Plumbing woes...leaks and insurance

Koeman2021

Ex Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
2,283
Reaction score
1,077
Points
645
Age
40
Location
Burnley
Came down this morning to dribblings of water coming through the light fitting onto the floor. The ceiling is sodden as is the floor. Only used the bath/shower so must be that. Leak only flowing after using it. So don't believe it's on the incoming water. The patch is about 6ft away from the bath.

We have emergency cover on our insurance so called them out. Plumber came this afternoon and said there's no water escaping at the bath, but the waste runs behind a tiled wall and believes it commons into the main waste at the toilet. This would explain the distance of the patch away.

Anyway to cut to the chase the insurance won't cover us for tracking the leak, not part of our policy, will only repair the water damage. Also not any damage done trying to find the leak. However, they have said if we access It through the already damaged ceiling they are fine with that.

I've tried to get someone out but plumbers appear very busy so stuck an ad up on some websites and local Facebook groups awaiting some response.

Anyway my question is how possible is it to resolve an issue from the ceiling below? Or am I being unrealistic?

They are old proper floorboards, ceiling is lat and plaster. The bathroom waste runs above that ceiling to the main sewer stack.
 
If it runs under the floor boards it's as easy from beneath as above and as you say if replacing the ceiling anyway then should work out ok.
 
Very difficult to say.

Lath and Plaster ceiling isn't going to be easy.

It's likely that the whole thing will need to come down and depending on the thickness of the lath and plaster, the new ceiling sometimes needs double boarding.

I would say that the cost of the plumbing repair is the least of your worries.
 
nothing to add but hope you get it sorted out at minimal cost to you...once again good old insurers using the 'yeah but....' get out clause.
 
Very difficult to say.

Lath and Plaster ceiling isn't going to be easy.

It's likely that the whole thing will need to come down and depending on the thickness of the lath and plaster, the new ceiling sometimes needs double boarding.

I would say that the cost of the plumbing repair is the least of your worries.

The bloody thing is wallpapered anyway which has ripped with the water. Ive mentioned to the insurance that I wouldn't accept a patch up as they'll never match the paper, and there's an original decorative ceiling rose that's been soaked. They've asked for quotes on replacing the whole lot if we deem it necessary.

Anyway, I've had a look and looks like plasterboard to me, it was my dad that suggested otherwise.
IMG_7040.jpg
 
If it runs under the floor boards it's as easy from beneath as above and as you say if replacing the ceiling anyway then should work out ok.

It runs right across the damaged ceiling of my dining room on a diagonal to the sewer stack.

The kitchen is an extension on the back of the original house. So the waste runs through a boxed in section in the kitchen
 
nothing to add but hope you get it sorted out at minimal cost to you...once again good old insurers using the 'yeah but....' get out clause.

I was gutted. This is with more than, part of RSA. Always thought they would be reliable.
 
nothing to add but hope you get it sorted out at minimal cost to you...once again good old insurers using the 'yeah but....' get out clause.
More like the consequence of buying based on price. Customers willing to swap insurers to save £1 a year so insurers aiming at the price conscious customer have to find ways to cut costs and easiest way to cut costs is to remove the bells and whistles coverages like Trace & Access cover.

Want all the extras like Matching Set coverage? Put your hand in your pocket and buy a decent product from the likes of Hiscox.
 
More like the consequence of buying based on price. Customers willing to swap insurers to save £1 a year so insurers aiming at the price conscious customer have to find ways to cut costs and easiest way to cut costs is to remove the bells and whistles coverages like Trace & Access cover.

Want all the extras like Matching Set coverage? Put your hand in your pocket and buy a decent product from the likes of Hiscox.

I'm not trying to say that I disagree with the coverage, I agree with what's on my policy.

I just think it's a bit daft that if I do work (at my cost) to prevent further damage to "insured" items, the they won't cover it. Just seems backwards.

They've dealt with me well, got a flooring specialist from them coming Tuesday. Been told to get a quote from preferred plastering contractor and they'll deal with that.

They also suggested creating a hole in ceiling that is already damaged myself to save cost on repair.

Can't say any fairer
 
Insurers don't cover wear and tear hence the fact that trace and access isn't covered by many policies. You also have a contractual obligation to mitigate your losses and so cannot "just leave it" until its so bad that it becomes and insurable event.

Similarly home emergency cover is there to deal with the emergency not to deal with the aesthetic issues it leaves.

If you want cover for the inevitable march of time on your property that is where warranties come in but as you move from "if" to "when" you'll note a notable change in price
 
Insurers don't cover wear and tear hence the fact that trace and access isn't covered by many policies. You also have a contractual obligation to mitigate your losses and so cannot "just leave it" until its so bad that it becomes and insurable event.

Similarly home emergency cover is there to deal with the emergency not to deal with the aesthetic issues it leaves.

