Bathroom insurance nightmare drags on til the end of time

[Julian]

So Zurich are going to make you use Zurich's legal team in order to sue Zurich for your expenses, and if you win your policy (Zurich) will pay and if you don't then his policy (Zurich) will pay?



Or have I missed something?

[simonp]

This is for uninsured losses. So Zurich can avoid paying by saying there is no fault upstairs. Hence conflict of interest.

[fuzzy]

Sounds like a job for an Ombudsman.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

So Zurich are going to make you use Zurich's legal team in order to sue Zurich for your expenses, and if you win your policy (Zurich) will pay and if you don't then his policy (Zurich) will pay?



Or have I missed something?

You've missed the part where they don't pay because apparently it's possible for two sections of pipe to somehow unscrew themselves over time.

Sounds like a job for an Ombudsman.

My next step is a letter from the tradesman who assisted me the night I noticed the damage, saying there's no way the pipes could have disconnected themselves, and if that doesn't work, it'll be ombudsperson and a friendly MSP.

[fuzzy]

Have you booked the services of a SHUVEL wielding Teh Bear?

[hellymedic]

This sounds like an unending  nightmare; I can only offer sympathy.

It strikes me that what is in dispute is how long there was leakage of which you and upstairs owner were aware. ICBA to go back along this thread but I think I remember there was a stage during which you were aware of wet, you told upstairs of wet and not enough was done to address the issue.

Saying upstairs could have done no more does not accord with my memory of the facts as you have presented them to me.

I hope someone can help you sort this out properly.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

No, that's not quite it.

I wasn't aware of the damage until it was very very serious, because it was only visible under my floor and above my suspended ceiling, and I wasn't lifting my floor tiles or taking down the ceiling every so often to check that nothing was happening. I became aware of the problem when water was dripping through the suspended ceiling. Me and a friendly contractor went upstairs to the flat above to find out what was going on and discovered that a junction between his bathroom sink waste pipe and his kitchen sink waste pipe wasn't connected - the pipes were at least 1" apart. The connection was sorted the next day.

Then there was a couple of months of crap from Zurich saying I should have been aware of the damage and they weren't going to pay because it was long term damage, even though it was invisible without taking down the ceiling/lifting the floor tiles, then they said ok they'd pay, then they said my estimates were extortionate, then their loss adjuster couldn't do an inspection in time so they used their approved contractor who they would have used to do the work and based my pay out on their approved contractor's estimate. Dodgy dodgy dodgy.

So eventually they paid up and I moved out and the work was done and I paid my guys and then put in a claim for my uninsured losses through Zurich's legal team, Beachcroft. Then Beachcroft said oh, but Zurich also insure the bloke upstairs so they'll just deal with it in-house. And now they're saying it's possible for the pipes to have somehow unscrewed themselves so the owner of upstairs isn't negligent so they're not paying and I should go back to their legal team to recover my losses from him direct.

Of course, what it actually comes down to is they were happy to pay out until they realised that a) it was expensive and b) they also insure upstairs so they have no chance of getting any of their money back, so they've made things as difficult as possible every step of the way. Because they are the excrement of fetid fleas on plague-infested rats.

[Adam]

Bugger!

I'd do 1 final letter, to be sent with the comments from your friendly tradesman who helped originally.  Point out the absurdity of the situation, especially the fact the pipes were completely disconnected, the fact they've been deliberately delaying, and acting incorrectly in respect of also insuring upstairs.  Give them 7 days to settle in full or else.

[Wascally Weasel]

Of course, what it actually comes down to is they were happy to pay out until they realised that a) it was expensive and b) they also insure upstairs so they have no chance of getting any of their money back, so they've made things as difficult as possible every step of the way. Because they are the excrement of fetid fleas on plague-infested rats.

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing that the Guardian money page sometimes deal with on people’s behalf quite successfully, if your final attempt doesn’t work out, consider bringing the negative publicity angle in to play.

