Slipped/Missing Tiles.

wazza

Over the past few months we have experienced strong winds here in the east midlands. I was in my neighbours back garden and took the opportunity to have a look at my roof from that angle. I have noticed few slipped tiles. Don't know how long it has been like that but there is no damp/wet spots inside the house upstairs. I have yet to venture into the attic to check for any leaks.

Cam i claim through my buildings insurance?

Shimrod

I think you should be able to claim through the insurance, provided the roof was in a reasonable state of repair - but the best thing to do is check your policy documents to see what cover you have!

Depending on the number of tiles, you may want to get some quotes for repairs first. We lost several ridge tiles in strong wind earlier this year, and the cost for replacement was less than the excess on the insurance.

FlameCloud

It would depend on weather conditions at the time of loss, as well as the general condition of the roof.

Slipped tiles are very rarely caused by storm, the majority of times it is simply nail fatigue.

*MF*

Damage caused by a storm is insured. The general upkeep of the roof, maintenance, is not insured. Arguements can then obviously arise when there is clear evidence of storm damage, but storm damage to what was a poorly maintained roof - what then is insured or not.

The Financial Services Ombudsman has had to adjudicate on such disputes, and below is an extract from one of their reports which addresses such issues:

"Take – for example – a dispute about a claim for storm damage, made under a buildings insurance policy. The policyholder says that tiles fell off his roof as a result of a storm; the firm says they fell off because of poor maintenance. Both parties accept that it was the high winds at the time that led to the tiles falling off. And weather reports record storm-force winds in the area at the relevant time. The loss adjuster’s report notes that the roof had not been properly maintained. So the issue is whether it was the storm itself, or the lack of maintenance, that caused the damage.

To try to establish this, we apply the ‘but for’ test, asking ‘but for the storm, would the roof have been damaged?’ On the balance of probabilities, the answer is ‘no’. So at first sight it would seem that the claim should succeed. But the loss adjuster’s report contains expert evidence indicating that the roof was extremely old and worn and the tiles were so loose that even fairly moderate winds, significantly below storm force, could have displaced them. Applying common sense in the light of this evidence, we might conclude that the dominant or effective cause of the damage was wear and tear and/or lack of maintenance, rather than the storm.

Whether or not there was a storm, the roof would inevitably have been damaged sooner or later. The storm was merely the occasion of the damage; it was not the cause. So it would not be fair or reasonable to require the firm to pay the claim because that would, effectively, be turning an insurance contract into a maintenance contract."


Extract from here:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/28/28-poormaintenance.htm

jonesMUFCforever

Just how are you supposed to 'maintain' a roof?

davidwatts

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Just how are you supposed to 'maintain' a roof?

Keep an eye out for signs of wear and tear? Get it inspected at appropriate intervals? Have repairs done when necessary instead of waiting for moderate to strong winds to blow tiles off?

nomoneytoday

Yes you could claim, but 5 tiles will probably be less than the excess. I paid £25 (minimum callout fee) to have 2 tiles repositioned last storm