Flood damage

What we look at

• Defining a flood

  Some insurance policies don't define a flood in their policy. If no definition is given, then it's likely we'll need to decide whether a flood occurred.

  Floods often happen suddenly – particularly when caused by a natural event such as a river bursting its banks or during heavy rainfall. But those aren't the only times when flooding can occur.

  A flood doesn't have to be a sudden or violent event. It can occur when water enters or builds up in a property slowly and steadily. This doesn't necessarily have to be caused by a natural event. The key factor is that water had built up, regardless of where the water came from.

  Flood damage can also be caused by flooding outside the property. For example, the property may be surrounded by floodwater which leads to the walls becoming damp. If the damp has caused damage to the property, we're likely to say the consumer has a valid flood claim.

  Similarly, we might say that damage has been caused by a flood even if the water itself hasn't damaged the property. For example, if floodwater washes away enough earth to make a building unstable, we're likely to say that damage to the building was caused by the flood.

  Where damage is caused by a build-up of water which has escaped from a pipe or domestic appliance, there may also be cover under the 'escape of water' section of the policy.

• Tanking

  Tanking is a heavy-duty form of waterproofing that’s often used in buildings with rooms below the ground or in areas with a high water table. We sometimes see cases where a previously watertight basement room has started to let water in.

  If there’s evidence to show a customer should have known their tanking was defective or missing before a flood happened, we may say it was reasonable for you to reject the claim.

  Insurers sometimes say the tanking failed because of a 'gradually operating cause', which is excluded under the terms of the policy.

  However, if the damage is the result of a steady accumulation of water rather than a gradual deterioration of the tanking, we’re unlikely to agree that it's fair for you to exclude the claim on this basis. In these cases, we generally say the cause of the damage was flooding, not the failure of the tanking.

  Find out more about our approach to complaints concerning gradual damage. 

• Effective and lasting repairs

  The intention of an insurance policy is to return the consumer to the situation they were in before the insured loss occurred. So we wouldn't usually expect an insurer to add preventative flood damage measures that the consumer didn't previously have.

  However, we also say that any repairs the insurer carries out should be effective and lasting.

  It may be very likely that the property will flood again, in the same way, if preventative measures are not put in place. If that's the case, we might say that without those preventative measures a repair wouldn't be effective and lasting. That's because there's no point in completing repair work which will shortly need redoing or repeating on a regular basis.

  So sometimes we might ask the insurer to do more than just repair the insured damage, if it will ensure a fair outcome for the consumer.

  That might be installing tanking where there wasn't any before, if it's clear that tanking would prevent any repair from being needed again in the short term. This sometimes happens if we are satisfied that an untanked room was watertight before, but has flooded due to a rise in the water table.

• Allowances for alternative accommodation

  Unlike the cost of alternative accommodation, other additional expenses are rarely specified in most home insurance policies. So we look carefully at claims for other costs to see what's fair and reasonable. 

  For example, a consumer might spend more money on food because they've been placed in a hotel or B&B that doesn't have food storage or cooking facilities. Whilst acknowledging that such costs aren't technically covered under the insurance contract, we might think it's fair – and generally good practice – for the insurer to cover the additional cost of eating out as long as it's reasonable.

  Typically, we might say reasonable additional expenses include:

  • extra food expenses – having to buy ready meals, eating out more often or paying for school lunches when it might have been cheaper to take a packed lunch
  • laundry fees – if the consumer has no kitchen or washing facilities, there may be additional costs for laundry services
  • travel expenses – if the consumer has been relocated further away from their work or children's school they may to pay extra costs for getting to and from these places
  • rehousing pets – if the accommodation doesn't allow for pets, consumers may have to pay for kennels or other accommodation for pets
  • council tax – if a consumer has to move out of their own property, and the property is going to be unoccupied for up to 12 months, their local authority may be able to freeze their council tax. However, if they have to remain in alternative accommodation for longer than this, they may have to pay council tax on both their own home and their rental property. It would be unfair for the consumer to pay two lots of council tax, so we'd expect the insurer to cover council tax costs over and above what the consumer would normally pay. 

• Allowances for disturbance

  Unlike the cost of alternative accommodation, other additional expenses are rarely specified in most home insurance policies. So we look carefully at claims for other costs to see what's fair and reasonable. 

  For example, a consumer might spend more money on food because they've been placed in a hotel or B&B that doesn't have food storage or cooking facilities. Whilst acknowledging that such costs aren't technically covered under the insurance contract, we might think it's fair – and generally good practice – for the insurer to cover the additional cost of eating out as long as it's reasonable.

  Typically, we might say reasonable additional expenses include:

  • extra food expenses – having to buy ready meals, eating out more often or paying for school lunches when it might have been cheaper to take a packed lunch
  • laundry fees – if the consumer has no kitchen or washing facilities, there may be additional costs for laundry services
  • travel expenses – if the consumer has been relocated further away from their work or children's school they may to pay extra costs for getting to and from these places
  • rehousing pets – if the accommodation doesn't allow for pets, consumers may have to pay for kennels or other accommodation for pets
  • council tax – if a consumer has to move out of their own property, and the property is going to be unoccupied for up to 12 months, their local authority may be able to freeze their council tax. However, if they have to remain in alternative accommodation for longer than this, they may have to pay council tax on both their own home and their rental property. It would be unfair for the consumer to pay two lots of council tax, so we'd expect the insurer to cover council tax costs over and above what the consumer would normally pay.