Is £400 excess for escape of water normal?

[Flashback1966]

Just had a bunch of renewal (block policy). The excess is £400 for escape of water.

Is this reasonable?

Should I be hunting around for be lower excess?

[AndrewDod]

Have there been escapes. I have been in properties where the excess for escape of water was infinite (i.e. no claims allowed at all). That is likely to occur if claims are repeated.

Frankly on a block policy there is hardly ever any merit in making small claims (like £400) and a lot of downside. So why would you want a lower excess. Placing claim of £200 for a bath leak would be a severe folly.

[ashburnham]

It is becoming quite common for higher excesses to be applied to water damage claims (in the same way that most policies have separate higher excesses for subsidence claims). A lot of our policies have a £100 standard excess with £250 for water damage. If a customer were to take a £150 voluntary excess on top of this they would end up with a £250 standard excess and a £400 water damage excess. If you are not happy with the £400 you could see if there is a voluntary excess being applied to your renewal and ask for it to be removed. This would obviously result in a higher premium. Ultimately the decision is yours and what you feel comfortable with.

[Flashback1966]

On a block policy, if the property were all mine, it would nt' be an an issues, as I woudl be pooling the savings. However, for some I am the freeholder and a leasehoder would feel it unfair the excess is £400.

I don't know if having individual policies migth work out better....

[AndrewDod]

The excess is a complete irrelevancy to the leaseholder. If the FH is liable to pay something (to be reimbursed by all lessees) then it is due to pay that thing (in total) regardless of the excess. If an individual lessee is liable to pay to fix something then they are liable to pay that thing (in total) regardless of any excess.

The whole idea that a lessee who causes a leak has to pay whatever the excess might be (or that their liability is limited to the excess) is bull. The excess is simply a pragmatic thing that balances cost of a policy and cost of making tiny claims. Is has nothing to do with who pays what (except that the premium might be higher or lower).

In general as I said small claims should be actively discouraged as the cost of an increase in premium with repeated small events is far greater than any claim.

[AndrewDod]

I don't know if having individual policies migth work out better....

There is no such (legitimate) thing for flats

[flyingfreehold]

four hundred quid is now in our experience the default rate for escape of water and fuel oil on block policies. Even in the best blocks (by value) if one flat leaks into the flat below the one above is liable. We manage a flat in the West End of London and there the EOW excess is £2500 with the same applying as to liability. They require all bathrooms where work is being carried out to be fully tanked due to adverse claim history

[blueash]

I just had a look and on some of my flats it is £750.

[JK0]

Interesting that some of you manage to get the offender to pay. The guy above one of my flats has flooded it three times now. He doesn't GAF, as the freeholder covers my repair bills every time.

[Hooper]

My escape of water excess is now £5,000 - imposed after I started a claim now heading towards £250,000.

[DoricPixie]

There is no such (legitimate) thing for flats

There is for flats in Scotland.

[Section20z]

There is for flats in Scotland.

Really, so who would claim for a roof ? Garden wall ? Communal area ?

[DoricPixie]

Really, so who would claim for a roof ? Garden wall ? Communal area ?

It depends who owns them which would be set out in the title deeds along with how the communal areas you are owner/part-owner of should be insured. The title deeds may say that I am personally responsible for insuring common areas that I own, or that I need to take out joint insurance with some or all of the other owners

[flyingfreehold]

there are some flats where the lessee covenants to insure and the walls and roof are demised . Typically there would be a separate common parts/managed area cover

[AndrewDod]

There is for flats in Scotland.

This is only sort-of true - even for Scotland

The Scottish arrangement really just boils down to the mechanism of arrangement - it still remains impossible for an individual to fully insure in isolation a block of asset up in the sky. The arrangement requires/only works at all because it enables "lessees" to demand evidence of insurance from other lessees which must be produced within fourteen days, and then MAT allow an owner to obtain a Court Order requiring another owner to cover their share, or possibly to pay on behalf of that owner and recover via courts.

This sounds an unworkable version of what exists anyway. What happens during those 14 days, during the time a court order is obtained.....
Designed by Scots.