home insurance: trace and access cover

shortshrift

dacouch wrote: »

I'll leave you to your own as you do not seem to appreciate when someone is trying to help you.

Actually, I thought I thanked you, in the text of my message and on your post!

My policy covers repair to pipework damaged by freezing. If the repair cost incudes a large 'access' element, well so be it... that is still the cost of the repair.

A car manufacturer offering a warranty that covered the cost of all repairs for the first 2 years, say, would be laughed out of court if they explained that: yes, they would cover the cost of repairing your engine, but not the access - you'd have to foot the bill for lifting it out of the car and reinstalling it!

*MF*

shortshrift wrote: »

<snip>
One further question: is there any justification in them asserting that 'trace and access' is often not covered, and that although there is no mention of this exclusion in the policy, I should have noticed that the policy did not explicitly specify 'trace and access' cover?

<snip>

My earlier post refers - point 2. It may NOT be an exclusion. What I have seen happen is that "Trace and Access" cover is given (and yes is given explicitly, usually under a specific heading of cover) - but then refers to which form of damage it relates to, so it might read something like "Trace and Access" - this cover applies to items 2 and 9.

If the freezing of a pipe is item 6 - then the "Trace and Access" would not then be within the cover that is given.

Sorry - that is not straightfowrard, but as I said earlier such is insurance - and it is why other posters were trying to find out which "exact" policy you had - because cover and exclusions not only vary with different insurers, but also within the one insurer - depending on the specific policy wording used.

shortshrift

*MF* wrote: »

My earlier post refers - point 2. It may NOT be an exclusion. What I have seen happen is that "Trace and Access" cover is given (and yes is given explicitly, usually under a specific heading of cover) - but then refers to which form of damage it relates to, so it might read something like "Trace and Access" - this cover applies to items 2 and 9.

If the freezing of a pipe is item 6 - then the "Trace and Access" would not then be within the cover that is given.

Sorry - that is not straightfowrard, but as I said earlier such is insurance - and it is why other posters were trying to find out which "exact" policy you had - because cover and exclusions not only vary with different insurers, but also within the one insurer - depending on the specific policy wording used.

*MF*, thanks. I have read my policy closely and it makes no mention of "trace or acesss", included or excluded. It does explicitly cover the repair cost of frozen pipework (as distinct from item 6 quoted above, which is for damage to the building caused by leaks).

And my argument is then simply that the pipework cannot be repaired without accessing it, so if this cost is not excluded, then as an integral element of the repair it is included. As in the analogy of the engine repair.

The concept of "trace and access" is clearly popular in the insurance industry, but not, I imagine, generally known to consumers. It does not appear in my policy documents, and it is not clear that it has any legal standing that might allow Allianz to escape their documented obligation to cover the cost of repair.

*MF*

If a complaint to the Insurer gets you nowhere, the next step is to the Financial Services Ombudsman, with that in mind:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/58/58-home_insurance.htm

shortshrift

*MF* wrote: »

If a complaint to the Insurer gets you nowhere, the next step is to the Financial Services Ombudsman, with that in mind:

I had already seen that. The problem is that the Ombudsman is an industry insider, albeit nominally impartial, so they tend to concur with accepted industry practices even if they are not legally sound.

I think I would probably sidestep the Ombudsman and go straight to court if talking it through with Allianz fails.

Thanks!

*MF*

Obviously your decision, perhaps other members will confirm this - but, going to the Ombudsman, and getting a negative, does not then preclude you going to court, whereas going to court first does then (I believe) preclude you using the Ombudsman.

shortshrift

*MF* wrote: »

Obviously your decision, perhaps other members will confirm this - but, going to the Ombudsman, and getting a negative, does not then preclude you going to court, whereas going to court first does then (I believe) preclude you using the Ombudsman.

*MF*, thank you again for your input.

Looks like none of this will be necessary. I put in an e-mail to Allianz the argument I made above, and they are no longer contesting the claim.

As I understood it, their new thinking hinged on the fact that the policy did contain a specific clause agreeing to cover the cost of repairing freeze-damaged pipework, and if that pipework were inaccessible then they couldn't very well argue that accessing it was not a necessary part of the cost of repair.

"Trace and access" would, they explained, have applied if it had not been for this clause, as then I would have been reliant on the more general cover for damage caused by water escape.

So I am obviously very relieved that they now intend to honour the policy as written, when I was gearing up for a prolonged fight.

*MF*

Pleased to hear the outcome was positive!