Damage from leak - extent of buildings insurance repairs

LondonS30

Hi all - I will try and be brief but appreciate any advice:

- Earlier this year we had a leak from the upstairs flat which is untenanted. It took the estate agent of upstairs more than 48- hours to send someone. They found a leaking pipe upstairs which was fixed and I have an email admitting fault (so they will pay excess)
- I had extensive damage to toilet room ceiling and walls. In the adjacent bathroom there is also damage to the grouting and discolouration of the bathroom tiles from the water behind 

- spoke to insurance straight away and they advised to get two quotes and send photos. We had to wait for the area to dry which is now pretty much is but has taken months.

- The builders have said it isn’t possible to just replace some of the bathroom tiles (it is old and we don’t have spare tiles) but retiling the whole bathroom will involve ripping everything out and then replacing tiles, new shower, sink, rail etc. So it will be a big job and expensive

Is the buildings insurance likely to cover this? I can’t just replace a few tiles as it will look odd and out of keeping with the rest of the bathroom. But retiling the whole thing will essentially mean putting in a new bathroom because of the way the tiles are arranged.

Im going to ask insurance company but wanted to get an idea. It seems unfair to have ugly damaged tiles given that it wasn’t my fault and I have already been put out with waiting for everything to dry.

thanks 

Annemos

Hi LondonS30

It will be good to get the full advice on here from the experts.

I am just a homeowner. But I think problems arise if you do not have "full matching items" cover.

For example, my policy explicitly states that it only covers matching items for things like the kitchen units, the bathroom suite and the 3-piece sofa suite. So tiles-matching would not be covered, if they can't get the same ones. 

I have also read, that if that is the case, then in some circumstances, they might agree to pay 50% of the costs. 


(PS I have a 20 year old bathroom with neutral-ish beige tiles with a slight marble effect.

Recently, I decided to replace the bath with the shower. At Topps Tiles, I found a really good tile that would blend in well to the old ones. They are just a bit darker and they run from the old bath top level down to the new shower tray level.

It has made it look like it was part of the design. I don't know if anything like that would be possible in your case.)

Annemos

I am looking for the latest FOS decisions on something else and I just came across this decision about tiles.


 https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3274573.pdf

LondonS30

Annemos said:

I am looking for the latest FOS decisions on something else and I just came across this decision about tiles.


 https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3274573.pdf

Thanks very much for your helpful replies

I think the main difference is that the damage caused to the bathroom tiles is purely because of upstairs and the negligence (taking 48 hours to send someone to stop the leak) in which time the damage was quite extensive. This isn’t my fault at all so it seems unfair that I should have to pay anything at all - as had it not been for this happening, I wouldn’t be making any claims. Upstairs estate agents have admitted fault as well.

I have had 5 sets of builders come round (annoyingly they are being very slow with quotes) but all of them said you can’t just replace some tiles because likely there will be damage behind and it becomes problematic to just remove some. So all tiles need to be removed and replaced and I don’t see why I should have to pay for anything if that’s the case

going to forward everything to insurance company once I have received quotes but I just don’t understand why I should be forced to pay anything given that none of this is because of me but all due to upstairs negligence 

Sandtree

So presumably you are in flats and the freeholder has block insurance?

Your insurers will only ever be responsible for what your policy states you are covered for. Didn't check the FOS link but their general position is that if you dont have matching sets and it is clearly a "set" (arguments can come if you have floor tiles over multiple rooms for example) then the insurer should cover 50% or replacing the others. However if this is a block policy it is moderately unlikely you'd have access to the Ombudsman, depending on how many properties the freeholder has, and the courts wouldn't make such a ruling.

There is a potentially separate debate to be had if the upstairs neighbour should personally contribute and that comes down to you proving that they were negligent... the leak in itself doesn't prove anything, we can all be unfortunate. It is more commonly about proving they knew they had a leak and did nothing about it, though occasionally it can be a deliberate act etc.

LondonS30

Sandtree said:

So presumably you are in flats and the freeholder has block insurance?

Your insurers will only ever be responsible for what your policy states you are covered for. Didn't check the FOS link but their general position is that if you dont have matching sets and it is clearly a "set" (arguments can come if you have floor tiles over multiple rooms for example) then the insurer should cover 50% or replacing the others. However if this is a block policy it is moderately unlikely you'd have access to the Ombudsman, depending on how many properties the freeholder has, and the courts wouldn't make such a ruling.

There is a potentially separate debate to be had if the upstairs neighbour should personally contribute and that comes down to you proving that they were negligent... the leak in itself doesn't prove anything, we can all be unfortunate. It is more commonly about proving they knew they had a leak and did nothing about it, though occasionally it can be a deliberate act etc.

Thanks for this. It is a maisonette so just top floor and bottom floor flat. It is a leasehold flat. 

It took many calls to the company in charge of the upstairs flat for them to send someone - more than 48-hours!! In that time the leak got worse and more extensive (it was due to a burst pipe). I don’t think that is an acceptable wait and definitely caused more damage through the delay... also the upstairs flat had been left vacant and whilst it was unexpected, I would argue that they should have sent someone sooner as soon as we informed them. I have all the call logs and email communication etc. They have admitted fault although in writing...

I actually don’t have access to the insurance policy as this is all done through the management company who are useless but going to speak with insurance company after I have emailed them 

RalphT264

I believe any resultant water damage will be insured, but that portion may not be covered depending on why it's leaking. For example, if your roof is old and leaking owing to age, wear, or upkeep, it will be excluded from coverage, but the ensuing interior water damage will be covered.

Sandtree

LondonS30 said:
It took many calls to the company in charge of the upstairs flat for them to send someone - more than 48-hours!! In that time the leak got worse and more extensive (it was due to a burst pipe). I don’t think that is an acceptable wait and definitely caused more damage through the delay... also the upstairs flat had been left vacant and whilst it was unexpected, I would argue that they should have sent someone sooner as soon as we informed them. I have all the call logs and email communication etc. They have admitted fault although in writing...

I actually don’t have access to the insurance policy as this is all done through the management company who are useless but going to speak with insurance company after I have emailed them 

Ultimately if the insurance doesnt cover all the damage to your satisfaction it will be up to you to decide if its worth taking action against the leaseholders of the property above and a judge to determine what is and isnt reasonable within the eyes of the law.

Generally there will be some acceptance that a company is not going to be as quick to act as an individual... the receptionist you initially speak to wont be authorised to instruct plumbers to come out etc. 48 hours on the surface feels a long time but until their view of the timeline is known its hard to judge really if it was reasonable or not. 

Most people dont bother reading their policybooks even when buying it directly themselves and so its probably little surprise that property management companies dont send out the policy routinely. I believe you are generally entitled to see a copy on request if you are so interested. I have got a copy of our block insurance policy for example.

RalphT264 said:

I believe any resultant water damage will be insured, but that portion may not be covered depending on why it's leaking. For example, if your roof is old and leaking owing to age, wear, or upkeep, it will be excluded from coverage, but the ensuing interior water damage will be covered.

Not sure the relevance of a leaking old roof when the OP stated it was a burst pipe.