replacement bath agreed by insurance - but it wont match [sad]

[pavlovthecat]

Our bath got damaged during a mini fire in our bathroom last week, as well as a few other things (wall, window sill extractor fan).

The insurance assessors have been around and agreed to replace all that needs replacing and we have a company coming around this week to confirm works and measure up.

However, the assessor told us we would only get the bath replaced, like for like, and if not possible, a plain white bath.. Our suite is unusual and will unlikely be found.

He apparantly also said if we wanted to do the work ourselves we would get the agreed sum in cash from the insurers. However, we need several different bits of work done, and it will be faff and might cost more if we do it ourselves than get in their contractors to just do the lot.

Can we ask the contractors to buy a suite for us, and charge us the cost of it//fitting, minus the insurers allowance for the bath? We do not want fancy, and you can buy a suite for almost the same price as a bath these days?

Or should we ask for the money and do it ourselves, so the additional cost of suite and fitting we will pay?

Should we ask the assessor if we can contribute to the cost of a suite?

DH did it, and seemed to think we should talk to the contractors, but what if they say no?

I had just got our bathroom looking lovely, I have spent ages on it and if they just replace the bath it will look odd and unfinished as it will not match the rest of the suite and I am really unhappy [sad.

Any experiences of this kind of thing? How do I go about it?

dh did it that meant to read 'DH seems to think...' not sure what I was writing there

TBH I would argue with the insurance company that as the bath won't match and it is not possible to get a matching bath then I would want the whole suite replaced at their cost.

Do you think? I had thought of that vaguely, but then just thought they would refuse anyway. I said to DH I did not see what the point of the insurance was if it looks worse than it did before the accident. But its easier to get them to repair to fire damage than do it ourselves, and it might cost us more as we need to go to different people to do different bits ,where they will do it all.

Its not like I want a fancy bathroom suite, I just want a matching one. I would be fine with the same bath again, but its not likely they will find it.

I spent sooo long doing the bathroom, right down to ripping out old sealing on bath (took ages as a bad job) and re-doing it just before the fire . I don;t want it to look silly.

How I would I approach them? I have never had an insurance claim before, am very green.

Any other thoughts? Any one else had experience of arguing with an insurance company? And been successful?

yes agree with cece definitely argue for the cost of the whole suite. Have you had the loss adjuster inspect? I found with my recent claim ( builder had said whole ceiling needed to come down) insurance company had a target which they could approve up to. They didn't want to go beyond that and tried to argue I didn't need a new ceiling. But as soon as loss adjuster got involved it was all agreed. Hope that makes sense!

I think you can pay extra for 'sets and pairs' insurance, meaning that if you lose one part of a set, they will pay for the whole set to be replaced.

Can you look in your policy and see if you have this?

I think it might lower the resale value of your house if you have a mismatched bath suite.

They are trying it on.

Check the policy. A set of china would not be replaced by odd plates would it?

Same with a bath.

Go to the insurance ombudsman if necessary.

Thanks for this, its very useful stuff you are advising me!

Pink teddy - it was the loss adjuster who told DH only the bath would be replaced.
Scienceteacher - I will look at the policy today when I find it! we are in the middle of sorting the paperwork as we just bought a new filing cabinet for it all.

I agree it could lower value of property if it does not match.

oh hang on, it was not a loss adjuster who came around, it was an 'insurance advisor', is that the same thing?

No an insurance advisor is a bit like a salesman. He/she works for the insurance company and is aiming to minimise what you get.

My sister is a loss adjuster and they work for a wide range of companies n massive fires. They are like auditors or surveyors.

It all depends on your policy wording in the end.

You can definitely argue with them in order for them to replace the whole set so it matches. You can also argue about the price of your car etc if it is written off. They are trying to minimise what they pay out... Take the offer of a new bath as an opening offer, state what you would like (matching suite, alos comment on lower value for house}

I managed to drop a large glass bottle into the wash basin and made a huge hole in it. We were given money to replace everything plus the floorboards were wet so they paid for that. We ended up with a decent amount to put in a beautiful bathroom although we paid more because of tiles etc.

