The question the claim turns on
Not how bad the damage is. Where the water came from.
Admiral covers escape of water where the water came from "a domestic appliance, fixed water tank, fixed central-heating system, or water pipe". That list, or something close to it, appears in most home wordings. It is doing a lot of work, because it quietly excludes a great many ways a house gets wet.
Before anyone measures a damp patch, the insurer is establishing which side of that list the source sits on. So that is where your evidence should land first.
What usually is not an escape of water
Admiral publishes its exclusions plainly: drains and pipes damage, overflowing taps, faulty or failed grout or sealant, water from external above-ground pipes, loss caused by subsidence, heave or landslip, and damage while the home is unoccupied. Other insurers phrase it differently but the pattern holds.
| What happened | Usual position |
|---|
| Pinhole in a buried 15mm heating pipe | An insured source on most wordings |
| Failed push-fit joint in a floor void | An insured source on most wordings |
| Washing machine hose burst behind the unit | Usually a domestic appliance, so an insured source |
| Shower tray sealant failed and water tracked into the void | Commonly excluded as grout or sealant failure |
| Bath left running | Commonly excluded as an overflowing tap |
| Blocked or cracked below-ground drain | Usually a drains exclusion, sometimes a separate underground services section |
| Rain through a defective flat roof | Not escape of water at all, and often a maintenance argument |
The middle rows are where claims die. A leak behind a shower is not automatically a sealant failure, and a leak near a soil stack is not automatically a drain. We have found a failed 15mm feed inside a wall on jobs first written off as sealant, and the difference was a pressure test, not an opinion.
What to do on the day you find it
Admiral tells its customers to turn off the main water supply at the stopcock, drain the system by running the cold tap, turn off the power where water is near it, open doors and windows, contact a professional, and take photographs for the claim. That is sound advice regardless of insurer.
Two additions from our side of it:
- Photograph before you clean. Wet, with a date on the file. A dried and tidied room is very hard to claim on later.
- Do not rip anything out you do not have to. Strip-out can be part of the claim, and an insurer may want its own contractor or adjuster to see the state of things first. Making the property safe is always reasonable. Demolition ahead of an inspection is not.
Drying, strip-out and why it takes so long
Admiral sets out the usual sequence: dry out, giving walls, floors and furniture air circulation; clean and disinfect to prevent mould; strip out affected furniture, fixtures and plastering, with walls fully dried before replastering.
That last clause is the reason a modest leak turns into a long claim. Screed and plaster hold water for weeks. Replastering onto a wall that still reads wet on a moisture meter produces blown plaster and a second claim. If a contractor is pushing to finish before the readings are down, get the readings in writing.
Trace and access is a different pot
Escape of water pays for the damage. Finding the leak in the first place, and opening up the building to reach it, sits under trace and access, with its own limit. Repairing the failed pipe itself is commonly excluded from both. Three headings, one job. Our report itemises them separately for exactly that reason, and it is written to be accepted for a trace and access claim.
What the loss adjuster is trying to establish
An adjuster is not there to catch you out, but they do have a checklist, and it is roughly this:
- What was the source, and does it match an insured peril in this wording?
- Was it a one-off event or a long-running condition? That is the gradual damage question, and it is the most common ground for refusal.
- Was the property occupied, and were any unoccupancy or winter heating conditions met?
- Was it reported as soon as it was reasonably discoverable?
- What is the reasonable cost of putting the property back to the state it was in, not better?
Every one of those is answered more easily with a dated technical report than with a conversation. The Financial Ombudsman Service, looking at these disputes, says it examines "professional reports and photos about the damage".
Excess, and when not to claim
The Financial Ombudsman notes that most policies require the customer to pay an excess towards the claim cost, and Allianz publishes a standard minimum excess of £150 rising to £500 for a lower premium. Some policies apply a separate, higher escape of water excess. If the whole job is close to the excess, claiming buys you a claims history entry and very little else. That maths is worth doing before you notify. We cover it on excess and betterment.
If it is refused
Ask for a final response in writing, quoting the clause relied on. FCA rule ICOBS 8.1.1R requires insurers to handle claims promptly and fairly and not to reject a claim unreasonably. If eight weeks pass with no final response, or you disagree with the one you get, the Financial Ombudsman Service will review it free. You have six months from the date on that final response.
If you want the source located properly before any of that, we work at £150 per hour agreed in advance, and there is no charge for the search if we do not find it. Book an engineer.
