Using the same loss assessor – good idea?

Paul2837

Hi, Looking for some advice please…

My bath had a leak and has caused damage to the ceiling of the flat below. He engaged an Insurance Property Repair contractor (which he has called a loss assessor) who suggested my subfloor and joists needed to be assessed. My insurance company has advised I can use my neighbour’s loss assessor to do this. It would be handy to use the same assessor as they’ve already seen the subfloor through the ceiling of the flat downstairs but I’m wondering if this is appropriate? Feels like it would be a conflict of interest to use the same company but I can’t put my finger on why.

Water damage from my flat (if any is found) will go through my insurance and I’ve been advised my neighbour claim will go through his insurance then reclaimed through mine.

I am genuinely not trying to shirk any responsibility and want to give reassurance not only to myself but also to my neighbour that everything is either ok or to make necessary repairs, I just want to make sure I go about it the right way.

Also, I’ve read on forums that loss assessors are best used for big jobs only (and my plumber is confident it won’t be) so would I be better to pay a qualified joiner/carpenter to assess it instead?

So my questions are:

1.       Should I use a loss assessor or is it better to use a joiner for the assessment?

2.       If using a loss assessor, is it appropriate to use the same one as my neighbour?

I’ve little experience with insurance and none with loss assessors so any advice would be welcome. Thanks!

eddddy

Just to double check - you're talking about flats, and it sounds like repairs to the building (as opposed to contents).

If you're in England or Wales, it's usually the freeholder that arranges a single buildings insurance policy for the whole building. Do you have a different set-up where each flat owner arranges their own buildings insurance? (For example, I believe that tends to happen in Scotland)


Also, you say that your bath had a leak - did you do something negligent, like leave the taps running and let the bath overflow?  Or did it spring a hidden leak unexpectedly?

Paul2837

Hi Eddddy, thanks for  your reply. 
I didn't realise there'd be a difference. It's in Scotland and the leak appears to have been age of pipes so simple wear and tear. And yes, damage to buildings only, not contents. 
P

pramsay13

Do you not have the same insurance policy?

We had something similar and the neighbour below had to claim on his own insurance.

I paid his excess as I felt responsible but I didn't have to.

eddddy

Paul2837 said:

Hi Eddddy, thanks for  your reply. 
I didn't realise there'd be a difference. It's in Scotland and the leak appears to have been age of pipes so simple wear and tear. And yes, damage to buildings only, not contents. 
P

I know this isn't your precise question, but if it's down to 'wear and tear' and the leak wasn't foreseeable - then you are not 'responsible' in the legal sense, and you have no liability for damage to your neighbour's flat, and therefore your insurer will not pay for damage to your neighbour's flat.

So you each claim on your own insurance, and pay your own excesses.

But if the damage to your flat is slight, is it worth making an insurance claim, and paying the excess?

And your insurance company probably won't pay your plumber's bill for repairing the leak. They will only pay to repair water damage caused by the leak. (Maybe, for example, if the water damaged your floor, or a dehumidifier is needed to dry out the floor)

Maybe find out how much the loss assessor will charge to assess your floor. There's always the slight risk that the assessor is saying your floor needs assessing, because that will earn them a fee.

Paul2837

pramsay13 said:

Do you not have the same insurance policy?

We had something similar and the neighbour below had to claim on his own insurance.

I paid his excess as I felt responsible but I didn't have to.

Thanks for the reply Pramsay13. No, we have different insurance policies. My insurance advises that the process is my neighbour must claim on his own policy and they will then recoup monies from my insurance (I'm told that's the standard procedure now as it means the repairs can happen quicker). P

Sandtree

Paul2837 said:
I'm told that's the standard procedure now as it means the repairs can happen quicker

In most cases like this you are not going to be liable for the damages to their property, they would have to prove you were negligent which either means you knew something was wrong and did nothing about it or you have not followed normal maintenance which had you you would have spotted the problem.  Most people don't periodically take up their floorboards to check piping!

Insurers often suggest this "both claim off your own policies and we'll sort it out between ourselves afterwards" approach because your insurers have no intention of settling the third party claim but when they have a repaired ceiling and life's continuing etc they tend to forget about these things... ceiling still on the floor then its daily phone calls etc.

Paul2837

eddddy said:

I know this isn't your precise question, but if it's down to 'wear and tear' and the leak wasn't foreseeable - then you are not 'responsible' in the legal sense, and you have no liability for damage to your neighbour's flat, and therefore your insurer will not pay for damage to your neighbour's flat.

So you each claim on your own insurance, and pay your own excesses.

But if the damage to your flat is slight, is it worth making an insurance claim, and paying the excess?

And your insurance company probably won't pay your plumber's bill for repairing the leak. They will only pay to repair water damage caused by the leak. (Maybe, for example, if the water damaged your floor, or a dehumidifier is needed to dry out the floor)

Maybe find out how much the loss assessor will charge to assess your floor. There's always the slight risk that the assessor is saying your floor needs assessing, because that will earn them a fee.

Great thoughts eddddy, thanks.
My insurer has confirmed in writing that my neighbours insurance can recoup monies from my insurance (and they didn't know the cause of the leak at that point). I am indeed paying for repairing the leak myself (the policy only covers water damage, which seems reasonable). Good suggestion re. the loss assessors fee, that would make sense. Thanks for your help, as it's generated a lot of useful questions for me to ask my insurer and the loss assessor - when answered I think I'll be in a far better position to make informed decisions! Thanks v. much. P 

Annemos

Here is what the Ombudsman says on Sandtree's point, if it helps. These are the guildelines they give to the insurance companies: 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/home-buildings-insurance/gradual-damage 

We’re likely to say that you should pay the claim if:

• we think the customer couldn’t reasonably have been aware of the damage happening gradually (they were prevented from noticing the damage and therefore fixing the problem)
• they made the insurance claim, or took reasonable action, as soon as they could reasonably have known about the problem

Sandtree

Annemos said:

Here is what the Ombudsman says on Sandtree's point, if it helps. These are the guildelines they give to the insurance companies: 

The ombudsman only looks at first party complaints and therefore these would be relevant to the OP if they are claiming damages to their own property.

Third parties (the neighbour down stairs) have no right of complaint to the ombudsman about the OP's insurer deciding to cover or decline the damage to their property (though were the OP to complain that the neighbours losses were/werent covered then the ombudsman has to consider). 

My point was more that it is unlikely the OP is liable and therefore their insurers are likely to use the fob the TP off tactic of saying each claims from their own insurers and then the insurers will sort it out. Often insurers have special arrangement with suppliers and so if they are liable they'd be better off getting their own people to do the job rather than letting the other insurer handle first... these can involve volume based rebates etc which dont flow back to the claim file. 

Paul2837

Sandtree said:

Paul2837 said:
I'm told that's the standard procedure now as it means the repairs can happen quicker

In most cases like this you are not going to be liable for the damages to their property, they would have to prove you were negligent which either means you knew something was wrong and did nothing about it or you have not followed normal maintenance which had you you would have spotted the problem.  Most people don't periodically take up their floorboards to check piping!

Insurers often suggest this "both claim off your own policies and we'll sort it out between ourselves afterwards" approach because your insurers have no intention of settling the third party claim but when they have a repaired ceiling and life's continuing etc they tend to forget about these things... ceiling still on the floor then its daily phone calls etc.

Hi Sandtree. That's a long way from what they actually told me - my cynicism in insurance companies is restored