Dh (who is an insurance claims manager) says that you need to check your policy wording as some insurers have changed their policy on sets - but it would be normal that if your suite is coloured, and they can't source another the same colour, then they would contribute up to 50% of the cost of replacing the rest of the suite (as in the FO 'Treating the Customer Fairly' document). If you were very lucky they might go for complete replacement, but the 50% is what you would be entitled to in this case

If it isn't that it is a different colour, and is just the design, then replacing a white bath with another white bath of the closest design would be considered to be a correct reinstatement.

cmot - thank you for that...it is cream/off white, they may well be able to get a similar colour, but not the style. Will they bother to match the colour properly or just get any old cream?

The thing is, I am not really bothered about paying the difference. Of course I would prefer they paid for it all, but really, its not so much money that it would make a huge difference to us, wont cost much.

Can you ask your DH how it works if we want a whole suit and the insurance is not covering it all? Can we pay the difference to the contractors that the insurance company provide and they provide the whole suite?

I am just worried that if we have to do it all ourselves it will cost more than what we are given, we need to get the sill replaced by some-one who can do upvc, get the fan replaced, get suite put in, tiling around it all done, plus decorating (could probably do that ourselves). I just have this vision of it costing too much. If we get the contractors to do it, and we just pay the extra 50% of the suite fitted (is it 50% suit alone, or including fitting, we can do that....

Oh that was a ramble.

I'll ask him when he reappears - but the answer will prob be that you need to ask the insurers how they work it. Am pretty sure the colour match has to be close/unnoticable tho.

But BIL had a lot of insurance work done after flooding, and they paid the difference to get the kitchen and tiles that they wanted, rather than the level they were entitled to as equal to what was there before iyswim. They paid the contractors direct

Wording on the insurance policy is:

'for any one item of contents, or part of a set or suite, that is lost or damaged we will decide whether to
a) pay the cost of replacing the item or part as new
c) replace the item or part as new
b) pay the cost of repairing the item or part, or
make a cash payment that would be no more than the amount that it would have cost us to replace or repair the item using our own suppliers.'

So, firstly, it appears not to specifically mention the whole/part, but indicates it by saying the word 'part'. Can it be argued it does not specifically rule out paying for a whole suite.

Secondly, when DH originally called the insurance co, a dippy woman said it would be a 'contents' claim. I told Dh this did not make sense, as the sill and the smoke damage was all buildings - so he asked the insurance advisor, who said it specifically it was buildings, and as such we are not claiming for some smaller contents items as we have £100 excess on contents - this was at the advice of the advisor. However, the above section of the insurance is for contents, there is nothing in the 'buildings' section that covers suites at all?

Would the bath be buildings or contents?

Buildings - you couldn't take it with you whenyou move house

oh see cnot - if that is the case, and we are not insured for the whole suite, that would be fine. I am happy to go pick the suite I want and pay the difference to the contractors direct, as long as they take of the right amount for the bath and not swizz me!!

Oh, am I going to have to have tiles replaced if we have a new bath? and the sill?

katymac - well that makes sense well then that bit I quoted is irrelevant, as that applies to contents. There is nothing in the buildings part to cover suites or say they are not replaced in full, so I can at least give it a try.

OK - DH has appeared. He says that the contractors contract is with you, not the insurers (even though they are appointed by them and paid directly for the work) so you can just pay them for any extra work/parts.

Also, if you claim under both contents and buildings only one excess will apply, so claim for the other things that were contents. Bath is def buildings, and any damage incurred by its removal will be covered

Oh right, so we should claim for the additional things? Cheeky man, he told DH not to claim as we had excess on contents!!!!! I shall call them up tomorrow and find out exactly what the contractor has put down, and correct it if correct. Tell your DH thanks! I will try to get them to pay for the lot, but if not, at least I know we wont be stuck with a non-matching suite, even if we have to pay the extra.

not contractor in that last post, I meant cheeky insurance advisor! It is getting late!

Yes - Dh says that if you are making a single event claim on both buildings and contents cover with the same insurer, that only one excess applies as it is per event.

To be fair to the guy who came out, they are not experts on the policy wording or claims handling, and may be unqualified (unlike a loss adjuster), so some of these things would pass them by

If you need any more help, he is always happy to advise