Building insurance claim for escape of water

anear

Hi,

I claimed building insurance for an underground main pipe burst, which caused my kitchen, rear hall and bathroom been flooded. My insurance company Admiral sent a subcontractor to fix the broken pipe. For the rest of repairs, the subcontractor's survey said in his report that the house is laid on red ash with no Damp Proof Membrane. Because there is no Damp Proof Membrane they won't be able to reduce the damp to an acceptable level for repair works to begin. (The current dampness reading in the flooded area is 100%, and the reading in unaffected area is 18%).

The insurance company wants to offer cash settlement as they said installation of damp proof membrane is not covered in the building insurance. But I don't want to accept cash, I prefer that they do all the repairs (removing the old floor, dehumidifying and installing new floor)

My questions are:
1. Is it true that repair cannot be done without damp proof membrane? I don't believe this is the case, as the other room's dampness reading is 18%. They could use it as a baseline to dry the flooded rooms to 18-20% and install new floor.

2. If damp proof membrane is required for the repair, I am happy to pay for the cost of installing damp proof membrane and the insurance company arranges the rest work. But they said that installation of a DPM is not part of the insurable works they cannot assist me in obtaining quotes or locating contractors to sort this matter for me. The only thing they can offer is cash settlement.

I am not willing to accept cash and arrange the work myself. Any suggestion?

Thank you.

Blibble

18% will not be an acceptable moisture content, whether this is the level in other rooms of the property or not. The insurer & their contractor will not wish to put their name on a job which is likely to go belly-up in a few years, and for you to potentially pursue them for the works to be rectified at their cost under warranty.

However, it should be possible to pay for the DPM privately and, upon proof to the insurer & their contractor that this has been completed, they should be able to undertake the works. Do check with all parties concerned before proceeding with this, of course.

Satansallsmiles

Check if you have a legal advice line on your policy (or any other policy that you may hold) as this would be a good avenue to discuss this and get actual legal advice.

stator

Read the terms and conditions of your policy.
If the policy allows them to pay cash instead of arranging works, then they have that right.

anear

Thank you stator. If they offer cash settlement, does the amount has to be agreed with me? what if they offer less amount than what actually needed to complete the claim-related work? I am not a DIY expert. How do I make sure the amount of cash they offer is acceptable?

stator

It doesn't have to be agreed with you. If you disagree with what they offer you can make a complaint. If you disagree with their complaint resolution you can take the case to the ombudsman.



Most people would just get 3 quotes from competant tradesman and average the 3 and settle for that.

anear

New progress: the insurance company now agreed to strip-out the old floor, ask me to arrange damp proof membrane installation privately, and they will do the rest reinstatement (drying and fitting new floor).

My question is whose responsibility it is to install DPM? The insurance company's or mine?

I checked the insurance policy, it says in the 'What is insured' section:
"Unlimited rebuild cost: For any damage or loss caused by events such as fire, storm, flood, theft, escape of water, malicious acts and subsidence."

If the house is completly damaged by fire, for example, when they rebuild it, they will have to follow the new building regulations and install Damp proof membrane, since it was not installed originally? It is not possible to rebuild a house (built in 1920s) like-for-like. Will I have to pay for the cost of damp proof membrane installation in that case?

If the answer is no, why should I pay for the cost of damp proof membrane for partial damage when put it back on a like for like is not meeting current building regulations?

anear

Thank you Blibble. The contractor suspected my house is built on red ash based on its age and location. They require
In order for the DPM to be laid the entire room will need to be stripped out and taken back to the red ash dirt base. Walls will need amounts of plaster taken off to allow the membrane to be laid up the wall to avoid the damp tracking through.


This is a much bigger job than I expected. Is it minimal requirement for fitting floor? I am aware of different ways of DPM installation: some on top of concrete, others below concrete. Some mentioned seal the ground with damp proof paint. I prefer minimal disruption, hence seal with damp proof paint or DPM on top of concrete is better (as we don't have to dig up concrete). Is it possible?

Blibble wrote: »

18% will not be an acceptable moisture content, whether this is the level in other rooms of the property or not. The insurer & their contractor will not wish to put their name on a job which is likely to go belly-up in a few years, and for you to potentially pursue them for the works to be rectified at their cost under warranty.

However, it should be possible to pay for the DPM privately and, upon proof to the insurer & their contractor that this has been completed, they should be able to undertake the works. Do check with all parties concerned before proceeding with this, of course.

Blibble

DPM below or through the concrete would be a layer of damp-course or similar, which is different to a DPM. DPM is a (generally) liquid-based compound laid over a concrete subfloor; I see no reason why the concrete would need uplifting from what you've described?

The DPM will be your responsibility to pay for. Why? Because it's not your insurer's, simply. The DPM was not fitted prior, and your insurer is only liable to put you back in the position you were pre-loss, which does not include the DPM work as it was never fitted previous to the damages. Your insurer doesn't have a responsibility to upgrade your property to modern regs or cover maintenance costs; rather, it has a duty to put you back in the same position and should this position be non-compliant with modern regs, then the onus is on you to pay up to ensure it is. If you had upgraded the property to modern regs prior to the damage (i.e., installed the DPM prior to the damage), then of course they would incur liability to put you back in that same position again.

Therefore, you can either pay for the extra work privately to get the property up to modern regs with your insurer fitting the cost of re-instating what was already there when the damage occurred, or alternatively a cash payment at their cost price to organise everything yourself. This is what you have been offered.

tantriclady

Yuo do not need to use their method of repair to the floor to install a DPM. You can get a builder to quote you for whatever repair you deem fit. After you have completed this and shown that no further problems are expected, they will then either offer you cash for the rest of the works or provide a contractor.


For insurance purposes, your policy covers you for reinstatement to pre-loss condition not just repair so the insurers summation of what works you need are to policy standards so are often more than you expected. You could not put in a DPM, just take the cash and re-do the flooring etc. This is your perogative.


If until this recent event, the floor has been fine, then I would just re-lay a new floor and forget the DPM. It's up to you.


As for re-building costs - where the building has been destroyed by fire etc then yes the policy is to rebuild as necessary. In your case water has not destroyed the DPM - that was a pre-existing condition. It could be argued that was "poor works or design" and inbuilt failure. Therefore the insurer would not touch it with a barge pole. I would get your quotes and take it from there. You can use these to negotiate to some degree on the cash settlement amount.