House Ins claim - not being accepted

[Forrest1]

Just after some thoughts re:a claim on our house insurance.

Background
We noticed our shower was leaking (well dripping after we had turned it off) and arranged for a plumber to come and have a look . He confirmed that basically the shower had had it … not only were the mixer taps in a state but it looked as though water was leaking behind the shower unit and tiles into the waterboard backing. At that point insurance hadn’t even crossed our minds, we ordered new shower and set out to find replacement tiles for the ones that would have to be removed in order to get to the water board backing. Unfortunately we couldn’t find a match. We even managed to speak to previous owner who said that they bought the tiles from B&Q (appx 10 years ago) - so we traipsed back there over the bank holiday and was told they were no longer stocked.

That’s when we thought about having to make a claim … not for the shower but for the tiling… the whole bathroom has floor to ceiling tiles and replacing the lot was the only option. Phoned insurance company today and they are now pushing back saying it’s down to wear and tear .

I agreed that the shower unit itself may have failed due to wear and tear but that wasn’t what we were claiming for. I tried to explain that our claim related specifically to the resultant damage caused by the leak. However they are saying it’s all the same and are so far refusing.

Just wondering if people think that’s right and we just have to accept or if Ins co are trying it on?

[surveyor]

Depends entirely on policy wording.

I would expect then to be right though

[Portofino]

In my past experience with quite a few showers leaking, the insurance company will claim the sealant, grout, plumbing or the unit failed due to wear & tear or neglect of renewing the sealant/ grout I’m afraid.

Boiled my piss each time as you can’t prove/disprove a lot of it. One of those classic insurance company small print get out clauses.

[GasEngineer]

What actually caused the water leak? Was it the supply pipes to the shower in the wall or a failure of the shower valve itself?

Was it a leak caused by inadequate sealing around the shower valve / shower tray or possibly a cracked tile or grout that only let water in when the shower was being used?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

It's a tricky one. Normal policies would cover damage as a result of something failing due to wear and tear, but not replacing the worn out thing. So a pipe fails due to it being old and corroding, they'd pay for damage done by the leak to wallpaper and carpets and stuff, but you'd pay to get the pipe repaired.

But in this case, the tiles aren't damaged. They just need to be removed to fix the problem, and they will get damaged in that process. You could replace the damaged tiles with other tiles but it wouldn't look as good as they won't match. So you want them to replace all the tiles, none of which have been damaged by the leak and only a few of which you need to damage in order to carry out the work. I bet they would pay for the damaged backing boards if you asked them, as they've actually been damaged by the leak.

Sorry but i think they are right. Basically, you need some maintenance done on your house to fix something that's broken, and in order to do it, something completely undamaged has to be broken to get to the job done. The thing you need to break is no longer available, and it matches a dozen other things, so you need to replace all of them to get everything back to looking as good as it did before. To me, that's all part of the cost of maintenance, not resultant costs from failure of the broken thing.

We had a faulty light switch. Couldn't replace it so had to buy a different one, that then stood out so ended up replacing all the downstairs working light switches so they matched.

[Forrest1]

Thanks all… yes Twig you hit the nail on the head.

As you say they would likely pay for the backboard repair/replacement but to do that there needs to be collateral damage of perfectly fine and unbroken tiles which is where I thought I might be able to claim


I’ll try one more time to see if they will budge but fear we will either have to have a couple of odd tiles or suck it up and get the whole room done

[Forrest1]

Thanks all… yes Twig you hit the nail on the head.

As you say they would likely pay for the backboard repair/replacement but to do that there needs to be collateral damage of perfectly fine and unbroken tiles which is where I thought I might be able to claim


I’ll try one more time to see if they will budge but fear we will either have to have a couple of odd tiles or suck it up and get the whole room done

[RazerSauber]

If the shower's wear and tear is the root cause then I'd say you're SOL. They won't cover the shower, nor any consequence of it. If the pipes had split then it isn't wear and tear and they'd cover the fix and any consequential failure.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RazerSauber said:

If the shower's wear and tear is the root cause then I'd say you're SOL. They won't cover the shower, nor any consequence of it.

I think they will. They wouldn't fix the shower, quite right, but if that caused damage to carpets or wallpaper downstairs, or his bathroom flooring or whatever, that would be covered. The problem here is that the OP's claim is for stuff that's completely undamaged, the tiles, and a small section only has to be damaged as part of the job of fixing the shower.

[carl_w]

Can't you make a feature of it and have different coloured tiles on the back board?

[vaud]

Portofino said:

In my past experience with quite a few showers leaking, the insurance company will claim the sealant, grout, plumbing or the unit failed due to wear & tear or neglect of renewing the sealant/ grout I’m afraid.

Boiled my piss each time as you can’t prove/disprove a lot of it. One of those classic insurance company small print get out clauses.

In the other hand it reduces the risk of someone doing it deliberately and gaining a new bathroom (or part of)

It’s insurance based on their terms, not a house warranty for wear and tear.

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's a tricky one. Normal policies would cover damage as a result of something failing due to wear and tear, but not replacing the worn out thing. So a pipe fails due to it being old and corroding, they'd pay for damage done by the leak to wallpaper and carpets and stuff, but you'd pay to get the pipe repaired.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if they'd cover damage caused by a wear and tear failure, or damage due to corrosion, unless it suddenly failed

Normally it's got to be some sudden and unexpected event - a pipe bursting etc - not a gradual failure.

