Making a home insurance claim

Quentin

Dangermac wrote: »

It's not irrelevant at all.

1. You gave the impresssion that the OP was not covered and that he had to pursue the Tradesman......

If faulty workmanship is involved, then it is irrelevant! The OP won't have any cover against faulty workmanship, and his only avenue will be to pursue the workman.

You have subsequently posted the same thing:

Dangermac wrote:

The units themselves (the ones that fell) are unlikely to be covered unless they
have fallen off of the wall because of storm/fire/accidental damage
etc.

- You should contact the Contractor about the dodgy cupboard units
(assuming that you have a tradesman)

The consequential damage is a different issue which the OP may or may not be covered for, but I certainly didn't comment or give the impression that consequential damage cover is or is not in place.

The OP has now confirmed it is! (Though a claim for a new tv may fall on deaf ears!)

TSx

DominicJ wrote: »

What a palaver.

The top cupboards arent covered, fair enough, but everything else is.

They are sending out "Independent Inspections" to "inspect",
Thirty seconds of google says they are in fact furniture retailers, not "inspectors"....

That will be fun, pushy salesman, no doubt charging them more than I would just have accepted and trying to foist crap on to me.
Could understand if I was claiming a lot, or didnt have pictures of everything.
Oh well, there money.

Independent Inspections deal with furniture and flooring and will be there to assess the damage and agree on options for replacement (or restoration, although I've only ever seen a couple of their reports where they've actually restored something).

Once they've assessed the damage they will usually offer a mandate (voucher) which can be spent at various stores which are part of their 'home comforts' network. They may offer to do the laminate themselves as they do have an in-house flooring fulfillment team.

By all means, you can ask for cash, explain you'd rather sort it yourself, but it will be reduced by anything from 10-30% because they will only pay you what the insurer would have paid (and obviously, being a bulk purchaser, the insurer gets a large discount on any vouchers issued).

They're not that bad a company, although their communication tends to be quite poor.

What are the insurer doing about the TV?

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

If faulty workmanship is involved, then it is irrelevant! The OP won't have any cover against faulty workmanship, and his only avenue will be to pursue the workman.

You have subsequently posted the same thing:



The consequential damage is a different issue which the OP may or may not be covered for, but I certainly didn't comment or give the impression that consequential damage cover is or is not in place.

The OP has now confirmed it is! (Though a claim for a new tv may fall on deaf ears!)

1. I suspect that there is no trademan involved.

2. Your post was factually incorrect, because it implied that the OP had to pursue the trademan. As I subsequently posted, and as you subsequently agreed, the OP could claim from insurance for the consequential damage, and there could potentially be advantages of doing this because of the 'New for Old' nature of most household policies.

Agreed that the only option with regards to the actual fallen units would be recourse against the trademan.

However, I do suspect that there is no tradesman involved, otherwise the OP would likely have mentioned this because it is petty fundamental.

DM

DominicJ_2

Argh!!!
Ok, they have accepted the claim (all except the TV, which had the gall to stop crackling).

They've paid out MORE than I claimed, including the excess, but in a mandate from the inspections company, which can apparently be used at Argos for furniture and floors to go for flooring.

Needless to say, Argos dont sell furniture worth its weight in firewood, and floors to go is like dealing with the worst kind of double glazing salesman.

This will be a fun phone call on Monday
"The people your sub contractor sub sub contracted me out to seem to think I am a complete moron, please inform your sub contractor to inform their sub contractor I am not, and also, they are robbing you left, right and centre."

TSx

DominicJ wrote: »

Argh!!!
Ok, they have accepted the claim (all except the TV, which had the gall to stop crackling).

They've paid out MORE than I claimed, including the excess, but in a mandate from the inspections company, which can apparently be used at Argos for furniture and floors to go for flooring.

Needless to say, Argos dont sell furniture worth its weight in firewood, and floors to go is like dealing with the worst kind of double glazing salesman.

This will be a fun phone call on Monday
"The people your sub contractor sub sub contracted me out to seem to think I am a complete moron, please inform your sub contractor to inform their sub contractor I am not, and also, they are robbing you left, right and centre."

If you want, you can try asking for a cash settlement instead, just explain that you'd rather use a local retailer instead. This won't be for the same value as the mandate though, it will be around 10-30% lower.

DominicJ_2

Well, nothing from B&B yet, I'm going to ring them again in the new year and refresh their memory.
And of course write this time.

Handy bit of information though.
They cant make a deduction for you refusing to use their supplier network.
So sayeth the financial ombudsman.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/10/10.pdf
Page 11

DominicJ_2

Well, B&B are doing their best to avoid any dealings with this, either that or they are secretly using me to train their call centre staff on the basics of considerations and contracts.

Pushy gentleman from Legal and General phoned back to imply I agreed to Independant Inspections Terms, but he quickly backed off that.

Oh well, 58 days and counting.
And I thought it was going to be quick and easy.....

DominicJ_2

L&G have buckled on the furniture, but are still refusing to budge on the flooring, insisting they can levy a 15% cash charge, quoted the Ombuds statement back to them and call centre worker got rather snappy and insisted its in the terms and conditions.

They'll have a shock when they discover that courts arent bound by anything but themselves....

Oh well, give it till next week and try one more time, then its off to the ombud.

TSx

Please bear in mind the information in there is superceded in Ombudsman news 92 (2011) which says

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/92/92-insurance-claims.html wrote:

Sometimes, policyholders prefer to have a cash settlement even though there is no practical reason why they could not visit the insurer's preferred retailer – and that retailer is able to provide a reasonable replacement. In such instances we will not usually consider it unreasonable for the insurer to deduct from the cash settlement any discount it would otherwise have obtained from the retailer.

DominicJ_2

Oh Well
Better research why its unsuitable.
Or perhaps just give up at this point.