Typical - Insurance co wriggling out of a

  jack 08:13 16 Jun 2009
Locked

potential payout- perhaps?
Rem ember this click here?

OK 10 days are up -
Still getting the deluge
1. Onto insurance co
2. onto Managing agent.

1.Insurance co legal folk happy to discuss- but hinted- that a pay out may not happen because it is/was a 'pre existing condition' at time of accepting the risk-[there have been several several insurance co's during the time of the condition and many 'repairs']
2.Managing agent has new 'Lettings' person she needs time to get up to speed with the case.
Huh! - wriggle wriggle?


Yet to contact local authority 'Health' next move perhaps

  namtas 08:28 16 Jun 2009

'may not happen because it is/was a 'pre existing condition' at time of accepting the risk'

Do they mean that 'as your street was under water when you took out the insurance cover?'

  jack 08:38 16 Jun 2009

Read the link- it is in fact the upstairs flat with a persistent leak from their bathroom dripping through into daughters living room- many times- AFTER the plumber has been and FIXED it.

  peter99co 12:33 16 Jun 2009

I bet the leak is from their shower. Very difficult to trace.

  lotvic 12:50 16 Jun 2009

Maybe you should be treating each leak as a 'new' one after each repair?
or the occupants of leaky flat should be fetching back the plumber as he has not done the job he has been paid for.

  laurie53 20:36 16 Jun 2009

It's a real truism - You never know how good your insurance company is until you claim.

  Forum Editor 23:42 16 Jun 2009

to have continued this in the original thread, then you wouldn't have to tell people to "Read the link". It irritates people when a topic is split between two threads.

Your daughter is obliged to demonstrate to her insurers that she has taken steps to mitigate their loss in the event of a claim, so she should make sure she keeps a log of all conversations and phone calls, as well making copies of any documents. The insurers have a valid point with their 'pre-existing condition' statement, as the persistent leak was already occurring when they issued the policy. They'll have a strong case for refusing to settle in such circumstances, although I'm not suggesting that your daughter shouldn't pursue it with them.

The managing agent acts for the leaseholder, and if I was paying an agent I would be more than a tad miffed if I discovered that said agent had failed to act to minimise my financial exposure on this. If your daughter's insurers settle a claim they will in turn look to the leaseholder's insurers, and those insurers will want to hear that someone took steps to mitigate their potential loss - everyone looks for someone to blame.

Your daughter is obviously powerless to do anything herself because she can't instruct a plumber to enter the upstairs property. What she can do is ask the tenants if they'll agree to let a plumber or builder to fix the problem. If they do agree she'll have to pay for the work, and recover the cost from the leaseholder. It's a complicated procedure,and she then has the problem of getting the money, but she can do that via the small claims court if necessary, and at least she'll have prevented further damage to her property.

  jack 10:09 17 Jun 2009

As I had ticked the previous one off[I am aware o being able to continue to post]
A fresh start I thought would be appropriate.
It is of course a waiting game- As the the insurer is in fact the same insurer and policy for the building, the leaseholder paying a 2/3 share[as their part is 2/3 of the structure] and daughter [as freeholder]is the policy holder.
We shall see what prevails.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

The Evil Within 2 review-in-progress

Adobe shows still-in-development tools, including automatically colourising black-and-white photos

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment transformer un iPhone en borne Wi-Fi ?