Put it this way, having read about your ongoing woes, there is no way I would use Zurich for insurance.

[Adam]

Zurich have to pay a £2.3 million fine to the FSA.

Well, what a surprise............

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Letter from friendly contractor says

At the end of last year, I attended an emergency call out at the above address with regard to water coming through your bathroom ceiling.

 
After investigation, I found that the upstairs pipe leading from the bathroom sink in the above flat was never connected to the 4” waste.

 
It is impossible that this pipe came loose – it was never connected.

 

I hope this clarifies the situation and should you require any further information regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 


Yours sincerely,

 
GH

DIRECTOR

[Ham]

.....Zurich saying  ..... it's possible for the pipes to have somehow unscrewed themselves ........

Quite clearly because they are so used to being told to go Scr3w themselves....

Great sympathy for your troubles, but it is worth observing that it used to be the case that the respectable insurers (and Zurich should be one of those) used to be a lot better in settling claims, and the troubles that you are having would have been symptomatic of a bargain basement company. I would speculate that the reasons for the change are threefold: 1) The downward pressure on premiums caused by price comparison sites. However, that doesn't imply that a more expensive policy would give you better treatment, just (possibly) better Ts&Cs. 2) The large number of major natural disasters - this shouldn't really change the way you are treated but 3) the sheer number of people putting in fraudulent or inflated claims. Now, 'twas always thus, but by squeezing down on these and by association every claim, legitimate or not, they can increase their margin and therefore achieve (1).

Of course, they might just be knobs.

[Polar Bear]

It is my experience of insurers that they'll take as much of your money in premiums as they can possibly extract, but, when it comes to paying out they simply don't know how to write a cheque.

Stick to it Kirst.   Don't let the bastards wriggle free.   

[Adrian]

It is my experience of insurers that they'll take as much of your money in premiums as they can possibly extract, but, when it comes to paying out they simply don't know how to write a cheque.

I think that you have just described their business plan

[Wombat]

.....Zurich saying  ..... it's possible for the pipes to have somehow unscrewed themselves ........

Quite clearly because they are so used to being told to go Scr3w themselves....

Great sympathy for your troubles, but it is worth observing that it used to be the case that the respectable insurers (and Zurich should be one of those) used to be a lot better in settling claims, and the troubles that you are having would have been symptomatic of a bargain basement company. I would speculate that the reasons for the change are threefold: 1) The downward pressure on premiums caused by price comparison sites. However, that doesn't imply that a more expensive policy would give you better treatment, just (possibly) better Ts&Cs. 2) The large number of major natural disasters - this shouldn't really change the way you are treated but 3) the sheer number of people putting in fraudulent or inflated claims. Now, 'twas always thus, but by squeezing down on these and by association every claim, legitimate or not, they can increase their margin and therefore achieve (1).

Of course, they might just be knobs.

my only experiences with Zurich are that they are not respectable insurers, and had always thought of them as a bit cheap and nasty anyway.   I had a car claim with them, after someone broke into my car, and they tried to say I had to buy a secondhand radio to replace the 6 month old rather fancy one that had been stolen from it.  Excuse me, its not a household policy where you have to pay extra for "new for old", its a fucking car, you don't expect me to have secondhand body panels fitted when someone crashes into it, do you?  Other experience was at work, where they got fined a LOT of money, after 2 people died in one of our lifts because they (Zurich) were too lazy or stupid to read the lift manufacturers safety updates, despite the same thing happening elsewhere in a lift they insured.

Tossers.  Keep at it, Kirst!

[rogerzilla]

Zurich are also feeling poor at the moment, having just been fined bigtime for losing their customers' data.

Did you know they're almost completely outsourced, including IT and HR?  They have a big place in Swindon but a bad reputation as a "hire 'em and fire 'em" outfit, so they usually have vacancies.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Are you suggesting I apply, and bring them down from the inside? 

[Adrian]

Are you suggesting I apply, and bring them down from the inside? 

