I made a claim on my home insurance policy after my house was damaged by last week’s heavy rainfall.
But my claim has been rejected as my insurer says it was not a ‘storm’.
Heather Graham, via email.
Dean Dunham replies: Most insurance firms say they will cover only weather damage caused by a ‘storm’ and define what a storm means in their terms and conditions.
Many state the wind speed must be at least a certain strength (often cited as level ten on the Beaufort scale, the equivalent of 55-63mph) for the weather event to be classed as a storm, and reject claims where this minimum requirement is not met.
Rejected claim: Most insurance firms say they will only cover weather damage caused by a ‘storm’ and define what a storm means in their terms and conditions
However, this rigid approach is wrong and is often rejected by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which is where you take your complaint if you disagree with the outcome of a claim.
The correct approach is to consider the actual weather in the vicinity of the property at the time the damage occurred and if this was the true cause of it.
However, your insurer will also consider whether any other factors could have caused or significantly contributed to the damage, such as wear and tear (i.e. the age of the property or a particular part of the property) or a failure to maintain your home.
Your policy will usually stipulate that you must keep your property maintained to a good standard.
This loose requirement hands insurance providers a golden opportunity to pin the blame for damage or loss caused by the likes of weather damage on to the homeowner — and therefore reject claims.
If your claim is rejected, the next step is to complain to the FOS.
When lodging your complaint, you should provide evidence of the severity of the weather, making sure this clearly shows the conditions present in the vicinity of your property at the time.
You should also provide information about what you do to keep your property maintained.
For example, if water leaked through your roof or windows, say, when last the roof was inspected or gutters cleared.
Finally, it will help your claim if you are able to get someone independent, such as a builder, to confirm in writing that the damage was caused by the weather event as opposed to wear and tear.
Wedding venue cancelled without giving a reason
I was due to get married this November but the venue has cancelled our booking without giving a reason. It says we will get our deposit back.
But when I said I also wanted to be reimbursed for the money we have paid to caterers and entertainers, it said — as these were not arranged by the venue and fall outside of the contract between us — it does not have to reimburse us. What can we do?
John Ashton, via email.
Dean Dunham replies: This amounts to a breach of contract by the venue as it is failing to provide the venue as it agreed.
Under English law, the remedy for a breach of contract is to put the innocent party (you in this case) back into the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
In your case, this means reimbursing all costs regardless of whether they were part of the actual contract or not.
If you end up paying more for the new venue, you could also claim this and possibly also damages for distress and inconvenience.
- Write to Dean Dunham, Money Mail, Scottish Daily Mail, 20 Waterloo Street, Glasgow G2 6DB or email d.dunham@dailymail.co.uk. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
