Claiming on a Plumbers insurance

Discussion in 'Plumbers' Talk' started by Coopertrooper2001, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. dcox

    dcox Screwfix Select

    If I was an insurance company looking at your pictures, I think I would say that someone had put their foot through the ceiling. It looks like impact damage rather than water damage.

    If it had been leaking for a while I would expect to see a growing ‘tide mark’ getting quite large and saggy until the saturated plaster became heavy enough to pull itself down.

    Sorry if that sounds negative.
     
    The Teach likes this.
  2. koolpc

    koolpc Super Member

    After 3 years! No chance!
     
  3. terrymac

    terrymac Screwfix Select

    I am afraid I have to agree.
     
  4. jonathanc

    jonathanc Guest

    completely agree. There would be tide mark
     
  5. sparky steve

    sparky steve Screwfix Select

    I also agree, there does not appear to be any water staining as you would expect
     
  6. CraigMcK

    CraigMcK Screwfix Select

    Are you sure the water came from there. It's clearly wet wet further along, which would suggest the water was not leaking from the condensate pipe? On the basis the soil pipe is running down from right to left, water would not run uphill


    upload_2020-2-13_8-28-6.png
     
  7. The Teach

    The Teach Screwfix Select

    They would have issued an invoice for the work they have carried out,it may mention why the pipe leaked.Hopefully the emergency plumber was sent by your home insurance company ;).

    If not done already contact your home insurance company,they can discuss the situation with the original plumbers publib insurers. Dont forget there are time limits and you may not be helping yourself by delaying the process or discussing here.

    The insurance may settle in full,if not you have to ask the original installer to cover your reasonable costs.You will need an expert witness to prove the pipe was installed incorrectly.

    The pipe photos are interesting ;)

    After 3 years,the damage will be accidental rather than intentional :)

    The Photo of the holed ceiling seems odd :rolleyes:
     
  8. Joe the Plumber

    Joe the Plumber Screwfix Select

    What I think will happen here is this:

    1. The plumber's insurance will eventually reject the claim because you haven't (unless I've missed it somewhere) now any proof of what the leaking
    fitting was like before it was repaired.

    2. You'll have a load of hassle trying and failing with the claim, with all the associated stress for probably a year or so.

    3. The plumber's next insurance renewal will cost him a lot more because he has a claim against him, even though it was thrown out.

    4. As a result of you claiming, and the stress he's going to have, he won't ever work for you again, even if you want him to.

    5. You'll then need to find another plumber who you can trust....

    So no-one will win, and it's all a load of hassle for everyone for, frankly, nothing (I don't mean the damage is nothing incidentally, just the likely benefit to you).
    I'd let it dry out, employ a plasterer to repair the hole, get it re-decorated and get on with your life.

    If you claim on your house insurance, you'll end up with increased premiums for years and have to pay the excess anyway. Leave them out of it.

    Sorry, but I think this is a realistic assessment of the likely outcome, unless you can absolutely prove the fault was the plumber's.
     
    davidnb, rogerk101, stevie22 and 2 others like this.
  9. furious_customer

    furious_customer Screwfix Select

    My insurance co sued a plumber for recovery of costs 18 months after a botched soil pipe installation.
    They recoverd repair costs plus our alternative accomodation costs and clean-up costs (including having all of our clothes dry-cleaned).

    if it wasn't possible to sue a plumber after they had left site then PL insurance would cost buttons.

    Also consider the follk that have been prosecuted for doing defective gas work long after they have left site.
     
  10. furious_customer

    furious_customer Screwfix Select

    What I think would happen is this :-

    1. homeoeners contacts their insurance co.
    2. Insurance co sends loss adjuster to inspect the damage and look for a root cause.
    3. If loss adjuster believes the root cause was faulty plumbing work then he will notify the insurance co of this.
    4. Insurance co will either appoint contractor for re-instatement or send a cheque to homeowner if they chose to use their own contractor.
    5. If LA told insurnace co the root cause was fsaulty plumbing then insurance co will appoint a local solicitor from their panel.
    6. Solicitor will contact homeowner for details of plumber.
    7. Solicitor will calculate all associated costs plus interest at 8% and send the bill to the plumber with the threat of court action.
    8. Plumber will then contact their insurance co who will appoint a solicitor.
    9. If solicitor thinks there is at least a 50% chance of a successfull defence then they will let it go to court. Otherwise they will inform insurance co they cannot defend and advise they should just pay out.