That might be one party involved in the claim connected to Zurich too far.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Phone call from the insurance wifie today, saying she thinks I have had a bad service from them, but they still don't think upstairs were negligent and I'm not getting any money. The pipes spontaneously worked themselves loose. I actually said to her "It's been a long time since my physics O'level but I'm pretty sure two inert pipes can't spontaneously unscrew themselves." So she said there was nothing more they could do, and they recommend I contact the owner myself to sort out private compensation. I said I didn't feel that was appropriate, they are my insurance company and I expect them to deal with these things on my behalf, and then the conversation went

me: so I expect my next move will be to instruct the free legal representation via my insurance company to sue his insurance company
her: but that's us
me: yeah, that's my point

 

It sounds like the owner of upstairs has fed her a load of nonsense about what was actually happening with his pipework, so I got her to phone Garry at SCB and speak to him about what he saw when he investigated it the first night. Spoke to Garry myself afterwards and obviously he's told her completely different information from what upstairs have said, and the last thing she said to Garry was that she'd need to speak to upstairs again. She hadn't realised that upstairs's floor was rotten because he hasn't made a claim for it, but as Garry said to her, that's not my fault and I shouldn't be penalised for it. She was also trying to tell him that the leak might have been short term, so he put her straight on that as well - that really pisses me off. They tried to avoid paying the claim because it was long term damage and now they're trying to say it's short term to avoid paying again. Fuckers.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Dear Kirst

Further to my letter of 3rd September, you'll be pleased to know I've now completed my review.

We're committed to treating customers fairly, so I've obtained a copy of your file to find out what has happened.

Firstly, I'd like to take this opportunity to say sorry for not agreeing to pay for the repairs when you first told us about the damage. I'm glad we agreed to change this decision.

Having considered matters carefully, I feel it's appropriate to offer £100 compensation for the unnecessary delay this caused at the start of the claim and I'll arrange for a cheque to be sent to you shortly.

You'll be pleased to know banking the cheque won't affect your right to ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to review this matter, should you decide to request this.

Regarding the recovery of your losses, I understand you've spoken to Sarah in our claims department, who has explained why we're unable to pursue [upstairs] for this money.

Whilst I appreciate your strong feelings about this, I can assure you our decision isn't influenced by [upstairs] being a Zurich customer as well.

To be able to make a recovery, we must be able to show [upstairs] has been negligent. Having reviewed matters carefully, I agree with Sarah that we will be unable to do this.

Of course, this doesn't stop you from speaking to [upstairs] directly. However, I'm unable to change our decision on this matter on this occasion.

This is Zurich's final response in terms of our complain procedure. Of course, you have the right to ask for an independent review by contacting the Financial Ombudsman Service.

If you go ahead with this option, please remember you need to do so within 6 months of the date of this letter.

I trust this helps explain our position.

[RJ]

So - they're trying to fob you off with £100??

Streuth.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

Well, I'm quite pleased at the £100 from them as an apology for their general shitness, because it'll pay for the fabulous gothy outfit I just bought for my birthday party, but if they think I'm leaving it there, they've got another think coming.

[RJ]

Go get 'em 

[Ham]

Trouser the £100 and go for it.

It might be fun to ask why them outright how they interpret leaving pipes unconnected

> A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances

So, you can ask them either if they believe it was reasonable for the pipes to be left as they were or if they do not believe you. There are no alternatives. That reply could then go to the Onbudsman.

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

I'm fed up arguing with them, they're just cuntybaws. I'm going to finally connect my new printer, then collate all the correspondence I have had with them into one big long rational page of fury, and let the Ombudsperkin deal with it. And I'm going to spend the £100 on getting out of my Orange contract early and moving to Vodafone with a new HTC Desire because my phone is fucked and repairing it wouldn't be that much cheaper and I don't think it'll last till my next upgrade. Never get a 24 month contract, never insure with Zurich. Those are my words of wisdom for today. Also, Vollers corsets don't fit as well as Corsets UK, and Corsets UK are a lot cheaper.