Subsidence claim on insurance which was not subsidence

rs65

Bluebell100 wrote: »

Therefore, until someone suitably qualified states it is subsidence and they have a valid claim under their policy, no excess should be due. What are they doing charging £1000 plus?

I didn't see anything about an excess. Isn't the issue that the renewal premium has increased?

The £1000 plus is what the insurers paid to investigate, isn't it?

Bluebell100

I agree the word "excess" was not used.

However, how would you rack up a cost of £1050 to "assess" a crack underneath a windowsill? I don't believe the words "full structural
survey" have been used either.

hugoshavez

Loss adjuster, £300, surveyor £750?

It's possible.

Anyway, all you have to do is answer any questions asked when taking insurance honestly.

Have you had any accidents, claims or losses? Yes
What was the cause? Thermal cracking/Wear/Other
What was the cost? Whatever it cost if you repaired it.

There is absoloutely no need for you to disclose subs, because you didn't suffer any. Any new insurer who tried to void a policy for non-disclosure of a subs claim would get a swift kick in the pants from the Ombudsman.

Bluebell100

OK.

I am going to bow out at this point, however, forgive me if I don't agree with certain points.

A "subsidence claim" history noted on file, must have come from the insurer. (That would then also trigger the potential to up future premiums.)

Surely a loss adjuster or "qualified person" is sent to decide whether or not you have a valid claim.

If your claim is valid your policy will no doubt tell you the excess you need to pay before repairs etc commence. Where do you find the wording in your insurance documents to say you will pay such a heavy amount if the potential claim is not valid and is dismissed?

This poor person has been stung with a hike in premiums, but it sounds like he/she has been stung again with a £1050 bill he/she was not anticipating/expecting. SO,WAS THIS MADE CLEAR BEFORE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD WITH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE, and was it part of the insurance cover? Or was it an insurance company or underwriter just doing what they do in the hope it won't be challenged!!!!!!!!!

TSx

Bluebell100 wrote: »

OK.

I am going to bow out at this point, however, forgive me if I don't agree with certain points.

A "subsidence claim" history noted on file, must have come from the insurer. (That would then also trigger the potential to up future premiums.)

Surely a loss adjuster or "qualified person" is sent to decide whether or not you have a valid claim.

If your claim is valid your policy will no doubt tell you the excess you need to pay before repairs etc commence. Where do you find the wording in your insurance documents to say you will pay such a heavy amount if the potential claim is not valid and is dismissed?

This poor person has been stung with a hike in premiums, but it sounds like he/she has been stung again with a £1050 bill he/she was not anticipating/expecting. SO,WAS THIS MADE CLEAR BEFORE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD WITH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE, and was it part of the insurance cover? Or was it an insurance company or underwriter just doing what they do in the hope it won't be challenged!!!!!!!!!

I'm fairly confident the OP is saying that a claim for subsidence at £1,050 has been recorded with CUE - not that they have been asked to pay anything (whilst on the high side, this isn't out of the ordinary for costs to investigate possible subsidence).

Reference to "paying the £1,050 back" I suspect is a poor way of explaining to the customer that their premiums have been loaded to reflect having made a claim on the policy (even if it has been repudiated).

Personally as a claims handler I would change the cause to accidental damage in this situation (we use it as a 'catch all' peril - I know some insurers use 'Other' in these situations) to avoid subsidence showing up in the CUE database, knowing the issues that can cause.

Hopefully a complaint to the insurer will resolve this fairly quickly

rs65

Bluebell, I think you need to read the first post again. The OP feared it was subsidence and contacted the insurers on this basis.

I don't see anywhere that an excess was charged. The first post reads to me that they have a claim on their record for £1050 - the insurers have paid this.

The insurers have been contacted about a subsidence claim and recorded a subsidence claim. Having established that its not subsidence, everyone here is saying the cause code needs to be amended.