Bathroom tiling issue

Mgreen17_2

Hello,

I have a claim going through after a leak behind a stud wall in my shower.

Sticking point is that the tiles are a very unique paten that is no longer available (i dont like them, previous owners choice!).

Now the whole bathroom is tiled from floor to celling but the insurance company is saying they will pay to retile the shower area only. It will be unavoidable to have a funny line, or a very noticeable join.

I understand that some people got greedy and spoiled it for everybody by deliberately breaking a few tiles and getting there whole bathroom re tiled....
The assessor said to me that lots of similar situations have gone to the ombudsman previously and its been decided that insurers only have to replace the damaged areas. Despite the fact this will leave me with a funny looking bathroom. (the wife is more bothered than me it must be said!)

Anyone come across this sort of thing before?
Do I just need to push harder?

Cheers

Matt

Astaroth

You need to look at your policy book under the section about matching items.

Irrespective of the cause, most insurers do not insurer for matching items nor devaluing due to repairs etc on mainstream policies because it does greatly increase the cost of claims and everyone these days are so price sensitive when buying.

Your best hope generally speaking is coming to agreement in terms of paying extra to the builder to complete the job of the whole room.... its typically not twice as much to get a builder to tile a whole room than just half the room as its still only one trip to the tile shop etc

dacouch

These are examples of cases the Ombudsman has dealt with.

As the Adjuster has explained the Insurers are liable for the damaged areas, however you can generally obtain a contribution of 50% towards the remaining area

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/75/75-household-insurance.html

Kittian_the_Blue

The above are correct but the specific wording of the matching items clause is important and you would need to post the exact wording for me to comment properly - as far as I can remember the one published ombudsman decision was;

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 10/07
Household buildings – replacement – loss of match – tiles – whether policyholder entitled to compensation for loss of match in replacement of damaged tiles. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fourteen tiles in Mr and Mrs J’s bathroom were damaged. The insurer agreed to replace these tiles but refused their request to re-tile the entire room. It explained that the policy specifically excluded ‘the cost of replacing any undamaged item or part of any item solely because it forms part of a set, suite, or one of a number of items of similar nature, colour or design’. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After the couple expressed their dissatisfaction, the insurer made an additional payment representing 50% of the cost of re-tiling the remainder of the room. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]complaint rejected
The insurer had drafted its policy carefully. There was no reason why the policy should be disregarded or distorted simply because Mr and Mrs J had not appreciated that the wording might not allow them to claim for re-tiling the whole room. On the other hand, strict application of the terms would leave many householders – if not most – with a finish they would regard as unacceptable. The insurer’s payment of 50% of the cost of total re-tiling was in line with our usual approach and we were satisfied it was reasonable in the circumstances of this case. [/FONT]

Hope that helps!

Mgreen17_2

Well I have a little bit of small print that says "if part of a suite is damaged we will not pay out for undamaged companion pieces".

I cant find a booklet at the mo. Its our previous insurer so its old paperwork.

Cheers for the help.