Kitchen Insurance Claim

andyrpsmith

I would be grateful for some advice. My work colleague asked her son to replace a couple of cracked floor tiles in the kitchen and on investigation found the floor damp underneath.

It seems the washing machine had been leaking water for some time causing damage to the back of some kitchen units.

The home insurance company (Barclays) sent out a loss adjuster who said the leak had been going for some time possibly more than a year or longer.

Barclays have now refused to pay anything on the policy.

My colleague had no idea the machine was leaking as there was no visible evidence until the washing machine was removed from under the kitchen units.

She has complained to Barclays twice now by letter but had no reply. Does she have a case and would it be appropriate to take it to the insurance ombudsman?

Many thanks.

InsideInsurance

The insurance ombudsman doesnt exist any more as it was replaced by the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2001

The FOS will only take on the complaint after either (a) the insurer has given their response or (b) 8 weeks after the complaint was registered, whichever is the sooner. She would also potentially need to have proof that she sent the letters if she has never had an acknowledgement

How did the tiles crack? What grounds did barclays explicitly state as the reason for declining the claim?

andyrpsmith

Many thanks, I have asked her to get the paper work together over the weekend and we can have a look on Monday.

hellzbellz

Id be surprised if they pay out if they are declining due to the market standard exclusion for damage which happens gradually over time unless the policyholder can demonstrate that the damage isn't related.

TSx

hellzbellz wrote: »

Id be surprised if they pay out if they are declining due to the market standard exclusion for damage which happens gradually over time unless the policyholder can demonstrate that the damage isn't related.

The FOS viewpoint is generally that if the policyholder wouldn't have been aware of the damage, then they shouldn't be penalised for it being gradually operating - ultimately, you are insured for an escape of water, so they should pick it up. If they can prove it happened over a year ago, then the previous insurer should pick it up.