Home Insurance Discussion

murphydavid

In my experience (not with Admiral) they arrange damage repair rather than pay out cash for you to get it done. 

1SC1

Our home insurers BRITISH GAS underwritten by AXA tried a 365% (yes 365% - it's not a typo) increase this year and wait for it tried to slip this through on auto-renewal! I think this is akin to criminal, we would have felt genuinely robbed if it had gone through, would have been £837 instead of expected £229. If the proposed increase is say RPI + circa 5% insurers should have a moral obligation to actively flag to customers and to turn off auto-renewal - I don't think many sane people would opt in willingly to such an exorbitant increase - the rule should be in such circumstances that customer opt-in is actively required rather than a reliance on opt-out. I have complained and asked why the increase – and have been told it will be 40 working days until I get a response but have been told premiums have gone up but specific reasons for increases are business sensitive information! They're sorry I feel inconvenienced. I pointed out we have never claimed on our home insurance and our own and local circumstances are unchanged. Needless to say we switched insurers fast. But I won’t be off-put by their ridiculous 40 working days to formally respond and I fully intend to take this further and call it out – because I can and have the energy to do so. I feel for others who may not be able to do the same. In the meantime I say watch out people, don't blindly trust well-known names. Anyone have similar experiences? Particularly with the same company? 

eddddy

1SC1 said:

If the proposed increase is say RPI + circa 5% insurers should have a moral obligation to actively flag to customers and to turn off auto-renewal

That sounds horribly dangerous.

If a policyholder knows they have auto renewal (and maybe has let their policy auto renew for the last few years), then the insurer turns off auto renewal, they might be left uninsured.

If somebody gets a renewal notice, and is too lazy, disorganised, forgetful, busy or incompetent to do anything about it (or is away on a long holiday, or is in hospital etc), it's probably better that they remain insured, than become uninsured - even if the cost is high.

1SC1

Thanks Eddddy for your reply, interesting. I can see the sense of what you are saying – to be left without insurance unknowingly is not good. Similarly, to have a company take 365% extra on an auto renewal premium while a person is, as you put it – is too lazy, disorganised, forgetful, busy or incompetent – which yes of course are undesirable traits but not criminal as far as I’m aware is to my mind akin to be being robbed while one’s back is turned and that to me is criminal. In the case of the incompetent amongst us it’s even more despicable – it’s robbing those who need protecting. If these sorts of increases are slipping through on even a few policies I am without doubt they are causing serious financial hardship.

So, what I propose is regulation – to stop what is at present immoral and cavalier behaviour on the part of insurers. 

Plus, insurers need to be more open to scrutiny and not to feel able to try a 365% increase on premium for no conceivable reason (we are not new BRITISH GAS underwritten by AXA, have never made a claim, neither our circumstances or requirements have changed, nor to the best of my knowledge have local conditions, and according to the research group Consumer Intelligence premiums in our area have risen by around 4% this year).

Doc_N

1SC1 said:

Thanks Eddddy for your reply, interesting. I can see the sense of what you are saying – to be left without insurance unknowingly is not good. Similarly, to have a company take 365% extra on an auto renewal premium while a person is, as you put it – is too lazy, disorganised, forgetful, busy or incompetent – which yes of course are undesirable traits but not criminal as far as I’m aware is to my mind akin to be being robbed while one’s back is turned and that to me is criminal. In the case of the incompetent amongst us it’s even more despicable – it’s robbing those who need protecting. If these sorts of increases are slipping through on even a few policies I am without doubt they are causing serious financial hardship.

So, what I propose is regulation – to stop what is at present immoral and cavalier behaviour on the part of insurers. 

Plus, insurers need to be more open to scrutiny and not to feel able to try a 365% increase on premium for no conceivable reason (we are not new BRITISH GAS underwritten by AXA, have never made a claim, neither our circumstances or requirements have changed, nor to the best of my knowledge have local conditions, and according to the research group Consumer Intelligence premiums in our area have risen by around 4% this year).

I'm entirely with you on this - and I wonder if you can get some kind of excuse out of BG/AXA for the increase? From a personal standpoint, none of my insurance policies are on autorenew (but I'm pretty organised) - and I strongly suspect it's the autorenew  policies that are targetted.  It's just too tempting for them, because large numbers of people, particularly the elderly, don't notice, or if they do notice, do nothing.  The concept of loyalty dies hard.

Have you tried a dummy quote from them as a new policyholder, using slightly different details?

frank2020

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Hi, thanks for replying.
My insurance is standard and to be honest I'm not sure what caused the damage. I think the substantial rainfall from the recent storm and the clay soil becoming heavier may have caused it. All I know is that it's happened during the last week (Strom Dennis) and it was showing no signs of wear and tear in the summer. Thank you

I've looked at the standard Admiral policy wording, and the answer, I'm afraid, is a little less than certain.  Garden walls are theoretically covered:

Buildings: Your home including its permanent fixtures and fittings, central heating fuel storage tanks and drains, permanently connected pipes and cables, service tank, solar panels and wind turbines permanently fixed to the buildings or the ground, including its: drives, decking, fences, garden walls, gates, ground source heating pumps, hard tennis courts, paths, patios, permanently fixed hot tubs or jacuzzis, permanent swimming pools built of brick, stone or concrete, septic tanks and terraces.

But they might try to argue that it's the result of subsidence, which excludes the following damage:

To gardens, lawns, patios, terraces, tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs, walls, fences, gates, drives, service tanks, drains, septic tanks, pipes, cables and central-heating oil tanks, unless your home is damaged as well

Flood damage would probably be the best route to use to try to get round that - you'd need to show that the wall was in perfectly good condition before the storm (policy definition: A specific, identified storm including strong winds in excess of 47 knots (54mph) that may include heavy rain, snow or sleet.)

If you argue that a perfectly good wall, in good condition, was simply washed away by the flow of water they may accept the claim.  There is a downside, though, in that they may reassess the flood risk for your particular property.

Thank you very much for taking your time to look into that for me, very much appreciated. I will go with that approach and fingers crossed it's positive news. If not, at least the surveyor who comes out to look will be able to tell us what I need to do to repair it. Thanks

No problem. I would be interested in the outcome though, once it’s resolved. Good luck.

Hi, bit of a long process, I still haven't had a definitive answer. Admiral have said the loss adjuster has advised it's a valid claim, but Admiral are waiting on a Scope of Works (or something like that) so I'm a little unsure where I stand at the minute. Hopefully I'll have a clear answer soon.

Thanks for updating us. That sounds very promising if they see it as a valid claim. The next stage should just be a discussion as to what needs to be done to put the wall right. Everything's negotiable, within reason, so if their proposals seem unreasonable discuss it with them. With luck though you'll just get a quick and simple resolution.

Hi again, I hope you're keeping well. So I was getting a bit concerned I wasn't hearing anything and rightly so. They have decided now to reject the claim, the CCG had sent me an email last week (sitting in my junk folder:

I chased this for you late last week to get an idea on what was happening. The matter got referred to Admiral’s Technical department for review.

They advised me that they reviewed the case in line with your policy (see attached document).

Please refer to page 14 in the What is covered / What is not covered section, point 7, in which it specifically states ‘What is not Covered’ - Loss or damage caused:

• By subsidence, heave or landslip resulting from storm or flood

Admiral have made specific reference to the highlighted wording above, and have used this as justification as to why they will not be looking to cover the claim, as ultimately the wall has collapsed under pressure from a rivers water flow which was exacerbated by the adverse weather. On this basis the claim is declined in full.

I was shocked to say the least, as I was told on quite a few occasions this was valid. They'd even sent me an email a month ago stating it was with the Admiral technical team to gather information on costs.

I'll complain as the wall is now in a worse condition. If they'd have rejected the claim in the first place I'd have quickly moved on with getting it fixed myself. But to tell me it's a valid claim and then go back on it doesn't seem right to me.

Doc_N

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Hi, thanks for replying.
My insurance is standard and to be honest I'm not sure what caused the damage. I think the substantial rainfall from the recent storm and the clay soil becoming heavier may have caused it. All I know is that it's happened during the last week (Strom Dennis) and it was showing no signs of wear and tear in the summer. Thank you

I've looked at the standard Admiral policy wording, and the answer, I'm afraid, is a little less than certain.  Garden walls are theoretically covered:

Buildings: Your home including its permanent fixtures and fittings, central heating fuel storage tanks and drains, permanently connected pipes and cables, service tank, solar panels and wind turbines permanently fixed to the buildings or the ground, including its: drives, decking, fences, garden walls, gates, ground source heating pumps, hard tennis courts, paths, patios, permanently fixed hot tubs or jacuzzis, permanent swimming pools built of brick, stone or concrete, septic tanks and terraces.

