Collapsed ceiling, Halifax say it is's wear and tear

Pannad

Hi,

Last night (17/6/11) we were awoken by a loud crash upstairs, but as we have 2 cats we are pretty used to that, so went back to sleep.

This morning I found that approx 2' square of ceiling has collapsed in a walk-in wardrobe in our upstairs spare bedroom. This is below the flat roofed dormer. The plaster that had come down and a lot of clothes in the wardrobe were quite wet, so I am assuming this was due to the rain overnight, even tho it wasn't that heavy.

II contacted Halifax Insurance this morning and they say we are not covered as there was no storm event last night in our area, so it must me wear and tear. The entire dormer roof was re-felted 2 years ago, as well as being re-clad and new waterproof membrane fitted.

Halifax said we should get onto the builders that re-covered the roof to fix it. After spending a few hours reading our policy it seems that the Halifax insurance is worthless. Between the 'what isn't covered' and 'what is covered, but with exemptions' it seem that nothing is covered at all. Of course when we took out the insurance with our mortgage we were told it covered everything.

I could try going back to our builders, but I have had no problems with them in the past (and have had other work done by them since the dormer roof), and don't actually think there was any problem with their work.

Does anyone have any suggestion as to where we should go from here?

hcb42

They are right. they are not responsible for wear and tear. They will pay out for fire, theft, smoke, storm, flood damage and the like, but an insurance policy is not a maintenance contract

When you took it out, I question you were told it covered "everything". You might havee the most comprehensive home insurance policy on the market (i.e. Buildings with AD/Contents with AD/Personal Possessions/Cycle etc), but you should have received a policy booklet and schedule outlining yuor cover.

Meanwhile, flat roof, dormer, and work done - chase the builder! Or get a different builder in and see what they say.

ihateyes

i love how these sharks can say yeah or nay over the phone....

hcb42

well arguably they could come out, but given lst night was not stormy, this is simply water leaking in, then it might be a waste of time for all.

they are not sharks for not paying for wear and tear. If wear and tear was covered, I dread to think what home insurance would cost! THink of all those claims. I have had two ceilings come down myself (old house, not maintained well until I bought it!)

Pannad

@hcb42
Yes, I now realise I should have read thru the policy rather than believing what the saleswoman told me, but we seemed to be getting a good deal as we got the insurance at a discount for getting it alongside our mortgage, and I got extra protection for all my PC gear cheap too. If i had realised that so little was covered I would have gone elsewhere. We were naive at the time, but hindsight is often 20/20.

The bit about wear & tear really grates on me tho. I thought that by having the roof re-felted all was well, and it seemed to be. We have had much worse rain/storms in the last 2 years with no sign of any leaks. It just seems that wear & tear is a get out for the insurance company if an event does not match their definition of a storm.

hcb42

I would be surprised TBH if their policy was not similar to all standard decent home insurance policies. I did insure with them for a couple of years back in the late 1980s when it wasnt the norm to switch away from insurance with the mortgage lender. I have just skimmed their policy booklet quickly, and it does cover all the major perils in line with any other decent home insurer and their exclusions look normal to me, and suitable for the majority of home owners. I notice in their plain English they do define storm (and also what constitutes heavy rain). So if the premium is good (use a comparison site at next renewal) then I dont think you would have got a different answer from any other insurer.

There is just a huge incorrect perception about what home insurance covers. If you genuinely believe it was storm damage then insist they come and look. But flat roof and water....hmm.. It could have been that the damage has not been apparent for a while. Can you get on the roof?

huckster

Halifax are correct. Sounds like the roof covering failed, so you need to take this up with the builder. Get a roofer out to provide an opinion about the quality of the work previously done and advise what needs to be done.

This would have been declined by most Insurers. None cover losses due to wear and tear. Some might consider some internal damage under the accidental damage extension to Buildings and Contents. But then with the excess and future premium increases, I doubt it would have been worth it.

As for the policy wording, you should read a few others companies wording online, to see how the wording compares. I think you will find exclusions are pretty similar.

Pannad

There is a hatch to get up onto the roof, but it has been sealed and the void filled with insulating foam (done when we had the roof re-covered. We have no need to go up there). Opening it up shouldn't be too difficult, but I will have to get a builder in to check it out as I have no idea what I am looking at anyway.

huckster

Don't get the same builder out who did the original work. Suggest you get another opinion and work as necessary. When I had some work done, I used a company who were registered with a roofing contractors trade body and the work was guaranteed for 10 years under an Insurance policy.

dunstonh

ihateyes wrote: »

i love how these sharks can say yeah or nay over the phone....

Yes. Builders can be real sharks

oomyekim

As the others have said it seems correct you aren't covered. Also the Halifax Insurance policies all specify the amount of rainfall in 12/24 hour period needed to consider a claim under the storm peril and they also exclude damage under the accidental damage peril caused by ingress of water...seems to me you just have to take the decline on the chin!