If you want cover for the inevitable march of time on your property that is where warranties come in but as you move from "if" to "when" you'll note a notable change in price

I'm not talking about "leaving" anything. I'm getting it resolved.

I do have home emergency cover, who deemed this leak a non emergency.

Like I say, I'm at peace with the world. It will be sorted.
 
And I, as much for the sake of others, are highlighting the "trace and access" clause, explaining why it is what it is as well as highlighting that there are higher end insurers who do cover this and other things so if its important to you, you can get the extra cover.

I just think it's a bit daft that if I do work (at my cost) to prevent further damage to "insured" items, the they won't cover it. Just seems backwards.

You yourself raised the point that you didn't get why they didn't cover it when its effectively in their interest for it to be fixed before it gets worse and that's the reason, its your responsibility to fix the wear and tear aspect and if you were to leave it to get worse then you'd potentially invalidate your cover (not saying you would do)
 
And I, as much for the sake of others, are highlighting the "trace and access" clause, explaining why it is what it is as well as highlighting that there are higher end insurers who do cover this and other things so if its important to you, you can get the extra cover.



You yourself raised the point that you didn't get why they didn't cover it when its effectively in their interest for it to be fixed before it gets worse and that's the reason, its your responsibility to fix the wear and tear aspect and if you were to leave it to get worse then you'd potentially invalidate your cover (not saying you would do)
I would never expect an insurance company to pay for the repair anyway as has been said that wear and tear. I would only expect them to cover the ensuing damage.
 
I would never expect an insurance company to pay for the repair anyway as has been said that wear and tear. I would only expect them to cover the ensuing damage.
Which ensuing damage? Of the leak or the repair?

The op said they've confirmed their insurers advised them that the leak damage is covered and hence if the repair can be done through that then it's all paid for but if the repair causes more damage then it's not.
 
Which ensuing damage? Of the leak or the repair?

The op said they've confirmed their insurers advised them that the leak damage is covered and hence if the repair can be done through that then it's all paid for but if the repair causes more damage then it's not.
I understand, I know his damage repair is covered. I am saying in my case I wouldn't expect the plumbing repair to be covered so I would go for the cheapest insurance as I would probably do most repairs myself.
 
Unfortunately most think the damage to repair the leak is also covered. The one that occurs less often but proportionally causes more complaints is the matching set cover (or lack of it).

So you irreparably damage 2 doors of your 20 cupboard kitchen which is no longer made. Under a standard policy they pay you the original value of 2 doors and it's your problem you can't replace them. Under a higher policy they'll pay to replace all the doors or for a Bespoke replacement to be made.
 
I wouldn't even claim. Within reason anyway.

Sometimes we have insurances just because we have to.
 
Unfortunately most think the damage to repair the leak is also covered. The one that occurs less often but proportionally causes more complaints is the matching set cover (or lack of it).

So you irreparably damage 2 doors of your 20 cupboard kitchen which is no longer made. Under a standard policy they pay you the original value of 2 doors and it's your problem you can't replace them. Under a higher policy they'll pay to replace all the doors or for a Bespoke replacement to be made.

If an armchair or sofa gets damaged under an insurable risk, how many insurers will replace the whole suite?
 
I agree with Wahreo, I'd just let the ceiling dry and see what happens, same with the floor, same with the other thread, claiming because his microwave leg has fallen off, or a small chip in the table.

I couldn't be arsed with all the faff, phone calls, trades in and out, all the mess. I think non tradies, are like OMG, water, lets replace the whole house, rather than sitting back assessing and looking at what 'REAL' damage has been done.
 
If an armchair or sofa gets damaged under an insurable risk, how many insurers will replace the whole suite?

Don't have stats but I'd guess its even less common than trace and access cover.

Where Matching Set also comes in a lot is things like kitchen units or tiles. That said, certainly a few years ago if you complained to the FOS it would typically make the insurer pay a 50% contribution to replacing the undamaged parts of the set but that could still leave you with a fairly big bill.

Not just because we have to, as we don't have to
Depends on the class of insurance you're talking about and if Home, then your residential status. If you have a mortgage on the property you'll certainly be required to hold Buildings insurance. Every tenancy agreement I've seen require you to hold Landlord Liability insurance which is a subsection of Contents cover.
 
Yes that's what I was talking about- home insurance.

I've never claimed and not very likely to claim.

I usually just get the cheapest policy and save more each month which is my own private insurance.
 
A perfectly valid approach if that works for you and your lifestyle etc.

Personally, the average cost of items we travel/ go out with are high enough that you only need an event of a camera bag being stolen or such once every 60 years for us to have broken even and that doesn't factor in the cost of a real total loss like a big fire at home.
 
Why would you not claim? Why bother with the insurance?

I made a claim for a accidentally damaged tv about 4 years ago, replaced with new. £800 tv, £50 excess, my premium the following year stayed the same.
 
I've never had to claim.

I don't think I have accidental damage on my policy.

Basically a cheap policy but I'm very careful with my items
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom