Claiming off house insurance for contractor's mistake

Gedd

Hello Everyone,

I had a plumber fit a new heating system last year and now one of the joints he fitted has failed and caused a lot of damage. Although he has admitted using the incorrect type of fittings (against manufacturer’s instructions) he is denying responsibility – because he’s always done it that way. I have proof he used the wrong fittings and of him admitting it.

He wants me to claim off my house insurance, and they can contact his insurance company if hey want.

If I claim off my own house insurance, it will count against me and I will lose my no claims discount. Which means I will still be worse off.

 Do I have any options other than small claims court?

MattMattMattUK

Gedd said:

Hello Everyone,

I had a plumber fit a new heating system last year and now one of the joints he fitted has failed and caused a lot of damage. Although he has admitted using the incorrect type of fittings (against manufacturer’s instructions) he is denying responsibility – because he’s always done it that way. I have proof he used the wrong fittings and of him admitting it.

He wants me to claim off my house insurance, and they can contact his insurance company if hey want.

If I claim off my own house insurance, it will count against me and I will lose my no claims discount. Which means I will still be worse off.

 Do I have any options other than small claims court?

You need to go to your insurance company, they will recover the costs from his insurance company. Remember even if you do not claim you still need to tell your insurance provider, failure to declare the issue would invalidate your insurance going forward and failure to declare it at renewal would be fraud. 

Aylesbury_Duck

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

Gedd

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

My insurance have said it will count as a claim against me, and I will pay a higher policy next year - no matter if they recovered costs.

If he admitted fault and claimed off his insurance, or just paid for the damage, there would be no financial implications for me. If I had caused the damage I doubt I would have claimed for the same reason.

I already have quotes to do the repairs and would be happy to have the damaged repaired while I wait for a court to decide who foots the bill - if it came to that.

Aylesbury_Duck

I presume he isn't divulging his insurance details, because if you had them, why wouldn't you just claim directly from his insurer?

If you're determined to avoid what would probably be a modest temporary increase to your premium, then small claims is the way to go.  Send him a letter and see what happens.

In my experience, shopping around every year usually yields a reasonable discount on the current renewal premium, maybe more than any NCD is giving me.  It's worth noting that making a claim on your contents insurance shouldn't affect any NCD you've accrued on the building policy.

TELLIT01

If you have legal protection on your home policy you could try using them.  Unfortunately my experience of such companies has been less than positive (to put it mildly)

Alderbank

Gedd said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

My insurance have said it will count as a claim against me, and I will pay a higher policy next year - no matter if they recovered costs.

I already have quotes to do the repairs and would be happy to have the damaged repaired while I wait for a court to decide who foots the bill - if it came to that.

Sounds like the call handler at your insurers was just trying to fob you off. How much more will you pay as a direct result of the claim? Probably all their renewing customers will pay a higher premium next year!

I ask because if you take it to court the court will expect you to have taken all reasonable steps to minimise your loss. The usual way of doing that is to claim on your insurance then claim your uninsured loss, which will be any excess in your policy plus that quantified premium resulting from your claim.

In fact, when you tell the plumber your actual loss, which is the amount you can sue him for, is a total of say £200 excess plus perhaps £25 insurance premium increase he might decide to just settle for that amount.

That would be a good result all round.

Gedd

Alderbank said:

Gedd said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

My insurance have said it will count as a claim against me, and I will pay a higher policy next year - no matter if they recovered costs.

I already have quotes to do the repairs and would be happy to have the damaged repaired while I wait for a court to decide who foots the bill - if it came to that.

Sounds like the call handler at your insurers was just trying to fob you off. How much more will you pay as a direct result of the claim? Probably all their renewing customers will pay a higher premium next year!

I ask because if you take it to court the court will expect you to have taken all reasonable steps to minimise your loss. The usual way of doing that is to claim on your insurance then claim your uninsured loss, which will be any excess in your policy plus that quantified premium resulting from your claim.

In fact, when you tell the plumber your actual loss, which is the amount you can sue him for, is a total of say £200 excess plus perhaps £25 insurance premium increase he might decide to just settle for that amount.

That would be a good result all round.

It's about £1300 materials and labour...

Alderbank

I'll try again.

You say you have discussed this with your insurer. How much more in pounds would you pay to the insurer if you do what everyone suggests and make a claim on your insurance? That is the amount you can claim from the plumber.

Aylesbury_Duck

Gedd said:

Alderbank said:

Gedd said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

My insurance have said it will count as a claim against me, and I will pay a higher policy next year - no matter if they recovered costs.

I already have quotes to do the repairs and would be happy to have the damaged repaired while I wait for a court to decide who foots the bill - if it came to that.

Sounds like the call handler at your insurers was just trying to fob you off. How much more will you pay as a direct result of the claim? Probably all their renewing customers will pay a higher premium next year!

I ask because if you take it to court the court will expect you to have taken all reasonable steps to minimise your loss. The usual way of doing that is to claim on your insurance then claim your uninsured loss, which will be any excess in your policy plus that quantified premium resulting from your claim.

In fact, when you tell the plumber your actual loss, which is the amount you can sue him for, is a total of say £200 excess plus perhaps £25 insurance premium increase he might decide to just settle for that amount.

That would be a good result all round.

It's about £1300 materials and labour...

I think you misunderstood the point Alderbank is making.  They're suggesting your direct court claim from the plumber is your out of pocket costs after you've made an insurance claim, which would be the aggregate of any excess you paid plus what the increase in your premium might cost you over the following five years (which is sometimes the period over which a prior claim is considered).

In other words, you claim on your insurance, they make the repairs (which will almost certainly cost them less than £1300) and you recover any other expense from the plumber, the effect of which is that you're back in the position you would have been in had the leak not occurred, from a property condition and financial point of view.

Gedd

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Gedd said:

Alderbank said:

Gedd said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

What's the point in having insurance if you're not going to use it?  Your insurance company will pay for the faulty connection to be sorted out properly and will quantify and sort out the damage.  You may not lose any NCD if your insurer fully recovers their costs from his insurer, and NCD on home insurance is not typically substantial anyway.

The alternative is you having to do a lot of chasing for quotes and taking him to court, which will take months, possibly a year.

My insurance have said it will count as a claim against me, and I will pay a higher policy next year - no matter if they recovered costs.

I already have quotes to do the repairs and would be happy to have the damaged repaired while I wait for a court to decide who foots the bill - if it came to that.

Sounds like the call handler at your insurers was just trying to fob you off. How much more will you pay as a direct result of the claim? Probably all their renewing customers will pay a higher premium next year!

I ask because if you take it to court the court will expect you to have taken all reasonable steps to minimise your loss. The usual way of doing that is to claim on your insurance then claim your uninsured loss, which will be any excess in your policy plus that quantified premium resulting from your claim.

In fact, when you tell the plumber your actual loss, which is the amount you can sue him for, is a total of say £200 excess plus perhaps £25 insurance premium increase he might decide to just settle for that amount.

That would be a good result all round.

It's about £1300 materials and labour...

I think you misunderstood the point Alderbank is making.  They're suggesting your direct court claim from the plumber is your out of pocket costs after you've made an insurance claim, which would be the aggregate of any excess you paid plus what the increase in your premium might cost you over the following five years (which is sometimes the period over which a prior claim is considered).

In other words, you claim on your insurance, they make the repairs (which will almost certainly cost them less than £1300) and you recover any other expense from the plumber, the effect of which is that you're back in the position you would have been in had the leak not occurred, from a property condition and financial point of view.

Ah. Right, now I get it! 

Thanks for taking the time to explain it for me.