Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi there,


We recently had a disaster with our floor to ceiling tiled bathroom and subsequently 1 wall and a bit of another need re-tiling. The old tiles are discontinued and the insurance company will only pay for the cost of re-tiling the damaged walls. So basically we need to pay for the rest to be done as we don't have a matching items cover on our policy annoyingly, or have random mismatching tiles.


We have tried arguing this with the insurance company and they are not giving way and the quote to get the rest of the bathroom done is quite a lot. Has anyone any advice as to whether it's worth continuing to fight this, I've written below the clause in the policy that they refer to.


In settling your claim we will not:

pay for the cost of replacing or changing undamaged parts of the buildings which belong to a set or suite which have a common design or use when insured damage happens to another part or area of that suite or set and replacements cannot be matched and repair cannot be carried out satisfactorily.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/19049-house-insurance-help-any-advice/
Share on other sites

You would have to argue that set or suite applied to sanitary ware for example but not tiles. I suppose it also comes down to what constitutes "parts of the building". If they take this to an extreme they could fix a crack in a wall and only replace the individual tiles that straddle the crack rather than the entire wall. This would seem quite unreasonable. However, if they will cover the repair to the whole of the damaged walls but are drawing the line at additional undamaged walls then this seems to be broadly in the spirit of the clause (whilst obviously irritating).


Sounds more like a case of you having insurance that is less good than you hoped than a case of them trying to shirk their responsibility under the terms of the insurance to me (not a lawyer).


What do the tiles look like, can you find something close?

From my basic knowledge gathered from studying an insurance claims handling module at the moment, I think that they are within their rights to decline to pay for the rest of the undamaged tiles to be replaced. I know it seems unfair, but that is a sets and pairs clause you have quoted and it does allow them to only pay for the damaged section and if the rest doesn't match then unfortunately that is down to you to sort out. I could be wrong, but pretty sure they are within their rights to decline. You can appeal to the Financial Ombudsman, but you need to write to your insurer and get their final reponse first before taking it further.

Aletha,


Agree - I think you're on a losing cause. A carpet is a singular "whole" item. Tiling is a collection of several, matching, items. If the carpet were damaged the whole would be replaced - but not undamaged wallpaper that no longer matched the carpet?


The insurance company is paying to restore the utility not the decor of your bathroom.


That said, years ago we were burgled and the insurance company offered to replace the stolen jewellery with items from H Samuels high street dealer in tat. As many of the stolen items were specially designed gifts, or inherited from granny & grandad with sentimental rather than intrinsic value (how could an H Samuels pair of cufflinks / brooch replace grandad's / grandma's inherited cufflinks / brooch that he / she bought in Cairo in 1941 etc etc) we eventually argued successfully for a proper cash sum rather than a one for one replacement - with the cash we scoured markets and dealers to replace our lot items. If you settle for a reasonable cash sum you might be able top redecorate most, if not all, with little extra expense.

Hi Aletha,

I've been phoning round for contents insurance and set or suites clauses seem to be creeping across all areas as the standard. We have the same colour carpet throughout the ground floor of the house so it's always something I check. It used to be pretty easy to find a policy that would replace the whole lot if a bit gets damaged in one room, but now I've been getting lots of responses in the negative or that it would be considered on a 'case by case' basis. I had a conversation with one broker and your situation was almost exactly the example he gave me. It did occur to me that the fashion for 'feature walls' may be a problem as it seems to negate the whole room idea of wall-covering.

There are still companies who will cover sets, or repeated decoration, but the premiums are a lot higher.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...