But they might try to argue that it's the result of subsidence, which excludes the following damage:

To gardens, lawns, patios, terraces, tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs, walls, fences, gates, drives, service tanks, drains, septic tanks, pipes, cables and central-heating oil tanks, unless your home is damaged as well

Flood damage would probably be the best route to use to try to get round that - you'd need to show that the wall was in perfectly good condition before the storm (policy definition: A specific, identified storm including strong winds in excess of 47 knots (54mph) that may include heavy rain, snow or sleet.)

If you argue that a perfectly good wall, in good condition, was simply washed away by the flow of water they may accept the claim.  There is a downside, though, in that they may reassess the flood risk for your particular property.

Thank you very much for taking your time to look into that for me, very much appreciated. I will go with that approach and fingers crossed it's positive news. If not, at least the surveyor who comes out to look will be able to tell us what I need to do to repair it. Thanks

No problem. I would be interested in the outcome though, once it’s resolved. Good luck.

Hi, bit of a long process, I still haven't had a definitive answer. Admiral have said the loss adjuster has advised it's a valid claim, but Admiral are waiting on a Scope of Works (or something like that) so I'm a little unsure where I stand at the minute. Hopefully I'll have a clear answer soon.

Thanks for updating us. That sounds very promising if they see it as a valid claim. The next stage should just be a discussion as to what needs to be done to put the wall right. Everything's negotiable, within reason, so if their proposals seem unreasonable discuss it with them. With luck though you'll just get a quick and simple resolution.

Hi again, I hope you're keeping well. So I was getting a bit concerned I wasn't hearing anything and rightly so. They have decided now to reject the claim, the CCG had sent me an email last week (sitting in my junk folder:

I chased this for you late last week to get an idea on what was happening. The matter got referred to Admiral’s Technical department for review.

They advised me that they reviewed the case in line with your policy (see attached document).

Please refer to page 14 in the What is covered / What is not covered section, point 7, in which it specifically states ‘What is not Covered’ - Loss or damage caused:

• By subsidence, heave or landslip resulting from storm or flood

Admiral have made specific reference to the highlighted wording above, and have used this as justification as to why they will not be looking to cover the claim, as ultimately the wall has collapsed under pressure from a rivers water flow which was exacerbated by the adverse weather. On this basis the claim is declined in full.

I was shocked to say the least, as I was told on quite a few occasions this was valid. They'd even sent me an email a month ago stating it was with the Admiral technical team to gather information on costs.

I'll complain as the wall is now in a worse condition. If they'd have rejected the claim in the first place I'd have quickly moved on with getting it fixed myself. But to tell me it's a valid claim and then go back on it doesn't seem right to me.

That’s an odd situation. I mentioned I think in an earlier post that they might use that as a means of refusing the claim, and suggested a possible alternative route, but if they’ve accepted liability that opens up new possibilities.

Have Admiral themselves given you something which could be interpreted as an acceptance?

frank2020

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Hi, thanks for replying.
My insurance is standard and to be honest I'm not sure what caused the damage. I think the substantial rainfall from the recent storm and the clay soil becoming heavier may have caused it. All I know is that it's happened during the last week (Strom Dennis) and it was showing no signs of wear and tear in the summer. Thank you

I've looked at the standard Admiral policy wording, and the answer, I'm afraid, is a little less than certain.  Garden walls are theoretically covered:

Buildings: Your home including its permanent fixtures and fittings, central heating fuel storage tanks and drains, permanently connected pipes and cables, service tank, solar panels and wind turbines permanently fixed to the buildings or the ground, including its: drives, decking, fences, garden walls, gates, ground source heating pumps, hard tennis courts, paths, patios, permanently fixed hot tubs or jacuzzis, permanent swimming pools built of brick, stone or concrete, septic tanks and terraces.

But they might try to argue that it's the result of subsidence, which excludes the following damage:

To gardens, lawns, patios, terraces, tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs, walls, fences, gates, drives, service tanks, drains, septic tanks, pipes, cables and central-heating oil tanks, unless your home is damaged as well

Flood damage would probably be the best route to use to try to get round that - you'd need to show that the wall was in perfectly good condition before the storm (policy definition: A specific, identified storm including strong winds in excess of 47 knots (54mph) that may include heavy rain, snow or sleet.)

