Trace and Access insurance confusion

punchdrunked

Hi there, I'm hoping for some help on how to navigate this issue with my buildings insurance.

Long story short, my boiler is losing pressure, immediately once the central heating is switched on. 2 Plumbers have been out, at my cost, and both have suggested a leak, downstairs, under the flooring somewhere. 

My insurance company determined that I would need to confirm the presence of a leak by hiring a leak detection company. Done. The leak is under the floor boards, but the insurance company's view is summarised as follows:

"In order for us to deploy contractors, there must be visible water damage, even if the location of the leak is not known. While there is evidence of a leak, as indicated by the loss of pressure on the boiler, the absence of any water damage does mean that responsibility for locating the leak rests with you at present.

If there is water damage to the property because of the leak, trace and access cover would engage even if the cause of the leak was wear and tear. Resultant damage, however, will not be covered if the cause of the leak is wear and tear."

This is at odds with the policy wording, so I called the claim company. Put simply, the woman said I should treat the process as if I didn't have insurance, find the leak, pay for the leak, repair the damage, and submit a claim subsequently, and they'll decide if I'm covered, or not.

Does this sound right? If so, what's the point of it?

MyRealNameToo

Do you have a link to your policy book?

Generally T&A cover is only valid in association with damage caused by the escape of water and isnt a valid claim on its own. Obviously need to see your policy wording to see if it's the same. 

punchdrunked

Thanks for responding - here are the relevant sections in the policy wording:

19. Trace and access: The cost of removing and replacing any part of the buildings to find the source of a water or oil leak from any tank, pipe or fixed water or heating system if the buildings are damaged by something that is insured under Section 1 - Buildings, or by frost damage to your plumbing. 

Not covered - Your excess;  Damage to your tanks, pipes, fixed water or central heating systems.

11. Water escaping from any:  fixed water tank  , water pipe  fixed central-heating system, or  domestic appliance.  

Not covered: • Your excess. • Loss or damage caused by oil escaping from an oil tank that is no longer in use. • Loss or damage caused as a result of necessary repairs or maintenance work to the oil tank and associated pipes not being carried out. • Loss or damage caused: - to the fixed central-heating oil tank or a heating appliance - by oil escaping from external pipes that are above ground or pipes that have not been properly insulated, or - while your home is unoccupied or unfurnished.

huckster

MyRealNameToo said:

Do you have a link to your policy book?

Generally T&A cover is only valid in association with damage caused by the escape of water and isnt a valid claim on its own. Obviously need to see your policy wording to see if it's the same. 

This is correct.

What your Insurers are saying is correct. T&A is about tracing a leak where damage had occurred.

A boiler losing pressure, where there is no evidence of a water leak, is not going to lead to your Insurers employing contractors to start works on your property.

punchdrunked

huckster said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Do you have a link to your policy book?

Generally T&A cover is only valid in association with damage caused by the escape of water and isnt a valid claim on its own. Obviously need to see your policy wording to see if it's the same. 

This is correct.

What your Insurers are saying is correct. T&A is about tracing a leak where damage had occurred.

A boiler losing pressure, where there is no evidence of a water leak, is not going to lead to your Insurers employing contractors to start works on your property.

So, it's not the leak that is covered, it is any damage caused by the leak, which in turn is not covered if a 50 year old burst pipe for example, springs a leak and causes said damage? 

huckster

Damage due to escape of water is covered. Most do cover water damage even if due to wear and tear of pipes for example, if the homeowner did not know about the wear and tear.  Insurance is about covering loss or damage due to unforeseen events.

If you knew about wear and tear issues. Did not do anything about maintaining your home , then Insurers might have a case for refusing to pay out. But it does not appear in this situation where pipes are out of sight, that a homeowner would have been aware.

MyRealNameToo

punchdrunked said:

huckster said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Do you have a link to your policy book?

Generally T&A cover is only valid in association with damage caused by the escape of water and isnt a valid claim on its own. Obviously need to see your policy wording to see if it's the same. 

This is correct.

What your Insurers are saying is correct. T&A is about tracing a leak where damage had occurred.

A boiler losing pressure, where there is no evidence of a water leak, is not going to lead to your Insurers employing contractors to start works on your property.

So, it's not the leak that is covered, it is any damage caused by the leak, which in turn is not covered if a 50 year old burst pipe for example, springs a leak and causes said damage? 

Under escape of water yes... obviously if you hit a pipe with a nail then that would be Accidental Damage and then the leak itself would be covered. 

punchdrunked said:

Thanks for responding - here are the relevant sections in the policy wording:

19. Trace and access: The cost of removing and replacing any part of the buildings to find the source of a water or oil leak from any tank, pipe or fixed water or heating system if the buildings are damaged by something that is insured under Section 1 - Buildings, or by frost damage to your plumbing. 

Not covered - Your excess;  Damage to your tanks, pipes, fixed water or central heating systems.

This is the problem, per the terms as highlighted above its limited to if the building is damaged, if the leak has caused no damage then there is no cover. 

punchdrunked

Thanks for the guidance on this. I work in Financial services myself but find the wording used by the claim handlers and the wording above, in not specifically and transparently separating damage (a burst water pipe is damage in my eyes) and water damage, confusing, confusion that has cost me £600 so far and counting. 

I'll test the case with FOS, If I have to, and will update the thread either way. Wish me luck.

MyRealNameToo

punchdrunked said:

Thanks for the guidance on this. I work in Financial services myself but find the wording used by the claim handlers and the wording above, in not specifically and transparently separating damage (a burst water pipe is damage in my eyes) and water damage, confusing, confusion that has cost me £600 so far and counting. 

I'll test the case with FOS, If I have to, and will update the thread either way. Wish me luck.

Have worked with guys from banking, whilst we're all in the FS family and have the same regulators things are very different. 

Your policy has been written on an insured peril basis, for a claim to be covered you have to prove that one of the perils has occurred, the policy doesnt cover every type of damage that could ever happen. No insurance does but you can get more complete coverage with an All Risks policy which covers everything other than what is explicitly excluded. Aging, design flaws, poor workmanship, war, terrorism, deliberate acts of the insured are all typically excluded from all insurance policies

If you can show why the pipe burst and its one of the accepted perils then it will be covered, per the previously listed example that you put a nail through it. As you haven't mentioned this its probably just burst because of the passage of time and its gotten old etc, this isnt one of your insured perils and will be something explicitly excluded from an all risks policy. 

Home insurance is there to cover you for unexpected events, it's not a home maintenance policy. Storm rips your roof off, insurers will cover it. Age causes tiles to fall off the roof insurers won't cover it. 

You dont say what you do in FS and its hard to draw a direct parallel but its somewhat akin to someone opening a bank account, depositing £5 and then trying to make a debit card payment for £20 which the bank then declines. The customer asks why its been declined because they have an account and a card but the bank has to point out they haven't applied for an overdraft and until they do they can't spend more money than they have in their account.