I am at my wits’ end trying to sort an issue with HomeServe and getting nowhere. I have been a customer of the emergency repairs company for more than two decades, paying it to cover my electrics and plumbing against disaster. Until now, I had never made a claim.
The first time I do, after mice ate through electric cables in my loft, it won’t reimburse me for £1,273 of emergency work. I feel upset, and trying to sort it out has made a stressful situation worse. Please help.
A.J., Suffolk.
HomeServe won’t reimburse you for emergency repair work to cables damaged by mice, even though you are covered on your policy, writes Sally Hamilton
Sally Hamilton replies: You explained to me that before Christmas your house electrics cut out completely, which was frightening as you live alone and were just recovering after a long stint in hospital. You called out a well-respected local electrician the same day who reinstated some of the power.
He returned a few days later to investigate in detail. It seemed that some pesky rodents had got into your roof space and chewed through cables, which meant some rewiring was required.
The electrician said your fuse box also needed updating to meet modern regulations and, for safety’s sake, he adjusted your home’s system in such a way as to make it easier to isolate areas of the electrics if something fused again.
You felt the bill wasn’t extortionate for the work carried out, but still had to borrow the money from a friend — who you are paying back monthly.
On checking your HomeServe policy, which costs £7.93 a month for plumbing and electrics, you saw that under the section ‘things that are covered’, both rewiring and fuse boxes are included, which was a great relief.
You had previously checked your home insurance, but damage by rodents is typically not covered by most home policies, whereas home emergency plans, like yours, may cover such events.
You sent the relevant paperwork to HomeServe. It then demanded a more detailed invoice, which the electrician supplied. This wasn’t enough, apparently, and it asked for an even more detailed report. Again, the electrician obliged. More information was sought about the duration of his visits, which he duly provided.
You felt this extensive back and forth was suspicious and feared the insurer was trying to wriggle out of meeting your claim. Fed up with this game of cat and mouse, you contacted me.
I asked HomeServe to crank up its efforts to get your claim sorted — as it was more than three months since the incident. HomeServe scurried into action, even getting someone in complaints to spend the weekend looking over your claim.
Despite these hopeful signs, a few days later you received a disappointing call from a HomeServe agent declining your claim. The explanation given was your home had been wired incorrectly and you had not followed the claims process properly.
You dispute these arguments, as your bungalow is only 25 years old and well maintained, with no problems in the three years you’ve lived there — and as it was an emergency situation, you made the claim as soon as you were able.
However, later that same day, came another call from someone higher up the organisation, stating the bills would be met after all. It seems that the results of the complaints team’s weekend endeavours had not previously filtered through to the front line.
HomeServe now accepts you did your best during the claims process and shouldn’t have had such a difficult experience. It has apologised to you directly.
A spokesman says: ‘On this occasion we did not get it right and A.J.’s experience fell below the usual high standards our customers expect and we work hard to deliver. In this case there were some complications surrounding her electrics policy, but in dealing with the issue, we made it more difficult for her to get a resolution than it should have been. We can understand how that would have felt frustrating for her and we’re really sorry.’
You have now received the full £1,273.
I lost my £650 wedding ring but my insurer will only pay £351.75
I was devastated when my wedding ring slipped off my finger at Morrisons. I contacted the supermarket’s lost property division, more in hope than expectation. Nothing was found but at least the ring was insured with Ecclesiastical. It was valued at £650 on the policy but they will only pay me £351.75, which falls a long way short. Can you assist?
S.E., London.
Sally Hamilton replies: I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your ring. My widowed mother lost her engagement ring in a similar fashion on a train – and it never ended up at lost property either, I’m sad to report. She had lost weight and so slipped off her too slim ring finger. She never saw the ring again and unfortunately it wasn’t insured. But like for you, the loss was upsetting more because of the sentimental value of the jewellery.
Ecclesiastical invited you to choose a like for like replacement from its appointed jewellers. But you preferred not to go down that route because the sentimental value meant it was something you could not replace. You explained that you rarely leave the house and have little chance, or desire, to flash a diamond ring around.
You accepted that you would see at least £100 deducted from your claim as that is the excess – the amount a policyholder must contribute towards a claim. The insurer understood your standpoint and agreed a cash settlement – but only of £351.75. You were naturally not pleased, so came to me. I thought you were right to complain.
I am pleased to say that Ecclesiastical investigated your complaint quickly, said it was sorry you had been dissatisfied with the service and said it should have offered different settlement options to you sooner. It accepted your claim for £550 cash – net of the £100 policy excess. But in a shining example of good customer service, it went one step further and paid you an extra £100 for the inconvenience, so you are not out of pocket with your claim.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.