Home Insurance and a Leak in the Bathroom....

mightneverhappen

Hello all,

We've had a spot of bother with a leak in the bathroom. It was a small drip from the underside of the toilet cistern.

Unfortunately as the cistern is boxed in behind tiles (themselves on a very sturdy wooden construction that forms a sort of shelving unit that also extends to the sink surround) it went unnoticed until the floor went soft and squelchy. It seems like it has run under the flooring from behind the loo and been soaked up by the plywood/chipboard flooring and reached critical mass when it became noticable when you stepped on it.

The house is a bungalow and if I remember correctly from when the kitchen floor cam up about 8 years ago, the construction is wood panels of some sort on top of a waterprrof membrane, on top of polystyrene type insulation.

The insurer sent a plumber out on tuesday evening when the problem was noticed but as they couldn't isolate the leak due to it being boxed in they cut off all cold water into the bathroom (sink tap, bath tap, and loo), meaning that the loo is flushed via a bucked filled from the kitchen sink and teeth are brushed in the kitchen. Luckily the shower takes it's water from a different feed so we can at least get clean.

We are currently waiting for the insurer's serveyor to come out and assess the damage, that it's a genuine claim, and write a report. They contacted us on Wednesday saying that they would ring within 48 hours to arrange appt, but no word yet.

Meanwhile through a few phone call with the insurer they say that as trace and access isn't on the policy (but not mentioned as excluded) that we have to pay for the boxing in, tiling, and sink to be ripped out to access that leak. Plus pay to replace it, an integral part of the bathroom. My argument is that all of that has to come out anyway for them to pull up and replace the flooring as the boxing in and sunk unit sits on the damaged floor. So basically my argument is that they are telling me I have to destroy a large part of the bathroom for them to fullfill their part. Whilst all this is going on the bathroom is essentially out of action and my Mum who is unwell is having to flush the loo with a bucket.

So my question is essentially, who is liable for the removal and refitting/reconstructruction (it might be able to be pulled out and refitted, or might be destoyed) of the boxing in and sink unit (about six foot wide in total and four foot tall construction). Whilst I do understand that trace and access isn't covered, all of this has to come out to do the floor. I'm looking at it logically where a builder comes in, pulls out the boxing and sink plus loo bowl, a plumber fixes the tiny leak on the cistern inlet pipe, a new floor goes down, and the boxin and sink replaced or rebuilt.

Any ideas or advice please??

Quentin

The trace and access are usually uninsured losses. You will likely have to pay for it. (Insurance usually just covers the water damage)

mightneverhappen

Many thanks for your reply. I'd understand that if it was just access to repair the leak, but it is physically impossible to replace the floor without it all coming out. I'm struggling to get my head around the fact that they want me to cause significant damage for them to carry out their obligation.

Quentin

mightneverhappen wrote: »

I'd understand that if it was just access to repair the leak.

Most policies won't cover the repairing of the leak - just the damage caused by the water.

mightneverhappen

Quentin wrote: »

Most policies won't cover the repairing of the leak - just the damage caused by the water.

That's understandable, the cost of repairing the leak is small anyway - replace a valve I think the plumber said. The big worry is the cost of removing/replacing the unit behind the toilet and the sink unit. These aren't physically damaged by the leak, but the whole floor is ruined and must be replaced, and to do that all of this must be ripped out, it is absolutely impossible for the repair work that the insurance does cover to be carried out without damaging what's on top of it during the course of the covered work

Quentin

To repair the leak you'd have to do this anyway, wouldn't you?

mightneverhappen

Quentin wrote: »

To repair the leak you'd have to do this anyway, wouldn't you?

Some of it yes. The sink unit wouldn't need to be removed at all, provided a builder could cut it neatly, which covers at least half of the affected area that needs to come out to replace the floor. Although if it was solely the leak it's concievable to my untrained thoughts that a section of tiling could be removed, a hole cut in the underlying wood, and the work conducted through that. Sort of keyhole surgery! But all that is very unnecessary, complicated and costly if the whole lot then has to come up anyway to replace the floor.

Quentin

I fear you are going to be in the hands of the adjuster. Treat him/her kindly, state your case and hope for the best.

mightneverhappen

Cheers, shall see what the surveyor thinks and advises the insurer, then will argue my points in a calm polite manner. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

DC2010

This may or may not help you.

A few years back we discovered we had some kind of leak in a pipe - either the soil-pipe taking the bathroom waste down a boxed in section in the corner of the kitchen - or in a pipe below ground level. We employed a plumber to investigate and repair it - and I alerted the insurance company.

It turned out to be a complicated story.

Eventually after several days hard graft the plumber discovered a leak in the rising main below the kitchen floor. The leak had obviously been there for some time and we had a pond of water below the kitchen. The plumber saw that the plastic pipe had been rubbing against the edge of the foundations - probably banging against it as the cold water was turned on and off in the house.

What had caused this initially was a leak in the clay soil-pipe carrying the bathroom waste which must have - over a long period - washed away some of the soil from around the base thus leaving the adjacent rising main sitting in water not enclosed in the soil around the foundations.

The insurance company sent a loss adjuster out to view the scene in the kitchen and to my dismay and surprise he said that the leak appeared to be due to wear and tear and that we were not covered.

I thought this through and decided he was wrong. Some years earlier the previous owners had had a ground floor extension built into the side of the house next to the kitchen. I tried to win this argument with a letter and photos but to no avail.

My argument was that the whole problem was due to accidental damage not wear and tear. I argued that the crack in the soil pipe would have occurred when the extension had been built alongside the kitchen wall. I therefore decided to contact the Financial Ombudsman with a long letter and facts and photos

I had an immediate confirmation from their Office that my grievance was being dealt with. A few days later the Insurers rang me and asked me how much I wanted ! Being an honest sort of bloke I just sent them the plumber's bill for around £1200.

I think you need to go through the fine details of your policy again and see whether you can base a full or part claim to get around their arguments. Don't be afraid to contact the Ombudsman - my experience was 100% positive. But make sure you explain your arguments against the Insurers and send photos.

mightneverhappen

Thanks DC2010, shall see how it pans out with initial claim then see where we stand.

The surveyor has been and agrees the claim is valid. Advises that the top half of about third of the unit has to be removed to access and repair leak. Fair enough. But then the whole lot will come out at insurers cost to then pull up floor. Awaiting report and insurers confirmation of all this now obviously! Just seems daft to do the first bit when it's easier and cheaper all round to do it all at once. But that appears to be the system. Shall see later this week!

Cheers for the advice!