I need help, my buildings insurance company is trying to decline my flood claim

ArbitraryRandom

Sabbir said:

The house did not burst due to a burst pipe but due to ball on the water tank not functioning to stop water flowing, that is what the plumber told me, and he replaced the ball on the tank and it is now all ok . 

Sabbir said:
Then the loss adjuster came and asked to see my plumbing report and ask my plumber if there was evidence the leak was due to very cold weather. My plumber was unable to give a definite answer . 

And do you know why that's not what he told the loss adjuster? 

GDB2222

The ball on the float valve can develop a small leak. Once it becomes full of water, it doesn’t float, and the water keeps running.

If you were away for a long time, the water could have been running through your house for weeks on end, and it could be a very large claim. You can understand why the insurers are reluctant to pay. 

If you had simply switched off the stop tap before going away none of this would have occurred. A very, very expensive way to learn that lesson, I’m sorry to say. Good luck trying to get the insurance company to pay out. They seem to have no obligation to do so. 

Flugelhorn

I have a friend who is away for 6/12 - the insurance company know and I check the property weekly, I walk into all rooms and check that there is no water flowing anywhere.  Next time either get someone to check or as others have suggested switch the water off

ProDave

GDB2222 said:

If you were away for a long time, the water could have been running through your house for weeks on end, and it could be a very large claim. You can understand why the insurers are reluctant to pay. 

I have worked on one such repair where the house was completely stripped back to a bare shell, dried out for weeks with industrial size dehumidifiers then rebuilt completely internally.  It would have cost many tens of £1000 

lika_86

ProDave said:

GDB2222 said:

If you were away for a long time, the water could have been running through your house for weeks on end, and it could be a very large claim. You can understand why the insurers are reluctant to pay. 

I have worked on one such repair where the house was completely stripped back to a bare shell, dried out for weeks with industrial size dehumidifiers then rebuilt completely internally.  It would have cost many tens of £1000 

Yep. This happened to my mum, had a leak essentially under the house, the concrete raft was as the people who came out described it as 'about as wet as you can get'. It meant the furniture came out and went into storage, carpets came up, skirting and lintels off, basically back to a shell. My mum had to move out while it was all being dried out and re-done. Could be a huge claim. I'd be really surprised if the insurance company were willing to cover any damage already done for just a small additional amount.

MobileSaver

Sabbir said:

Thank you everyone for your comments , all very helpful. To answer the questions. They backdated the policy for me being over 60 days away, and so I paid an extra £59. The house did not burst due to a burst pipe but due to ball on the water tank not functioning to stop water flowing, that is what the plumber told me , and he replaced the ball on the tank and it is now all ok . The policy says if I am away for more that 60 days then it is invalid. I did not drain the system when I left the property. I think I have legal protection so I can explore that option or the onbudsman.

As @propertyrental said, your replies don't really make sense. Perhaps "backdated" doesn't mean what you think it means? Or are you saying your policy had actually expired altogether and they allowed you to backdate the renewal?

If the policy says it is invalid if you are away for more than 60 days and you are away for more than 60 days then the policy is invalid and no amount of "backdating" will change that. Did you mean the policy was updated to include cover for being more than 60 days away? Something definitely seems to have been lost in translation here.

saajan_12

Sabbir said:

To answer the questions. They backdated the policy for me being over 60 days away, and so I paid an extra £59. The house did not burst due to a burst pipe but due to ball on the water tank not functioning to stop water flowing, that is what the plumber told me , and he replaced the ball on the tank and it is now all ok . The policy says if I am away for more that 60 days then it is invalid. I did not drain the system when I left the property. I think I have legal protection so I can explore that option or the onbudsman.

This still doesn't make much sense. What is the difference between the policy before and after the 'backdating'?
- a change in the start date?
- a change in the covered length of absence?
- something else? 

comeandgo

I had to get a special policy for being away from the property for over  3 months and like a previous person mentioned I had to get someone in once a week, and document it.  Was this a condition of your backdated insurance payment that you would have failed.

GDB2222

saajan_12 said:

Sabbir said:

To answer the questions. They backdated the policy for me being over 60 days away, and so I paid an extra £59. The house did not burst due to a burst pipe but due to ball on the water tank not functioning to stop water flowing, that is what the plumber told me , and he replaced the ball on the tank and it is now all ok . The policy says if I am away for more that 60 days then it is invalid. I did not drain the system when I left the property. I think I have legal protection so I can explore that option or the onbudsman.

This still doesn't make much sense. What is the difference between the policy before and after the 'backdating'?
- a change in the start date?
- a change in the covered length of absence?
- something else? 

If you read the first post, it seems that the op spoke to the underwriting department and didn’t mention that there was a claim in progress. On this basis, some change was made to the policy that the op hoped would help with the claim. Unfortunately, the claims department are having none of this. 

I don’t think that there is any point in the op going to law over this, but the ombudsman is free, and he may help the op. There’s nothing to lose by trying. 

I don’t think that this forum can help, and indeed the op has not logged on for a couple of days.