.

pampam

FlameCloud wrote: »

Thats silly advise. The FOS will not deal with any complaints until you have been through the insurers own complaints procedure- which is a acknowledgement of the complaint within a week and then full resolution after 8 weeks. After this, you can then take the final decision to them if you are not happy. The absolute most they will at this stage do is send the insurers an email after their 6 month back log telling them to contact the policy holder to sort it out. In addition, there is the added problem that the FOS can only give binding decisions on claims worth up to £100,000, and if this is secondary flooding there are lots I have seen gone over this limit.

It is up to the OP to prove that they have a claim- have you obtained any written reports from surveyors? If so, have the insurers commented on them at all?

"The insurer has decided that there is no evidence that the damage caused is a direct result of the flooding on 2007.
It would appear that the rise in the water table has caused the damage. Under the Accidental Damage section of the policy there are exclusions in respect of "any other gradually operating cause" and also "changes to atmospheric conditions"

On this basis your Insurer regret to advise they are unable to deal with your claim on this occasion.

The above red text the only correspondence received and it was sent via the loss adjusters.

dunstonh

The simple fact of it is that if you disagree with the insurer on the decision like this and they wont change their mind your only realistic option is to put in a formal complaint and provide your own evidence to support your views. They then have 8 weeks to review that complaint before you can refer it ot the FOS. They can ask for an 8 week extension from you if they feel they need more time (which you can choose to agree or not).

Assuming the outcome is still against you and you decide to go to the FOS, they will then take 9-14 months to review your complaint. It should be quicker and used to be until people starting deluging them with frivolous and minor issues which really dont need FOS action.

withabix

OK, I was being a bit flippant last night!


To the OP:

Was a claim made for flooding to THAT PROPERTY immediately after the 2007 floods?

If there WAS, then there may be a valid claim to pursue - eg if the house had not been dried out properly or the under-floor area was left full of flood water and not emptied/dried out for example.

If there was NO claim made immediately after the floods - implying that the house was not flooded - then there is probably no claim to pursue.

The properties who have (allegedly) successfully made subsequent 'dampness' claims may have made flooding claims originally.

Is the current insurer the same one who covered the property at the time of the 2007 flood?

Does the property have a DPC and DPM?

What is the age of the property and type of construction? (Brick-cavity-block, brick-cavity-brick, solid brick walls, stone, brick-cavity-timber frame, concrete walls, prefab etc)

If you google 'secondary flooding', you will notice that TESCO INSURANCE seem to be the main insurer who is refusing to pay out on these claims....often using mis-declaration to void the insurance - eg, failing to declare a previous claim for £250 of clothes stolen off a washing line 4 years ago etc

Voiding insurance at the point of claim for previous non-declaration should NOT be allowed. If the insurance companies are capable of determining your claims history when you make a claim, they are EQUALLY capable of determining this information when you apply for a policy.

pampam

Was a claim made for flooding to THAT PROPERTY immediately after the 2007 floods? No

If there WAS, then there may be a valid claim to pursue - eg if the house had not been dried out properly or the under-floor area was left full of flood water and not emptied/dried out for example.

If there was NO claim made immediately after the floods - implying that the house was not flooded - then there is probably no claim to pursue.

The properties who have (allegedly) successfully made subsequent 'dampness' claims may have made flooding claims originally. No this is not the case in Hull. Many homes did not actually have water coming in to the property but the outside flooding came past the airbricks. Lots of people in the area have made successful "secondary flooding claims.

Is the current insurer the same one who covered the property at the time of the 2007 flood? Yes

Does the property have a DPC and DPM? Yes

What is the age of the property and type of construction? (Brick-cavity-block, brick-cavity-brick, solid brick walls, stone, brick-cavity-timber frame, concrete walls, prefab etc) Approx 75 years brick walls not sure of inner constriction

If you google 'secondary flooding', you will notice that TESCO INSURANCE seem to be the main insurer who is refusing to pay out on these claims....often using mis-declaration to void the insurance - eg, failing to declare a previous claim for £250 of clothes stolen off a washing line 4 years ago etc

Voiding insurance at the point of claim for previous non-declaration should NOT be allowed. If the insurance companies are capable of determining your claims history when you make a claim, they are EQUALLY capable of determining this information when you apply for a policy.

..............................................................................
Thanks for your help

FlameCloud

withabix wrote: »

Voiding insurance at the point of claim for previous non-declaration should NOT be allowed. If the insurance companies are capable of determining your claims history when you make a claim, they are EQUALLY capable of determining this information when you apply for a policy.

Again, more sillyness! You clearly havent got much of an idea about how insurers work.

To check the claims history of a policy holder, you type letters into a big database. Nice and simply right? Except its not-

1. Only licensed staff can use CUE. These are not the normal claims staff you have in an insurance company. These staff cost more.

2. It costs money to search the database. 20 or so pence per go, depending on the insurer. Times by the amount of policies, this is a lot of money.

3. Not all insurers put results on CUE. Now, I'm not going to tell you which ones dont, but to find out these claims it involves speaking to people in those insurers, using the higher skilled staff as before.

4. And the biggy- a contract is drawn up in good faith between you and the insurer. Why on earth would they assume you are lieing when you agree to that contract?

At the end of the day, points 1-3 are changable by insurers, but they will push up premiums to pay for it. Fancy that? Point 4 less so. This is clear insurance law, fancy challenging it? Get a policy voided, take the insurer to the law lords, and get them to change their minds on why lieing in a contract is not allowed. It might have some severe consequences outside of insurance.