    This is certainly how it happened with us.
     
  11. furious_customer

    furious_customer Screwfix Select

    If the plumbers insurance co rejects the claim that just puts the plumber in the firing line as it will be the homeowners solicitor (on behalf of their insurance co. that is pursuing for recovery.
    They won't be looking for evidence of leaks, they will simply be looking to see if the pipework was installed correctly and was fit for purpose. They will appoint an independent inspector to do this whose evidence will stand up in court. it is possible to fit pipework badly but doesn't leak.
     
  12. furious_customer

    furious_customer Screwfix Select

    I think the question would be in your first pic, is the pipework fit for purpose and has it been installed with appropriate care and attention?
    I'm not a plumber, but it looks ok to me.
     
  13. jonathanc

    jonathanc Guest

    probably easier just to board it up and get someone to skim it - I'm no plasterer but that cannot be more than a mornings work - about £100. Just not worth faffing with insurance and making a mountain out of it...
     
    Joe the Plumber likes this.
  14. Hans_25

    Hans_25 Screwfix Select

    Even if it was a days work (plasterers often won't charge for a part-day) its £300 max.
     
  15. furious_customer

    furious_customer Screwfix Select

    I think that coving might need to come down to get the plasterboard screwed into the joist.
     
    Hans_25 likes this.
  16. Hans_25

    Hans_25 Screwfix Select

    Good spot FC. Still, not a big job especially if the OP can prep.
     
  17. Coopertrooper2001

    Coopertrooper2001 New Member

    Thanks for all the replies folks.

    Whilst I agree the time factor might be an issue, I wouldn't have expected the pipe to leak. Back to the questions posed above, was the install originally fit for purpose.

    I have not involved my house insurance yet. Emergency plumber happy to produce a report. His comment was "lazy plumbing" in relation to using a single elbow causing stress over time on the joints which in turn caused the leak.

    The leaking area is above the green tray. The water had run along a plasterboard joint towards the centre of the bathroom (where there was a light fitting).

    The initial picture was after I had thrown a towel onto the sopping plasterboard. The towel just fell through the ceiling. I have then removed all the wet plasterboard to allow it to dry out. The tide marks were there, but have gone where I pulled the ceiling down.

    I will remove the coving and re-board it once properly dry. Had the plasterer round last night to quote. If it comes in under £500 I will just pay it as that is my insurance excess anyway.

    I fully appreciate issues like this do occur, even if the job has been done with reasonable care/skill. Given its the second leak we have had as a result of the works I feel a bit miffed having to pay for the repairs.
     
  18. sparky steve

    sparky steve Screwfix Select

    I suppose it all comes down to opinion?
    One tradesperson may say it has to be done a certain way, another will disagree & then state their way! However the fact is there are many ways to complete a task, just a matter of choice to achieve the same goal.
    Just because one tradesperson does not share the same opinion on how the task should have been completed, does not mean the task has been completed wrongly.
    Good luck.
    Regards
     
  19. The Teach

    The Teach Screwfix Select

    condensate leak damage is different from mains water and again different from ch inhibited water. seen it all before and i am old :cool:

    goood to hear its going to be sorted ;)
     
  20. heatyman

    heatyman Well-Known Member

    I had an instance where next doors waste pipe, a Housing Trust property, leaked and passed through the wall into my hall. I went to see the Housing Trust, who denied responsibility for their tenant. My insurers would not repair until they had written confirmation of the Trust's repair, which was like pulling teeth. Eventually my insurers repaired, I paid the excess, subject to a refund when the Housing Trust claim was settled. After 5 months, with many letters to the Insurers and their solicitors, the legal advice was that the Trust had no liability for their tenant or property. My insurance was with Barclay's, but underwritten by Aviva. Guess who the Trust's insurers were; yes, Aviva! So anyway it worked, Aviva was picking up the bill and they decided they could get my excess plus loss of bonus. It took a lot of hassle and time, but I eventually got my excess back, my N.C.B. reinstated plus an ex gratia payment for the aggravation.
    The lesson is DON'T GIVE UP!!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice