Possible mis-selling of Home Cover plumbing and drains cover by British Gas/Dynorod

inspectorlund

Dear all

I have posted on this before, but have been in discussion with the FOS on the basis that mis-selling could also apply to policies that were unfit for purpose ie ones that were never going to provide sufficient cover for the peril they were supposed to address and wanted to see if anyone had any further thoughts before I go back to the FOS. Now read on!

I have had a British Gas Home Cover 400 insurance policy for some years. This included cover for plumbing and drains as well as for my gas boiler. For the plumbing and drains it provides cover for Dynorod (part of British Gas) to clear drain blockages up to a ceiling of £1000 in any year. My gripe is that I thought I was buying £1000-worth of cover but, through the actions of BG/Dyno, have effectively been sold more like less than £250-worth as the only people who would fix anything under this policy were the exorbitantly priced dynorod, whose charges were at least 4x above what anyone else would charge.

A while ago, I had a blockage to the rainwater pipe that runs under my house due to root ingress. The pipe, from the manhole in the front garden to where it meets the spur pipe at the back of the property, is roughly 12 metres. Dynorod came to do a hydraulic root cut, which they reported had been unsuccessful. They then said the pipe was blocked towards the back of the house and that I would need to get my buildings insurance company to pay the extra over the £1000 ceiling allowed by Home Cover 400. My house is a terraced one, very similar to many others across London and the rest of the UK. So most of these houses must have roughly the same length of rainwater/sewage pipes, running about 12 – 15 metres from the front garden to the back of the property and all prone over time to getting blocked by root ingress - and a hydraulic root cut is the most common way to clear these roots. So I would have thought the average home emergency cover policy would have been sufficient to at least get all the way to the end of such an average-length pipe to ascertain the reason for its blockage.

Eventually, another company (UKDN) got involved and ascertained via CCTV that Dynorod had only got 6 metres along the rainwater pipe before stopping their root cut. UKDN did a combined root cut followed by CCTV along the entire length of the pipe and found that there WAS some root ingress along the length of the 12 metre straight section, but the only actual blockage was in the collapsed spur pipe that fed into this pipe at right angles at the back of the house. The amount of work needed to fix this was about £1500 in total, of which £250 consisted of UKDN doing root cut and CCTV along the entire length of the straight pipe that BG had already done 6 metres of (though they would have charged the same even if BG/Dyno hadn’t already done that: £250 was their standard charge for root cut and CCTV) and the rest was the cost of digging up and replacing the collapsed spur pipe. UKDN had to do this root cut and get a CCTV camera into the 12 metre straight section of the pipe before being able to ascertain the reason for the blockage.

I then questioned BG/Dyno why they had only got 6 metres along the pipe before stopping THEIR root cut, instead of continuing another 6 metres to the end. Their response was that, by the time they had got 6 metres along the rainwater pipe, they had reached the £1000 ceiling allowed by the Home Cover 400 insurance policy. I find it inconceivable that, having arrived on site and got everything set up, it would have been that difficult just to carry on another 6 metres to the end, but this is what I have been told in writing by British Gas.

I make no bones about how my household insurance policy had to meet the cost of digging up and replacing the collapsed spur pipe, just as you don't expect AA breakdown cover to pay for a new engine for your car, but my gripe against BG is the lack of transparency about their charges. One accepts a ceiling on the amount any policy covers for, but one assumes when taking out cover that it will at least be sufficient for you to ascertain what's wrong with the thing - be it a car or a house - that you have taken out the cover for. BG's policy DID state clearly that the ceiling was £1000, but there was no additional information in the policy making it clear how far that £1000 would go, or that they would use their own, exorbitantly-priced contractors. I assumed that £1000 would be enough to at least pay for someone to get to the point of knowing what was causing the blockage and where it was; had I been made aware when taking out that policy that, if I needed to call on it, the £1000 of cover would only pay for BG/Dyno to go 6 metres along a 12 metre pipe, I would have been aware that the policy did not offer a level of cover sufficient to pay for unblocking that pipe - or even for finding out where the blockage was. Therefore, I would not have taken out that policy.

Using the AA analogy again, you would not expect the repairman to turn up, start looking at your car and then stop half-way through, saying "I can't go any further - you've run out of cover" and drive away leaving you by the side of the road with an broken-down car and no idea what's wrong with it. But, if you were to take out a breakdown cover policy with them and the policy clearly stated that it would only cover for, let's say, 30 minutes of the repairman's time, then you would know beforehand that the policy would not be sufficient for purpose and would either not take it out or at least be in a position to do so from an informed standpoint.

My question – bearing in mind that UKDN only charged £250 for a simple and common operation like a root cut and CCTV along an entire 12 metre length of pipe, if BG/Dyno charges £1000 for doing a mere 6 metres (and therefore Home Cover 400 doesn’t cover the cost) then shouldn’t such an exorbitant charging rate be clearly stated in the policy wording? And does the failure to do that make the plumbing and drains element of Home Cover 400 a mis-sold insurance policy? I thought I was buying £1000-worth of cover but, through this, have effectively bought more like under £250-worth.

Just wondered what people thought.

M

rs65

inspectorlund wrote: »

on the basis that mis-selling could also apply to policies that were unfit for purpose ie ones that were never going to provide sufficient cover for the peril they were supposed to address

In your example, had the blockage been in the first six metres, it would have served its purpose.

inspectorlund wrote: »

The amount of work needed to fix this was about £1500 in total
......
BG's policy DID state clearly that the ceiling was £1000, but there was no additional information in the policy making it clear how far that £1000 would go
......
I assumed that £1000 would be enough to at least pay for someone to get to the point of knowing what was causing the blockage and where it was

£1000 limit was never going to solve your problem. Your issue seems to be with Dynorods pricing. Perhaps its seemingly incestuous nature? My argument would be that its not clear they would use a group company and cover should therefore be tasked based and not price based.

I think your assumption is a bit unfair. There are too many variables to assume £1k would let you know what/where the problem was. If they had told you that you would have 6 metres of survey and root cut, do you genuinely think you would not have taken out the cover? It covers other things too.

inspectorlund

My issue is with the fact that the policy I purchased did not make clear I was purchasing a level of service roughly 4x more expensive than the same level of service not through dynorod.

rs65

inspectorlund wrote: »

My issue is with the fact that the policy I purchased did not make clear I was purchasing a level of service roughly 4x more expensive than the same level of service not through dynorod.

Phone them direct and ask for a quote for survey and root cut of 12m.

inspectorlund

Phone them (Dyno) direct and ask for a quote - yeah, I might do that. I got the distinct impression that the operatives who did my root cut were looking for any excuse to spin the job out as much as they possibly could.....they actually went over the same 6 metre length of pipe twice, on 2 different days, once being paid by the Home Cover insurance and then again by my home insurance and it was when I had the temerity to question why they were doing that that they threw their toys out of the pram. They didn't bill my home insurance in the end and that's when UKDN got involved. I appreciate that that level of detail wasn't in the OP.

Something I should also have added in my reply to you last night, RS65, is that even if the £1000 does cover for other things, who's to say that the price of those wouldn't also be similarly inflated?