House Insurance Won't Pay Claim

EMEJB

Hi,
I am desperately looking for help. My mum's insurance is refusing to pay a claim, after a burst pipe caused in excess of £20k's worth of damage. Mum was on holiday at the time but hadn't advised them she would be away for more than 30 days, because the policy says only to let them know & drain the heating etc if ' the property will be unoccupied or intended to be unoccupied for more than 30 days'. This wasn't the case, as I was going up to stay at the property (overnight & for several days at a time) several times while she was away.

I asked them what the policy definition of "unoccupied" was and they said 'not lived in or unfurnished'. The underwriters are claiming that my periods of stay don't count as 'lived in'.

I am of course going to complain and take this further - and understand I have to exhaust formal complaint proceedure with LTSB before taking it FOS, but wondered whether anyone had useful advise re this policy 'unoccupied/lived in' clause. I'm at my wits end with the worry.

Really appreciate any help - direct advice or advice on who to go to to support our complaint.
Many thanks
EMEJB

cocobean12

Hello. This sounds pretty wrong, unfortunately home insurance is not my forte, just a bit of reassurance is all I can give you that there are some fantastic posters on here that give out excellent advice, I am sure they will be able to help you, so please hold on in there! I will be following this thread as its actually something that happens in my household so I will be grateful of the advice too. I sincerely hope this gets sorted out quickly for you and your Mum as it must be a huge worry. Good luck.

dacouch

Could you give us some more info

a) Which Insurer is it
b) How long were your parents away for in total
c) How frequently did you stay there and is there any proof you stayed there eg you made phone calls on their phone
d) when was you stay that was closest to the pipe bursting and for how long did you stay

Oscar_The_Grouch

Try this:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/34/unoccupied_properties-34.htm

It's an article from the Financial Ombudsman about unoccupied properties. I particularly like the section:

We do not consider it good practice for insurers to decline to pay out where the policyholder’s breach of a policy condition has been only a technical breach that has not prejudiced the firm’s position in any way. So, for example, if it can be established that the event that gave rise to the damage occurred within the first 30 days of the property having been left ‘unoccupied’, then the firm should normally meet the claim, even if the property was not actually visited for a longer period. In such cases, the fact that no one lived in, or visited, the property was probably not material to the circumstances of the loss or damage.

If you can show that the pipe burst within the first 30 days of your Mum's holiday, I think you have a very good case to argue, regardless of whether you visited the property or not.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

and of course you will have proof you stayed at the property etc since you didnt just make that up for the insurers benefit.

cityfan123

Most insurers define "unoccupied" as not stayed in overnight, so if you were there, then your claim should be OK. The problem you have may be that as they know the main resident wasn't there, you'll have to somehow show you were there in the evenings. In a claim as big as this, it is also usually looked after by a loss adjuster. I would contact the loss adjuster and take their advice regarding the claim, it's also a good idea to get them on side if you can, as the insurers decision can often be swayed by them, as they are supposed to be independant.

If you used the phone at the time, that could help, as bills can be itemised and usually have time/date stamps on.