Buildings insurance company screwing me?

Themanlike

Hi everyone, I am new on here. You all sound very switched on people, so I thought I would ask you for your advice.

I have just been told by a loss adjuster instructed by my buildings insurance company that he is recommending my insurer don’t pay out on my claim. I live in a 3 story Victorian house, converted in to three flats (we each own one third of the freehold) and I have the top floor. The roof is leaking, and as a result has caused water to flow in to the wall and the old plaster is coming away the entire length of the join between the wall and ceiling – it is a sloping roof – and about half way down the wall. There is tile damage to the roof, caused by bad weather but the loss adjuster said that since there were no recorded storms in the 14 days leading up to the date I reported the problem to them (early January so there were probably storm in the preceding weeks/months), they will not admit liability as the damage may have been down before the 14 days and water may have come in over a period of time.

The wall in question had a large bookcase up against is, and it was only when I moved the bookcase that I noticed the damage and reported it to my insurance company. My main problem with the loss adjustors’ report is saying because I didn’t report the damage within 14 days of the storm that caused it, they won’t pay out. What happens if the damage is only apparent 15 days after the storm, or a month? Or in my case, you discover the damage a little later? Does that mean I have to inspect every wall and the roof on a regular basis for damage (I am not a trained surveyor and the loss adjustor said it was against health and safety for him to get on the roof, so obviously very dangerous for me)?

The damage to the internal wall requires a fitted wardrobe to be removed, all the old plaster taken off, it all sealing and replastering – not to mention the scaffolding to get to repair the roof (3 floors up) and the costs involved in the actual repair.

What do I actually pay this insurance for?

Has anyone ever been in this situation? The loss adjustor said I can challenge his report, but usually in these cases they don’t pay out full stop.


Many thanks in advance,


TML

lisyloo

What do I actually pay this insurance for?

You pay it for perils like burglary, fire, storm etc.
You don't pay it for ongoing maitenance/repairs or deterioration due to normal ageing.

You say there were probably storms in January, so you don't seem certain its storm damage. It comes across as though you are looking for the last storm to fit in with their terms and conditions.

I'm not an expert and we have scant detail but generally roofs don't leak just because of tile damage because there should be a layer of protection underneath (can't think of the right term at the moment).

Yes you should inspect your roof after a bad storm.
If tiles are broken you should be able to do this with binoculars from the ground.

From the scant detail we have it sounds like a wear & tear issue to me.

Themanlike

Thank you for your response. I thought about the inspecting the roof, but it is so high (and the distance between us and the next house) prevents even viewing it with binoculars – only an above view is possible.

If roofs don’t leak due to cracked tiles only, there doesn’t appear to be anything under the tiles to prevent the leakage then. If that is so, would the people who built the roof be liable?

I need to get it sorted as it is damaging my flat, and if I have to pay I have to pay but I want to exhaust all possible avenues first.

Many thanks,

TML

swagman

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm not an expert and we have scant detail but generally roofs don't leak just because of tile damage because there should be a layer of protection underneath (can't think of the right term at the moment).

Yes you should inspect your roof after a bad storm.
If tiles are broken you should be able to do this with binoculars from the ground.

There is a real difficulty here. Very many roofs do not have any additional layer underneath the slates. Mine does not and it is a 1927 build.

It is also often the case that roofs cannot be seen from the ground - there are many different shapes of roofs.

Therefore it is easy to have storm damage which you cannot see and which will take some time to show, depending on the construction of the adjoining wall, whereabouts the leak is and where the leak water runs (along joists for example).

If you were to pay for an inspection report from an independent specialist and if that report supported your view that storm damage was responsible, not gradual wear and tear, then you would have some evidence to go on. In that event protest to the insurer using their complaints procedure until you reach the stage of a deadlock letter if they will not agree with you. Then you complain to the insurance ombudsman.

dacouch

Does your policy include Accidental Damage Cover?

Is there one policy covering the whole building or have you taken out cover independantly of each other?

Are you with Halifax by any chance?

dieselhead

How old is the roof? If the house has been re-roofed relatively recently, I think you may have a case. However it doesn't sound like a catastrophic failure it sounds like a slow leak over time. In which case I suspect the insurance company will see it as wear and tear.

(to the above poster the layer under tiles is known as sarking felt)

lisyloo

The stuff I'm on about is called roofing felt and I believe it's been aorund for decades.
If you had a roof put on recently and it's missing then I'd say that was quite fundamental, however as it's a Victorian house then the roof could be quite old.

What you have to weigh up now is whether you think a report would substantiate your view that it's storm damage.
If it's a was a new roof in very good condition with just a few broken tiles then that might lead someone to believe there was damage resulting from an incident.
However the lack of roofing felt implies your roof is quite old so I'm not sure how they would establish that what the cause was. They would probably do it by looking at the general condition of the rest of the roof.

So you have to decide how confident you are.
I would suspect it would cost several hundreds of pounds to get a specialist up there especially as you have said it's difficult to access.
So do you feel your case is strong enough to risk a few hundred pounds?

If you feel you have a strong case then the ombudsman is independent so that would be free (but could be many months).

Your first post said there were probably storms in January which did not give me the impressions that you knew it was storm damage just that you would like it to be.
So ask yourself do you know it's storm damage or are you just trying to bend that to fit their Ts&Cs? (I'm not being judgmental but I think it's something you consider)/
You are not covered for just poor weather.
Poor weather is normal and you should maintain your roof for it.
I think the weather has to reach certain severe proportions to qualify (and they do have specific definitions and can check with the met office).
So something like > 50mph wind for at least 30 mins.