Does trace and access pay if the leak damaged nothing?

On most wordings, no. DRN-2137820 held that a term requiring the buildings to be damaged by the escaping water was clear and fair, and that damage caused by the trace and access work itself did not satisfy it. Some wordings are drafted differently, so read your own.

My insurer says it cannot validate the damage because we threw the flooring out. Is that fatal?

Not necessarily. In DRN-3748774 the Ombudsman held an insurer could not fairly refuse solely because it had not inspected the discarded flooring, where contemporaneous photographs and a video of the leak were enough to validate the loss on the balance of probabilities.

Do I have to claim for the water damage to get trace and access paid?

That depends entirely on the wording. In DRN-3805350 the insurer argued it did, and the Ombudsman found the policy required building damage to have occurred, not a claim for it, and upheld the complaint. Other policies expressly tie the two together.

Will a trace and access claim affect my renewal premium?

It can. DRN-5404474 concerned a renewal priced as though an escape of water claim had been made when the claim was trace and access only with no water damage, and the Ombudsman found that unfair on that wording. Pricing itself is a commercial matter the service will not interfere with.

Do I pay an excess on a trace and access claim?

Often yes. In DRN-5646463 the schedule carried a £500 compulsory excess applicable to escape of water and trace and access claims, and it was fairly charged even though the claim was declined, because the work had been carried out and was not shown to be unnecessary.

Trace and Access Limits, Tested in Real Disputes

The published decisions show four recurring limits: most wordings require damage to the building from the leak itself (DRN-2137820), that damage can be proved on the balance of probabilities without the insurer inspecting it (DRN-3748774), a separate claim for the damage is not necessarily required (DRN-3805350), and trace and access can be a claim in its own right with its own excess (DRN-5404474, DRN-5646463). Every one of them turns on its own wording.

Leak Fix LondonLast updated 19 September 2026

Flooring and plaster being made good after a leak repair

The one condition almost every wording contains

Trace and access cover pays to find a hidden leak, to open up the building to reach it, and to make good what was opened. Read a few wordings side by side and the same conditional keeps appearing, in slightly different words: if the buildings are damaged by the escaping water. That conditional is where most disputes start, and four published decisions show how far it stretches.

DRN-2137820: no damage to the building, no cover

A boiler lost pressure in June 2019. esure told the policyholder to appoint an engineer, who found the leak under a living room laminate floor, and warned at the outset that if the water had gone straight into the ground without damaging the building, restoration costs would not be covered. The engineer removed part of the laminate and the concrete below, drilling holes to reach the leak. A surveyor later carried out a visual inspection and moisture readings and reported no damage caused by the escape of water.

The wording said the insurer would pay "if the buildings are damaged due to water escaping from water tanks, pipes, equipment or fixed heating systems in the Home". The Ombudsman held that term to be common, fair in principle, and clear: for cover to be met, damage must have occurred to the buildings as a result of the escape of water, "and not trace and access damage alone".

The complaint was not upheld. The photograph produced after the repair showed darker patches under the pipe, but the investigator’s view was overturned and the Ombudsman concluded on balance that the damage present was caused by the engineer removing the laminate and concrete, not by the water. The policyholder also argued that turning off the water promptly had prevented a worse loss the insurer would have had to pay for. The decision accepted the action was right and said it did not create cover, because it was something he was required to do under the policy anyway.

The unlucky detail: the damaged material had already been removed before the surveyor attended, and there was no photograph of it.

DRN-3748774: damage proved without the insurer seeing it

Same condition, opposite outcome. Flooring was damaged while locating a leak beneath a floor, and AXA said trace and access was conditional on damage caused by the leak, that the allegedly damaged flooring had been disposed of so it could not validate the loss, and that it did not follow that hardwood flooring would rot when the softwood floorboards beneath it dried out naturally.

The wording was a £5,000 trace and access section paying "necessary and reasonable costs that you incur in finding the source of damage to the home", including reinstating any wall, floor, ceiling, drive, fence or path removed or damaged during the search.

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint on the balance of probabilities. The policyholder had a video of the leak in action showing water spraying upwards into the floorboards, photographs showing soaked floorboards and joist, and a photograph of a soaked and damaged piece of hardwood flooring. The membrane argument was met by the explanation that it had joints the water penetrated. The insurer’s suggestion that the flooring might have got wet some other way was not supported by any evidence, and the decision notes there was nothing to suggest another part of the floor showed previous or alternative water damage.

Two findings are portable. Softwood dries much more quickly than hardwood, which the Ombudsman researched and accepted. And an insurer cannot fairly refuse a claim "based solely on the fact that it couldn’t inspect the damaged piece of flooring" where there is enough contemporaneous photographic and video evidence to validate it.

DRN-3805350: you may not have to claim for the damage as well

A pipe under a bath leaked. The policyholder arranged for it to be found and fixed and claimed only the trace and access. Admiral refused, saying trace and access is covered only if the other damage is claimed for too.

The Ombudsman asked Admiral to point to that in the wording. The wording said trace and access covered "the cost of removing and replacing any part of the buildings to find the source of a water or oil leak from any tank, pipe, or fixed water or heating system if the buildings are damaged due to any buildings insured risk". The decision records that there is an exclusion for the pipe repair itself, but nothing saying there has to be a claim for the building damage, only that there has to have been building damage. Minimal damage to the flooring beneath the bathroom had been evidenced.

