Replacing doors v replacing whole kitchen

[goingtoofast]

We had a burst pipe in our kitchen.

Our insurance company have agreed to a new floor plus they are replacing on of the kitchen units. Our kitchen is no longer manufactured so we can't get a match for the replacement doors of the unit. They have agreed to cover half of the cost of replacing the non damaged dorrs with new ones.

We were wondering whether it would be worth our while getting a whole new kitchen rather than just changing the doors.

What would others do in the same situation?

A kitchen will cost you ten grand unless there is some element of it that you can do yourself. If you need someone to do the whole thing doesn't seem to matter what size it is, always ends up around ten. Just like bathrooms are five. So if you have the budget do it, replacement doors look like well, replacement doors, not quite matchy enough and not that cheap either. If you don't I would ask why are they only offering to replace half the doors (ie what is their policy explanation. You don't have to accept their first offer if you feel your policy should give you back a nice matching kitchen ask them to explain why it does not (politely of course no point getting nowty).

Agree, no way does a kitchen need to cost £10k, especially if you don't need new appliances. Carcases/carcasses/ the non-door bits are the cheapest part of the kitchen so it's probably more straightforward to replace all of it

agree with sherbet - you don't have to accept the first offer. when our fireplace broke they offered the second hand cost. when i pointed out that would not allow me to find a replacement fireplace that would match the surround they upped the amount to allow for that. there must be a governing body for insurance firms or maybe trading standards could help?