Bellway & Damage from roof tile

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Sticky situation, your mate wants to claim from bellway but this claim needs to be declared to his insurers anyway a simple check by insurers will confirm he has one and not notified.


like wise you and your mate knew as soon as the insurers looked at the damaged its a cat C and worth next to nothing from what they are worth without being a write off.


if he pays for buildings insurance, then there maybe a rout to take to try and get some of the cash back but I wouldn't hold my breath and just be happy he still has his classic cossy.

FlameCloud

Horizon81 wrote: »

He isn't a 3rd party though is he. He's living in a leasehold flat and contributes to the building insurance. It's not as if the tile fell off a neighbours roof.

He is a third party to the freehold policy though- which will likely either be in the name of the freeholder or the freehold management company. Even as a shareholder of a freehold company he is a different legal entity to his ownership of the car.

As others have said, the freehold policy will only cover the freeholders liability at law as it almost certainly will not have cover extensions for cars on it. This will mean that he will need to pursue a claim in tort - negligence is the most likely route but not the only one. Given the weather conditions, I don't consider it likely a claim for negligence would succeed.

Building_Surveyor

Accidents happen... Sometimes there is nobody to blame. Unless the roof tiles were faulty/not secured how could bellway have prevented a tile being blown off due to a freak storm. No mention of negligence here.

If I was in a tornado and my house uplifted because the weather was catastrophic would i try and claim off the builder who built the house for it not withstanding the 'freak weather' and causing damage? No, unless it was poor workmanship etc I'd claim off my own insurance policy.

Such is life I'm afraid. Your friend will be lucky to get anywhere pursuing this I suspect.

Hintza

A friend has just had half the slates off school roof next door land on her conservatory. The local authority have already said not down to them unless she can prove negligence.

We built our now house recently and still had the static caravan in the garden as of Thursday it is now in the neighbours garden and my insurer will not pay unless we can be proved negligent which they think is so remote given severity of the storm.

I think your friend could easily have shot himself in the foot not talking to his insurer at the time. You do not get a car repaired before determining liability and getting a couple of quotes. So what is going on here?

NaturalBornHustler

Hi all
firstly i would like to thank everyone who responded! this is the beauty of MSE forum and why I became a forum member rather than a lurker! :beer:

Personally, if it was me, I would have claimed against my own car insurance policy, this is what it is there for and there is no way the insurer could not pay out however with the owner being a very good friend of mine, I can only sympathise and advise the best course of action!
He was adament in not using his own car insurance (it is insured for the full 15k market value) therefore I could not see it being written off as it would still be repairable with an "economic repair" (where the insurer authorize the bodyshop to fit used parts)

a closed case I guess and my questions answered

thanks again!

AdrianC

NaturalBornHustler wrote: »

Personally, if it was me, I would have claimed against my own car insurance policy, this is what it is there for

If the damage was caused by something random from an undeterminable location, then - yep - car insurance. But it wasn't. The source of the tile's known - it's from the building. Therefore, it's the building insurance that should be claimed against.

Why isn't he doing that?

sinbad182

Because the building insurance wont pay out unless it was shpwn the tile fell due to negligence or an inherent fault with the building's construction - the fact it fell during one of the bigger storms we've seen recently will mean there is no onus on that policy to cover it.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

If the damage was caused by something random from an undeterminable location, then - yep - car insurance. But it wasn't. The source of the tile's known - it's from the building. Therefore, it's the building insurance that should be claimed against.

Why isn't he doing that?

Have you read the thread?

AdrianC

Aretnap wrote: »

Have you read the thread?

Yes, thank you. And I haven't seen one single thing to suggest anybody's even approached the buildings insurer yet.

I've seen that the car owner doesn't want to involve anybody but the original developer. I've seen a whole bunch of conjecture and ill-informed speculation. I've even seen an urban myth about a council just shuffling their feet and saying "Nope, sorry". But NOTHING, not one thing, to actually suggest the buildings insurer's even been approached, let alone rejected the claim.

goonarmy

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, thank you. And I haven't seen one single thing to suggest anybody's even approached the buildings insurer yet.

I've seen that the car owner doesn't want to involve anybody but the original developer. I've seen a whole bunch of conjecture and ill-informed speculation. I've even seen an urban myth about a council just shuffling their feet and saying "Nope, sorry". But NOTHING, not one thing, to actually suggest the buildings insurer's even been approached, let alone rejected the claim.

You need to re-read posts 1 and 6.;)