The complaint was upheld. There is a second point in it that comes up constantly on our jobs: the leak had been located without removing part of the building, and the Ombudsman held that because the cover is trace and access, the access part responded where the building had to be opened to reach the leak. Settlement was based on the policyholder’s invoice, with a reasonable deduction for the cost of removing and replacing the broken pipe, the escape of water excess applied, and 8% simple interest added.

DRN-5404474 and DRN-5646463: it is a claim, and it has an excess

The last limit is the one people do not expect. Trace and access is not a free lookup attached to an escape of water claim. In the wordings considered in these two decisions it is a claimable event in its own right, with the consequences that follow.

In DRN-5404474 the policyholder made a trace and access claim in November 2023 after a pipe behind exterior wood cladding was found leaking, with no water damage at all. At renewal the premium rose 79%, and RSA’s letter described the loading as being for an escape of water claim. The Ombudsman held the two covers were "set out separately and there is nothing in the policy wording for each of the covers that links it inextricably to the other", noted that some insurers do require an accepted escape of water claim before trace and access responds and that RSA had not chosen to, and found it unfair to price the renewal as though an escape of water claim had been made. RSA could not re-price or re-classify because of its systems, so it was directed to pay £100 towards the premium with interest, £100 compensation, and to provide a letter the policyholder could give other insurers confirming the claim was trace and access only with no water damage.

DRN-5646463 supplies the cost side. That policy schedule carried a £500 compulsory excess applicable to escape of water and trace and access claims, and the terms said the escape of water excess applied to trace and access claims. The claim itself was declined under the gradual damage exclusion, and the Ombudsman still found the £500 fairly charged, because establishing the cause required trace and access, it had been carried out, and it had not been shown to be unnecessary.

The four limits, in order

Limit	Decision	What it turned on
Damage to the building is usually required	DRN-2137820	Trace and access damage alone did not count, and the damaged material was gone before the surveyor attended.
That damage can be proved on the balance of probabilities	DRN-3748774	Video and photographs validated the loss although the flooring itself was never inspected.
A separate damage claim may not be required	DRN-3805350	The wording required damage to exist, not a claim for it.
It is its own claim, with its own excess and its own record	DRN-5404474, DRN-5646463	Separate covers in the wording, a £500 excess on the schedule, and a misclassified renewal loading.

What follows for anybody about to have a floor opened

Photograph the wet material before it leaves the building. DRN-2137820 turned on the absence of that photograph and DRN-3748774 turned on its presence, and the difference between those two files is about ten seconds of somebody’s time. Keep the damaged section if you reasonably can, and if it has to go outside, say so in writing to the insurer rather than assuming its surveyor will ask.

Then keep the invoice separable. The pipe repair is usually excluded, the making good usually is not, and settlement in DRN-3805350 allowed a reasonable deduction for the pipe. Our reports and quotes split detection, access, repair and reinstatement into their own lines for that reason. The cover itself is explained on what trace and access cover is and what it pays for, and the excess arithmetic on excess and betterment.

Read this properly

Five decisions, five policies, five sets of facts. None of them is a precedent, none binds your insurer, and none of them says your claim will be paid. Your own schedule and wording govern your claim. If yours is refused, ask for a written final response quoting the clause, and the Financial Ombudsman Service will review it free within six months of that response.

When not to call us

If nothing in the building is damaged and the only symptom is a meter turning, that is usually a supply pipe question for your water company before it is an insurance one. Start with the meter. Where a hidden leak has damaged the building and needs locating, we work at £150 per hour agreed in advance, we do the repair and the making good, and if we do not find the leak you do not pay for the time we spent looking.

Frequently asked

Does trace and access pay if the leak damaged nothing?: On most wordings, no. DRN-2137820 held that a term requiring the buildings to be damaged by the escaping water was clear and fair, and that damage caused by the trace and access work itself did not satisfy it. Some wordings are drafted differently, so read your own.
My insurer says it cannot validate the damage because we threw the flooring out. Is that fatal?: Not necessarily. In DRN-3748774 the Ombudsman held an insurer could not fairly refuse solely because it had not inspected the discarded flooring, where contemporaneous photographs and a video of the leak were enough to validate the loss on the balance of probabilities.
Do I have to claim for the water damage to get trace and access paid?: That depends entirely on the wording. In DRN-3805350 the insurer argued it did, and the Ombudsman found the policy required building damage to have occurred, not a claim for it, and upheld the complaint. Other policies expressly tie the two together.
Will a trace and access claim affect my renewal premium?: It can. DRN-5404474 concerned a renewal priced as though an escape of water claim had been made when the claim was trace and access only with no water damage, and the Ombudsman found that unfair on that wording. Pricing itself is a commercial matter the service will not interfere with.
Do I pay an excess on a trace and access claim?: Often yes. In DRN-5646463 the schedule carried a £500 compulsory excess applicable to escape of water and trace and access claims, and it was fairly charged even though the claim was declined, because the work had been carried out and was not shown to be unnecessary.

Sources

No find, no fee · £150 per hour. The rate is fixed before we attend and does not rise for a difficult property, an awkward access or an evening visit. The total depends on how long the job takes; the rate cannot change.