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

    • Eh? That wasn't "my quote"! If you look at your post above,it is clearly a quote by Rockets! None of us have any  idea what a Corbyn led government during Covid would have been like. But do you seriously think it would have been worse than Johnson's self-serving performance? What you say about the swing of seats away from Labour in 2019 is true. But you have missed my point completely. The fact that Labour under Corbyn got more than ten million votes does not mean that Corbyn was "unelectable", does it? The present electoral system is bonkers, which is why a change is apparently on the cards. Anyway, it is pointless discussing this, because we are going round in circles. As for McCluskey, whatever the truth of that report, I can't see what it has to do with Corbyn?
    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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