House Insurance - Bathroom - Big Problems

stuuk

Hello, I have buildings and contents insurance for my house which I purchased in December 2015. Recently we have discovered that the downstairs bathroom has been leaking in an area which was not visible (behind the bath panel) and this has now been revealed to have ruined the floor.
My insurance company have claimed that this is rot, and so is not covered. They have backed that up by saying that the damage must have been ongoing for some time. A surveyor paid by them attended and agreed with their statement. He was unable to explain exactly what rot is to me, but assured me that it was rot. In his opinion, which he has reported to the insurers, the damage has been ongoing for about a year.

So clearly that was not the result I was hoping for. Their policy does exclude rot - regardless of source, but is it rot or is it water damage and what can I do if anything?


Secondly the surveyor suggested that since the damage began before I moved in, I should claim against the previous owners insurance - he told me to find out who it was and claim against them.
I'm not sure how I can find this out or even if it's valid - their insurance would have been terminated when they left the property. He assured me that it is standard practise to do this sort of thing when the damage would have occurred during a previous policy.
So, can I take this approach and if so how do I go about it?


Lastly, when I purchased the house I had it surveyed. The report contains the following: "The water supplies to some of the WC cisterns were turned off at the time of inspection, apparently due to leaks on the supply pipework. You are recommended to consult a competent plumber with regard to the necessary repairs."
I did forward this on to the owner (and the estate agent contact) who commissioned a plumber and assured me everything was in satisfactory condition and that any necessary repairs had been completed. I received a receipt for some replacement parts used.
I presume the surveyor did his job here, but according to the insurance company it was leaking at that time - is there anything I can do? Surely with a surveyor and plumber commissioned, this shouldn't have happened - I thought I had been quite careful.

Any advice greatly received!
Thanks,
Stuart

sheramber

When you discovered it was there still a leak or had the leak been fixed but the floor was not dried out resulting in the wood rotting?

stuuk

HI, when I discovered it, approx 5 weeks ago there was still a leak. No idea how long it'd been there for - i noticed it because i had a shower and there was water where I didn't think it could have gotten to, so I poked about and noticed more water. Then the emergency plumber was called.

Quentin

Never report a loss to an insurer unless you are certain you can make a successful claim.


You will now have this loss recorded on your history and must now be disclosed to any other insurers you approach for quotes in the future, and will inevitably impact on your premiums

stuuk

Quentin, you'll have to explain what a loss is. Also, I'm not sure you actually answer any of my questions. Whilst you may be 100% right in what you say, I asked for specific advice on what I could do in this situation and I don't believe you are responding to any of those questions?
Could you tell me what I should do in this case, rather than what I could have done (but didn't)?

Quentin

When you are applying for insurance you are asked about your history of losses and claims over a period of years (depends on the individual company, usually in the 3/5 year range)


You have experienced a loss due to the water damage.


Although you see my post warning about not reporting losses that cannot be claimed for as being unhelpful to you, had you known that simply reporting this will affect your future premiums even though no claim can be made you wouldn't have been so quick to speak to your insurer before posting here!


So although too late for you in this instance, you and others reading this thread may be able to use the info about this and save themselves some money by not volunteering any losses to their insurer that cannot be claimed for.


You could try whoever did your conveyancing to see if there is a record of the insurer covering the property prior to you buying it, or has any advice on the legal situation over liability.

FutureGirl

You'll probably find that your policy has an exclusion for damage caused gradually over time, and that is what they are looking to rely on in this instance.

Although the 'rot' is water damage, it has happened gradually, as rot takes time to form and appear, it doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

If the leak has been ongoing for over a year, did you not notice anything before? iE a damp smell or anything? If you bought the house in Dec 2015, surely your surveyor would have picked up on this when checking the property?

Smodlet

He did report it, "I did forward this on to the owner (and the estate agent contact) who commissioned a plumber and assured me everything was in satisfactory condition and that any necessary repairs had been completed. I received a receipt for some replacement parts used."

I don't think you need it pointed out, stuuk, that your initial mistake was trusting the vendor, who is hardly going to spend money they can get away with not spending, to fix a problem your surveyor highlighted.

Your insurance company have given you their decision. Gradual, ongoing damage caused over a period of time is like wear and tear, to an insurance company: Not covered. I think you will have to chalk it up, cough up to get it fixed and learn from it. If you do not get it fixed, you will have to declare it when you come to sell the property, by which time the rot will be far worse. I think you know that too. I know this is not what you were hoping to hear but it is fact, from what you say. You could try appealing against the decision but I think you would be wasting your time.

stuuk

"your initial mistake was trusting the vendor"
Indeed.. I did have a long list of things that needed to be sorted and this was one of the ones that with hindsight I should have given a little more thoroughness to. Having seen the plumbers receipt I had assumed the work had been conducted honestly.

I was looking to see if there was any way I could perhaps sue the vendor or estate agent - both were instructed to get a plumber to evaluate the issue based on the report. I spelt it out to them in text so I can prove what I asked them to do, and what I thought had been done.
I don't know if that's just a waste of time though.

Smodlet

How do you spell assume?... It is absolutely not my intention to patronise because it is fairly clear to me that you already know what I am about to say: If you want something doing, do it yourself. Further, if you want something doing and lack the skills to do it yourself, commission your own plumber/whoever and watch them like a hawk (unless you have used them before and know beyond doubt they can be trusted)

It is not the EA's responsibility to resolve any issues with the condition of a property, why would you think it was? Their job is purely to sell properties, nothing else and if you trust anything that comes out of their mouths without checking, you have only yourself to blame. There actually are trustworthy mechanics and builders out there; the only place I have ever encountered an EA I would trust is on this forum, and she is retired. I and OH have viewed well over 100 houses in our time so have met quite a few.

You can "instruct" the vendor all you like, why would they take any notice of you? They do not work for you. I sincerely doubt there was anything in the contract you signed to say the purchase was conditional upon their carrying out this work to your satisfaction... and it is not as if you checked to see if it had been, now is it? Buying a house is not like buying a hairdryer. You cannot just take it back if it does not work.

If the only Latin you ever learn is this one, two-word phrase, in your own interests, learn it: "Caveat emptor". It means "buyer, beware" and is as true now as it was before the crucifixion. Consumer laws are no absolute safety net in any circumstance, the burden of proof is always on the complainant and, imo, there are none when it comes to buying property.

I wish you luck in resolving this situation but do not rate your chances of getting anyone else to pay to do so. You will learn from this, stuuk, and one day be in a position to help someone else avoid the same problems. If you can, try to take comfort from that.

stuuk

So my claim was rejected. I complained to both the insurance co and the financial ombudsman.
The insurance co have now replied to say that in response to the FO complaint they will not cover anything that is rotten, but they do agree that there is some water damage..

So now, they're saying they are in fact liable for some of the damage. And looking around the room, the only thing 'rotten' is some of the wood - literally 90% of the cost will be labour and plumbing to have stuff removed and then refitted.
They have then provided an estimate to fix the bits they believe they are responsible for which is of course a very low quote..

Where would you go from here? I'm considering speaking to my solicitor but perhaps I shoudl negotiate with them first, it's unclear to me currently which items (of a future bill) they would apportion to rot and which to water damage.