If you argue that a perfectly good wall, in good condition, was simply washed away by the flow of water they may accept the claim.  There is a downside, though, in that they may reassess the flood risk for your particular property.

Thank you very much for taking your time to look into that for me, very much appreciated. I will go with that approach and fingers crossed it's positive news. If not, at least the surveyor who comes out to look will be able to tell us what I need to do to repair it. Thanks

No problem. I would be interested in the outcome though, once it’s resolved. Good luck.

Hi, bit of a long process, I still haven't had a definitive answer. Admiral have said the loss adjuster has advised it's a valid claim, but Admiral are waiting on a Scope of Works (or something like that) so I'm a little unsure where I stand at the minute. Hopefully I'll have a clear answer soon.

Thanks for updating us. That sounds very promising if they see it as a valid claim. The next stage should just be a discussion as to what needs to be done to put the wall right. Everything's negotiable, within reason, so if their proposals seem unreasonable discuss it with them. With luck though you'll just get a quick and simple resolution.

Hi again, I hope you're keeping well. So I was getting a bit concerned I wasn't hearing anything and rightly so. They have decided now to reject the claim, the CCG had sent me an email last week (sitting in my junk folder:

I chased this for you late last week to get an idea on what was happening. The matter got referred to Admiral’s Technical department for review.

They advised me that they reviewed the case in line with your policy (see attached document).

Please refer to page 14 in the What is covered / What is not covered section, point 7, in which it specifically states ‘What is not Covered’ - Loss or damage caused:

• By subsidence, heave or landslip resulting from storm or flood

Admiral have made specific reference to the highlighted wording above, and have used this as justification as to why they will not be looking to cover the claim, as ultimately the wall has collapsed under pressure from a rivers water flow which was exacerbated by the adverse weather. On this basis the claim is declined in full.

I was shocked to say the least, as I was told on quite a few occasions this was valid. They'd even sent me an email a month ago stating it was with the Admiral technical team to gather information on costs.

I'll complain as the wall is now in a worse condition. If they'd have rejected the claim in the first place I'd have quickly moved on with getting it fixed myself. But to tell me it's a valid claim and then go back on it doesn't seem right to me.

That’s an odd situation. I mentioned I think in an earlier post that they might use that as a means of refusing the claim, and suggested a possible alternative route, but if they’ve accepted liability that opens up new possibilities.

Have Admiral themselves given you something which could be interpreted as an acceptance?

Unfortunately not, they only ever said it over the phone, they did send me an update in February:

We are currently in the process of obtaining accurate costings for the claim from the Claims Consortium Group. The claim has also been passed across to our Technical Team to review due to the estimated costings on the claim. Once the outcome of these two actions have been completed we will look to arrange contact with yourself with a present position.

But it doesn't seem I have much to go on, I'll make my complaint however as I think they've handled it quite poorly.
Thanks for your help

accorian

Our car insurance policy is on auto renew with general Accident -- on the proviso that 1 month before it renewal, General Accident notify us of the new premium in a letter which also reminds us of what we're currently paying so we can compare and contrast.

The system has worked perfectly well for us over the past 3 years; GA has never sought to abuse its position.

I personally would not enter into ANY auto-renew arrangement with any service provider unless it was on the same basis as the arrangement we have with GA.

Must admit: I actually thought all auto-renew arrangements in the UK were covered by some or other consumer protection legislation, whereby notice of new £ premium had to be given 4 weeks prior to the date of that premium coming into force.

Here's a link to a BBC News round-up on the antics of various insurers, I'm not sure of the date:   https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1ZMshDHTQhv0jc0Wv6DG33v/does-an-automatic-renewal-on-your-car-insurance-pay

Doc_N

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Doc_N said:

frank2020 said:

Hi, thanks for replying.
My insurance is standard and to be honest I'm not sure what caused the damage. I think the substantial rainfall from the recent storm and the clay soil becoming heavier may have caused it. All I know is that it's happened during the last week (Strom Dennis) and it was showing no signs of wear and tear in the summer. Thank you

I've looked at the standard Admiral policy wording, and the answer, I'm afraid, is a little less than certain.  Garden walls are theoretically covered:

Buildings: Your home including its permanent fixtures and fittings, central heating fuel storage tanks and drains, permanently connected pipes and cables, service tank, solar panels and wind turbines permanently fixed to the buildings or the ground, including its: drives, decking, fences, garden walls, gates, ground source heating pumps, hard tennis courts, paths, patios, permanently fixed hot tubs or jacuzzis, permanent swimming pools built of brick, stone or concrete, septic tanks and terraces.

