OK so I know if your roof gets damaged but you’ve not been looking after it they don’t pay out. But my claim has just been knocked back because the roof has had previous repairs to it. Eh?

anyone?

do they mean that you should be covered by whoever did the previous repairs?

Dave

OK so I know if your roof gets damaged but you’ve not been looking after it they don’t pay out.

how do they know you’ve not been looking after it?

if it’s damaged by a tree branch the only way I could see them getting out of paying is if you didn’t declare a tree within a specified distance not because you’ve had previous repairs.

Challenge it i say

Shall be speaking to insurance guys later. The appointed specialist (claims adjuster?) has just been round and said they won’t be paying, has left a report not read it yet.

do they mean that you should be covered by whoever did the previous repairs?

don’t think so, seemed to be saying you’re only covered for initial damage, ie get roof retiled and you’re covered, once it’s been damaged its not covered again until full retile.

I think if you’ve had repairs it may show the roof is getting to the end of it’s natural life, they are basically saying the roof is beyond repair and should really be replaced.

I had a couple of repairs under insurance but the nails were getting rotten and the slates begining to get a little crumbley so insurance said no more.

they are basically saying the roof is beyond repair and should really be replaced.

oh bugger!

Check your policy document – that’s the contract you’ve signed up to so they should be able to point to the clause which allows them to avoid the claim.