Home insurance Lloyds/Legal & General - beware

maltomp69

I have recently needed to claim for 3 burst pipes in a house I own. It is rented (only because I could not sell it) and insured under Landlords insurance by LLoyds underwritten by L&G.
The claim is nearky £40k which the loss adjusters are happy with but L&G have declined the claim as there is an endorsement which states "the heating must be in full operation". The heating was on for 11 hours per day on a timer but they have replied to say that the "intention" of the term was that the heat needed to be on continuous. Even the Loss Adjuster disagrees with this interpretation.

I am going to the Ombudsman but this could take 6 t0 9 months and in the meantime I cannot rent the house, or get it repaired.

Please re-consider these companies when purchasing insurance.

dacouch

Was the house unoccupied eg no one had lived there for more than 30 consecutive days?

maltomp69

no but this clause kicks in if unoccupied for more than 14 days

dacouch

Thats an unusual clause, is it let to students?

Could you copy and paste the exact wording of the clause they have put in your policy as we may be able to give you some advice on getting the claim sorted.

L&G are normally very good on claims so assuming everything is in order there is a good chance they will pay the claim.

maltomp69

No not let to students

This endorsement reads “whenever the property is untenanted for more than 14 consecutive days you must: a) Inspect the property internally at least once a fortnight and b) During the months of October to March, inclusive, turn off the water at the mains and drain the system or leave the central heating system in full operation to prevent freezing.”

Whilst part a of the endorsement appears to have been complied with, part b is also material as the loss occurred in January 2010. Whilst it is noted that the heating system was operational, it was only set to run between the hours of 4pm - 11pm and 9am – 12noon, each day. The endorsement requires “the central heating system in full operation to prevent freezing. The intention of part b of the endorsement is onerous, requiring either the water system to be isolated and drained or for the central heating system to be operated continuously.

The central heating system was not in operation continuously at the time of the incident and, therefore, there is a breach of the endorsement.

dacouch

They put this onto reduce the chances of the pipes freezing and the intention is the heating is let on a setting to keep the house warm enough to prevent the pipes freezing.

Was the endorsement put on for a specific reason eg the home has long periods of unoccupancy or you had a period when there were no tenants?

Was the endorsement drawn to your attention by whoever sold you the policy (Assuming it was on from the start) or when it was added?

maltomp69

It is in an endorsement on a page provided during the renewal. I assume was always there.The clause is for properties untenanted for more than 14 days. My argument is that it does not say continuous or 24x7 - the heating was in full operation on a timer.

dacouch

Ok

Did you have tenants at the time of the loss eg had they gone on holiday etc.

Have a look at the previous year's documents to see if the endorsement was on there, if it was not and was thus new the Insurers should make sure they draw your attention to it at renewal.

huckster

Most policies require system to be drained etc or heating to be left on to maintain a minimum temperature of approx 15C.

With modern systems you can set a minimum temperature, which would overide the timing control. On my system, I have it set so that overnight the temperature in the property cannot fall below 12C, but I could set it higher if needed.

I can understand the argument made by L&G, but I think the FOS might question what what they mean by 'full operation to prevent freezing'. You had the heating on and you could argue that with heat until 11pm and on again at 9pm, this was full operation to prevent freezing. Even better if the system has a minimum temperature setting which would have come on during the night, when required.

maltomp69

The tenants left more then 30 days previous. I stayed in the house at Christmas time to do some work (3 days), renovations etc and thus the occupancy is not in doubt.
The centraal heating system is not thermostat or temperature controlled so could not keep heat on full to maintain a certain temperature. The heating for those 11 odd hours was more than enought to keep the house warm. If it had have been on 24 x 7 the house would have melted.
Again however if the clause does not say continuous how can they say that is what they meant - certainly no-one i show the clause to reads it as meaning this.

cogito

It would seem that the heating was not set to operate between 11pm and 9am - the times when freezing is most likely to occur. Hardly "in full operation to prevent freezing.”


Nevertheless, the wording of the endorsement is very loose and open to more than one interpretation. In that situation, it would be normal to interpret the wording in favour of the policy holder.