Hurricane Barney's fault and Churchill say it's mine!!!!

rs65

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

No I am not suggesting that, its just that we have not had anything of late that could rip off ridge tiles that were in good condition.

Storm Barney gusted to 85mph. Could that not damage a maintained roof?


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/uk-storm-centre/storm-barney

TSx

Whilst wind speeds are not the only measure insurers should be looking at when determining if damage could have been caused by high winds, gusts above 47mph or 54mph (depending on if the insurer uses Strong Gale or Storm as the basis for a storm claim to be successful - many now use the lower speed as structural damage is possible) would generally be considered capable of causing damage to properties.

Storm Barney certainly was strong enough to take ridge tiles off roofs.

Providing that there was no clear sign of a problem, and 'but for' the storm occurring, the ridge tiles would have stayed in place, the insurer should pay out under the storm section (this assumes you were somewhere in the country where wind speeds were significant)

OP - I would suggest raising a formal complaint with the insurer (you can do this by telephone), mentioning you don't believe they've applied the FOS guidance and asking them to provide you with a final decision. Once you have this you can escalate to the financial ombudsman for free.

agrinnall

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

No I am not suggesting that, its just that we have not had anything of late that could rip off ridge tiles that were in good condition. If the tiles had just landed on the lawn and no damage was sustained there would be no claim.

I think the two posts following yours have made the point for me.

magpiecottage

The Met Office warned beforehand that storm Barney would cause some structural damage so the OP seems to have some gounds for optimism in pursuing a complaint.

Presumably the debris from the structural damage should be called Barney Rubble!

Twopints

rs65 wrote: »

Storm Barney gusted to 85mph. Could that not damage a maintained roof?


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/uk-storm-centre/storm-barney

How do you define a "maintained roof"? When I had a similar issue, the insurer stated that unless I had documentary proof of a roof inspection within the last 2 years they would reject the claim. I wonder how many people have their roof inspected every 2 years?

dacouch

Twopints wrote: »

How do you define a "maintained roof"? When I had a similar issue, the insurer stated that unless I had documentary proof of a roof inspection within the last 2 years they would reject the claim. I wonder how many people have their roof inspected every 2 years?

Was your roof a flat roof?

TSx

Twopints wrote: »

How do you define a "maintained roof"? When I had a similar issue, the insurer stated that unless I had documentary proof of a roof inspection within the last 2 years they would reject the claim. I wonder how many people have their roof inspected every 2 years?

It's possible there was an endorsement on your policy requiring the roof to be inspected regularly - if so this would be with your policy documentation.

It's also possible the insurer was in the wrong.

magpiecottage

TSx wrote: »

It's possible there was an endorsement on your policy requiring the roof to be inspected regularly - if so this would be with your policy documentation.

Not merely in the policy documentation. Having been at a FOS seminar last week, they would expect it to be highlighted almost to the extent that it said in enormous letters "You do realise our policy is so bad that unless you can prove that somebody actually went up on the roof and inspected it less than two years ago we will weasel out of paying up."