But they might try to argue that it's the result of subsidence, which excludes the following damage:

To gardens, lawns, patios, terraces, tennis courts, outdoor swimming pools, hot tubs, walls, fences, gates, drives, service tanks, drains, septic tanks, pipes, cables and central-heating oil tanks, unless your home is damaged as well

Flood damage would probably be the best route to use to try to get round that - you'd need to show that the wall was in perfectly good condition before the storm (policy definition: A specific, identified storm including strong winds in excess of 47 knots (54mph) that may include heavy rain, snow or sleet.)

If you argue that a perfectly good wall, in good condition, was simply washed away by the flow of water they may accept the claim.  There is a downside, though, in that they may reassess the flood risk for your particular property.

Thank you very much for taking your time to look into that for me, very much appreciated. I will go with that approach and fingers crossed it's positive news. If not, at least the surveyor who comes out to look will be able to tell us what I need to do to repair it. Thanks

No problem. I would be interested in the outcome though, once it’s resolved. Good luck.

Hi, bit of a long process, I still haven't had a definitive answer. Admiral have said the loss adjuster has advised it's a valid claim, but Admiral are waiting on a Scope of Works (or something like that) so I'm a little unsure where I stand at the minute. Hopefully I'll have a clear answer soon.

Thanks for updating us. That sounds very promising if they see it as a valid claim. The next stage should just be a discussion as to what needs to be done to put the wall right. Everything's negotiable, within reason, so if their proposals seem unreasonable discuss it with them. With luck though you'll just get a quick and simple resolution.

Hi again, I hope you're keeping well. So I was getting a bit concerned I wasn't hearing anything and rightly so. They have decided now to reject the claim, the CCG had sent me an email last week (sitting in my junk folder:

I chased this for you late last week to get an idea on what was happening. The matter got referred to Admiral’s Technical department for review.

They advised me that they reviewed the case in line with your policy (see attached document).

Please refer to page 14 in the What is covered / What is not covered section, point 7, in which it specifically states ‘What is not Covered’ - Loss or damage caused:

• By subsidence, heave or landslip resulting from storm or flood

Admiral have made specific reference to the highlighted wording above, and have used this as justification as to why they will not be looking to cover the claim, as ultimately the wall has collapsed under pressure from a rivers water flow which was exacerbated by the adverse weather. On this basis the claim is declined in full.

I was shocked to say the least, as I was told on quite a few occasions this was valid. They'd even sent me an email a month ago stating it was with the Admiral technical team to gather information on costs.

I'll complain as the wall is now in a worse condition. If they'd have rejected the claim in the first place I'd have quickly moved on with getting it fixed myself. But to tell me it's a valid claim and then go back on it doesn't seem right to me.

That’s an odd situation. I mentioned I think in an earlier post that they might use that as a means of refusing the claim, and suggested a possible alternative route, but if they’ve accepted liability that opens up new possibilities.

Have Admiral themselves given you something which could be interpreted as an acceptance?

Unfortunately not, they only ever said it over the phone, they did send me an update in February:

We are currently in the process of obtaining accurate costings for the claim from the Claims Consortium Group. The claim has also been passed across to our Technical Team to review due to the estimated costings on the claim. Once the outcome of these two actions have been completed we will look to arrange contact with yourself with a present position.

But it doesn't seem I have much to go on, I'll make my complaint however as I think they've handled it quite poorly.
Thanks for your help

No problem.  Obviously it would be ideal to have had something in writing, but if they did tell you over the phone that the claim had been accepted you can be pretty sure that they’ll have a recording of the call.  It’s standard practice.  If they can confirm that, I’d be surprised if they don’t back down.

Failing that, a threat to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service may help.  Firstly because each investigation has a financial cost to the insurer, and secondly because the FOS might view the wording above as interpretable by you as an acceptance.