News1 min ago
Claim by Household Insurer
August 2008 as a result of a cloakroom installation undertaken by a sub-contract plumber in July 2007 who was recommended to the client by my business I am being sued by the Building Insurer.
The client noticed a small leak in a duct behind the wc in the cloakroom and called a plumber who blamed the fault on an uncapped waste in the side of the soil pipe, this would have let a small amount of water spill each time the bathroom or en-suite wc or bath was used. He apparently capped the pipe and invoiced for the call out.
I was first notified of this problem in November 2008 by a solicitor acting on behalf of the Buildings Insurer who requested my Insurer's details. As I only supply but do not install bathrooms I do not have insurance cover. I replied with a request to see evidence of the problem and a site visit which was flatly turned down.
In February 2009 a claim for the sum of �13k was sent to me for alleged repairs and reinstatement. This figure is grossly inflated as the cost of the bathroom, en-suite and cloakroom which we undertook from scratch only amounted to slightly more that �13k including labour and materials. The repair work involved replacing wall tiles in the cloakroom, a couple of kitchen cabinets (re-using existing doors),refitting existing sanitaryware etc and would certainly not amount to even a quarter of the sum being claimed.
Firstly should I have been offered the opportunity to see and reinstate the cloakroom after the initial visit by the emergency plumber who effected the repair?
Secondly are the Building Insurers permitted to instruct a repair at such inflated costs without obtaining at least two or three estimates and if so what control is there to ensure that the charge is proportional to the work undertake?
Finally should I be found liable would I be able to claim against the self employed plumber who had been paid directly by the client and been negligent causing the problem? It appears
The client noticed a small leak in a duct behind the wc in the cloakroom and called a plumber who blamed the fault on an uncapped waste in the side of the soil pipe, this would have let a small amount of water spill each time the bathroom or en-suite wc or bath was used. He apparently capped the pipe and invoiced for the call out.
I was first notified of this problem in November 2008 by a solicitor acting on behalf of the Buildings Insurer who requested my Insurer's details. As I only supply but do not install bathrooms I do not have insurance cover. I replied with a request to see evidence of the problem and a site visit which was flatly turned down.
In February 2009 a claim for the sum of �13k was sent to me for alleged repairs and reinstatement. This figure is grossly inflated as the cost of the bathroom, en-suite and cloakroom which we undertook from scratch only amounted to slightly more that �13k including labour and materials. The repair work involved replacing wall tiles in the cloakroom, a couple of kitchen cabinets (re-using existing doors),refitting existing sanitaryware etc and would certainly not amount to even a quarter of the sum being claimed.
Firstly should I have been offered the opportunity to see and reinstate the cloakroom after the initial visit by the emergency plumber who effected the repair?
Secondly are the Building Insurers permitted to instruct a repair at such inflated costs without obtaining at least two or three estimates and if so what control is there to ensure that the charge is proportional to the work undertake?
Finally should I be found liable would I be able to claim against the self employed plumber who had been paid directly by the client and been negligent causing the problem? It appears
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by geochoice. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the first instance, this surely boils down to whether your contract with the client was to supply and fit a complete bathroom, or just supply. You have already indicated that your business only undertakes supply, and the self-employed plumber did the installation.
Did you at any stage quote a price that included the labour element?, but then later stage just allow the client to deal with the plumber directly (this is valid - and avoids the direct employment of plumbers - as many similar businesses do - but it lends some credibility to their claim that your provides supply and fix services, in my opinion).
Did you at any stage quote a price that included the labour element?, but then later stage just allow the client to deal with the plumber directly (this is valid - and avoids the direct employment of plumbers - as many similar businesses do - but it lends some credibility to their claim that your provides supply and fix services, in my opinion).
I have a solicitor on this at present trying to extract evidence or proof that I am liable firstly. I was trying to find out whether there are any restrictions on charging what they like for repairs without either inviting the alleged offender into the discussion or at least obtaining estimates for the remedials.
Ok - try posting this element (not the whole lot perhaps) in the Insurance section. There's a couple of guys who look in there that work in insurance claims (gouldc for one).
Insurers are generally interesting in minimising their claims - they can't be sure of passing the loss onto another party.
They then employ folks called loss adjusters whose job is to try and see if the loss can be pushed off elsewhere - that seems to be what has happened here.
They were probably expecting you you have indemnity insurance - which unfortunately you don't. Insurers are then just happy dealing amongst themselves.
I suspect (but not sure) that insurance claims can't work the way you are suggesting - if someone prangs your car and you have Comp Insurance but the pranger won't admit liability, you get your insurer to fork out then leave it to the insurer to get anything he can off the other party. Trouble is Buildings Insurers aren't very good at knowing how much all things cost. Maybe they got Dolphin in to do the refit.
Insurers are generally interesting in minimising their claims - they can't be sure of passing the loss onto another party.
They then employ folks called loss adjusters whose job is to try and see if the loss can be pushed off elsewhere - that seems to be what has happened here.
They were probably expecting you you have indemnity insurance - which unfortunately you don't. Insurers are then just happy dealing amongst themselves.
I suspect (but not sure) that insurance claims can't work the way you are suggesting - if someone prangs your car and you have Comp Insurance but the pranger won't admit liability, you get your insurer to fork out then leave it to the insurer to get anything he can off the other party. Trouble is Buildings Insurers aren't very good at knowing how much all things cost. Maybe they got Dolphin in to do the refit.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.