That said, my policy seems to cover all necessary work to repair a leak including removing and repairing the surrounding structure. A colleague's kids overflowed the bath, water ran down into the kitchen so both laminate floors had water under them and had to come up. Both bathroom and kitchen had been installed on top of the floors so he got a new bathoom and kitchen out of it.

[OutInTheShed]

If you want insurance policies to cover this kind of thing, they will be very expensive.

There was a thread last week or so, some people paying £3000 a year for their house insurance.
I pay more like £300.

I'm happy to treat insurance as cover for disasters, not minor repairs.

You have stuff in your bathroom with a finite service life, it's down to you to budget for replacing it and to understand the consequences of needing to replace stuff when you buy it in the first place.

If you spec a shower that needs all the tiles trashed to fix parts with a limited life, more fool you.

[Pica-Pica]

OutInTheShed said:

If you want insurance policies to cover this kind of thing, they will be very expensive.

There was a thread last week or so, some people paying £3000 a year for their house insurance.
I pay more like £300.

I'm happy to treat insurance as cover for disasters, not minor repairs.

You have stuff in your bathroom with a finite service life, it's down to you to budget for replacing it and to understand the consequences of needing to replace stuff when you buy it in the first place.

If you spec a shower that needs all the tiles trashed to fix parts with a limited life, more fool you.

That is it. Stuff fails over time. You need to recognise it before it fails or just as it begins to fail. I have house insurance for unpredictable disasters, not wear and tear- that is down to maintenance and vigilance. Our house insurance is £14 a month (no discount for annual payment)

[Forrest1]

OutInTheShed said:

If you want insurance policies to cover this kind of thing, they will be very expensive.

There was a thread last week or so, some people paying £3000 a year for their house insurance.
I pay more like £300.

I'm happy to treat insurance as cover for disasters, not minor repairs.

You have stuff in your bathroom with a finite service life, it's down to you to budget for replacing it and to understand the consequences of needing to replace stuff when you buy it in the first place.

If you spec a shower that needs all the tiles trashed to fix parts with a limited life, more fool you.

I didn't spec a shower that needed all my tiles trashed (try reading the posts before telling everyone how great you are). i wasnt after a lecture or for someone to tell me how to run my house i was after a view as to whether the insurance company were right or not - that's all. So, thanks for the comment but going forwards if you've nothing constructive or helpful to say then i'm more than happy for you to ignore this and move on with your perfect life.

[1690cc]

Perhaps tile the shower backboard area differently to be a feature. Pick a very different but coordinating tile and it could look good.

[Onespeeder]

Moral of the tale is, I fear, to have spare tiles.. Over 20 years ago we had our bathroom renewed with Porcellanosa tiles. I bought what turned out to be a box extra because I was not sure what wastage the tiler would need. That now lives in the back of the garage and when we had to renew the shower 8 years ago, needed 2 or 3 to infill and used a few for that. The box had collapsed but the tiles were and are still as new.

If I sold the house I would leave them behind for my successor who might, of coure, not want them.

Smug, or what!

[vaud]

Forrest1 said:

I didn't spec a shower that needed all my tiles trashed (try reading the posts before telling everyone how great you are). i wasnt after a lecture or for someone to tell me how to run my house i was after a view as to whether the insurance company were right or not - that's all. So, thanks for the comment but going forwards if you've nothing constructive or helpful to say then i'm more than happy for you to ignore this and move on with your perfect life.

Post a link to the terms of your policy and we can take a closer look.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's a tricky one. Normal policies would cover damage as a result of something failing due to wear and tear, but not replacing the worn out thing. So a pipe fails due to it being old and corroding, they'd pay for damage done by the leak to wallpaper and carpets and stuff, but you'd pay to get the pipe repaired.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if they'd cover damage caused by a wear and tear failure, or damage due to corrosion, unless it suddenly failed

Normally it's got to be some sudden and unexpected event - a pipe bursting etc - not a gradual failure.

If you have a slow leaking pipe where the damage being done is not visible, until it is, maybe a year later, most policies will pay to repair all damage done by the leak. Sudden or long term very rarely matters. But they won't pay to fix the pipe that's been leaking, that's on you. And they won't pay for a new floor if the undamaged flooring above the pipe has to be damaged to get to the leak. That's part of your cost of fixing the pipe.

That's what's done for the OP in this case. The main cost of what he wants to claim for is currently undamaged. It needs to be damaged to fix the problem.

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

If you have a slow leaking pipe where the damage being done is not visible, until it is, maybe a year later, most policies will pay to repair all damage done by the leak. Sudden or long term very rarely matters. But they won't pay to fix the pipe that's been leaking, that's on you. And they won't pay for a new floor if the undamaged flooring above the pipe has to be damaged to get to the leak. That's part of your cost of fixing the pipe.

That's what's done for the OP in this case. The main cost of what he wants to claim for is currently undamaged. It needs to be damaged to fix the problem.

Not the policy, just highlights, but I'd have no problem relying on this with LV:

"Under our buildings insurance we provide cover for damage caused to your home by water leaking, again, from any fixed tank, appliance or pipe. We'll also pay up to £5,000 or £10,000 on Home Plus (no cover is provided on Essentials) for the cost of removing and replacing any part of the structure of your home to find the source of a water leak so repairs can be carried out."