Home insurance - Water damage advice, please

skybooks

A burst pipe damaged our kitchen - partially. Insurance company has assessed and ready to have a repair. The Insurance company's appointed repairer has quoted at £22,000. Of this the insurance wants me to pay £6000 to cover 50% of the extras which were not actually damaged in the flood but need to be replaced due to aesthetics e.g cabinets on the other side of the kitchen. I am in a predicament as I dont have £6000 to spend now so I am a little lost on my options.

My questions are:

1. Is this normal practice to ask me to share the costs.
2. Can I ask for a cash settlement of £16,000 (£22,000 minus £6,000) as per the repair quote? or will they "force" me to repair or offer far less in a cash settlement?
3. One last thing. I was only told about the £6000 verbally. I have since received a letter from them which says that they will pay the repair of £22,000 and I need to pay just £250 excess. This is an error, I assume. Can I just follow the letter and send the £250 and let the repair go ahead, or will this come back to bite me in the future?

I would appreciate any guidance.

Thanks.

Susan.

huckster

Phoned them up to check that they will pay the £22k and you only have to contribute the excess. I suspect it is an error and the expectancy is that you have £6k to chip in.

If this is the case, then yes I do not see why they can't settle for £16k, if that represents the damage. You can then opt for a cheaper kitchen that you can source for yourself and employ your own fitters.

This all needs to be discussed with Insurers.

skybooks

Thank for your reply. Do you have knowlege/experience in this field or is it just common sense assumptions?

huckster

Some knowledge dealing with a variety of claims, but I can't answer for the actions of some Insurers or loss adjusters.

What I sometimes find is that loss adjusters do not work well with policyholders in finding the solution to their claim situation, that both sides are happy with. Lack of communication and difficulty getting hold of them.

Ask yourself the question, as to why you felt it necessary to make a post to this site ? Lousy communication standards by your Insurers or assessors employed by them would be my guess.

Suggest that you get on top of this asap and make it clear what you would like to happen. Try to get hold of the person or the team that is handling your claim.

skybooks

Hukster, thanks.

Any other advice before I call? Anyone else have experience in this?

Is there a forum with insurance specialists similar to Landlordzone?

InsideInsurance

Have a look in your policybook as there will be a section on matching sets.

Most "budget" home insurance do not insure matching sets and therefore if you lose/ damage one part they are only liable for replacing that one part, if they no longer make that set anymore etc then this used to be treated as basically "bad luck". Now the insurers tend to offer a 50% contribution in some circumstances following the FOS forcing it on insurers in some claims cases.

Look at the more expensive products, typically aimed at mid net worth types, then you will find that they do give full cover for sets so even if you only drop red wine on a single seat, if they cannot get it out or find a matching chair they will replace all the sofa set.

So in answer to your questions:

1) Yes, it is common, though normally you'd have to argue for the 50% rather than being charged 100%

2) You can request a Cash In Lieu settlement, expect the VAT to be deducted and possibly a secondary discount as well - they prefer repairs through their network to cash settlements

3) It isn't unheard of for errors to be made and people to be told they will have to contribute £X but then never get charged it but at the same time it could come back and bite you. One element will depend on how you'd feel morally claiming you'd never discussed the £6k settlement and that the letter is the only thing you had to go by.

skybooks

InsideInsurance, thanks alot for your detailed and helpful response.

huckster

I would question how the assessor is dealing with your claim, as they don't appear to be keeping you informed very well. Surely they would have confirmed in writing exactly how they are dealing with the claim with a full breakdown and what actions you need to take. Based on this, you could ask specific questions to make sure that the Insurers were dealing with the claim, as they should be.

In your original post you state this "Of this the insurance wants me to pay £6000 to cover 50% of the extras which were not actually damaged in the flood". The appears to confirm that they have already agreed to pay £6000 (50%) towards undamaged parts. If this is the case, what does the £6000 they are contributing cover ?

I think you need to request more information from the Insurers or their assessors. You don't want to disapointed after the event.

skybooks

Full repair is £22k they want me to pay £6k so seemingly the aestetic damage is £12k and they are paying 50% of that and then they are paying 100% of the 12k direct damage.

Any problem with this?

huckster

skybooks wrote: »

Full repair is £22k they want me to pay £6k so seemingly the aestetic damage is £12k and they are paying 50% of that and then they are paying 100% of the 12k direct damage.

Any problem with this?

Confused ! I would expect a full breakdown of the damage they were paying for, what contribution they were making towards undamaged parts, full details from contractors of the works they intend doing and what I needed to do as the policyholder/houseowner.

If you are not clear on this, then I am not sure how a forum without all the necessary paperwork, can offer much input on this.

skybooks

huckster wrote: »

If you are not clear on this, then I am not sure how a forum without all the necessary paperwork, can offer much input on this.

Thanks for your input.

My queries were more on the general workings and procedures of these claims and what to expect if I were to request a cash payout etc. and the info has been informative.