The clause, and the test that sits on top of it
Almost every home policy carries an exclusion for damage that happens gradually. esure lists it inside its escape of water section as damage caused by a gradual operating cause, and again in its general exclusions as loss or damage that happens gradually over time. Homeprotect defines gradual damage as damage caused by wear and tear, deterioration, or failing to address a known issue, or one you should reasonably have known about.
Read on its own, that clause appears to rule out every slow leak. It does not, because it is applied against a test the Financial Ombudsman Service publishes openly. It is likely to tell an insurer to pay where three things hold:
- the damage was caused by an insured event covered under the policy, such as escape of water or flood;
- you could not reasonably have been aware of the damage happening gradually; and
- you made the claim, or took reasonable action, as soon as you could reasonably have known.
That is the whole game. Duration is not in the test. Knowledge is.
Two slow leaks, opposite outcomes
| Concealed | Known about |
|---|
| Where it was | Under a screed floor or beneath a shower room floor | A weeping valve in an airing cupboard |
| What you saw | Nothing, until a stain appeared | A drip, and a rust bloom under the radiator |
| What you did | Reported it the day it showed | Put a container under it |
| Likely result | Arguable and frequently paid | Very hard to recover |
The published ombudsman case study on this point is the concealed version. A ceiling stain in a living room was caused by a slow leak from a waste pipe in the shower room above. The insurer relied on the gradual damage exclusion. The complaint was upheld: photographs taken on the day of the claim showed a fresh stain with no mould and no darker staining that would indicate long exposure, the leak was beneath the shower room floor and so could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, and it was reported promptly once noticed.
In another published case study, water built up gradually in a floor void, probably from a rising water table, and came up into the living room. The service decided that the gradual build-up of water constituted a flood on that wording, which did not define the term, and told the insurer to pay. Gradual accumulation did not defeat the claim; the label the insurer had applied did not survive scrutiny.
What "could not reasonably have been aware" looks like in evidence
This is the limb you win or lose on, and it is evidenced rather than argued.
- Dated photographs taken before anything is moved or dried. Fresh staining and long-standing staining look different, and an adjuster and an ombudsman both read that difference. This single item decided the case study above.
- Where the leak was. Under screed, beneath a tanked floor, inside a stud wall, in a riser. Concealment is a physical fact and a detection report can state it.
- A timeline. First sign, what you did, date reported. Short and consistent.
- Meter evidence. A reading before and after isolation converts "we think there is a leak" into a measured loss with a date attached. The method is on our meter test page.
- The failed component. A section of pinholed pipe is a description of the failure mode that nobody can argue with.
- An absence of prior warnings. If a survey or a previous engineer flagged damp in that spot, the insurer will find it. Deal with it in your account rather than leave it to be discovered.
The part that is genuinely not covered
Two things get conflated, and separating them saves a pointless argument.
The damage a slow leak caused can be recoverable under escape of water, subject to the test above.
The component that failed usually is not. esure excludes damage to the tank, pipe or installation itself where it was caused by normal wear and tear. A forty-year-old pipe that has finally pinholed is the definition of wear and tear, and no ombudsman test rescues it. Some wordings offer a small allowance instead: Homeprotect publishes a £250 per claim limit for repairing the cause of the leak.
The same logic disposes of the slow leak that produces no building damage at all. In a published decision on an AA Underwriting policy, the trace and access wording was read as requiring damage to the property caused by the leak before the cover engaged. Where a slow leak has only inflated a water bill, the water company allowance route is usually the relevant one, not the insurance one.
If the insurer says no
A decline is a position, not a determination. FCA rules require an insurer to handle claims promptly and fairly, to give reasonable guidance and information on progress, and not to reject a claim unreasonably.
The sequence is: ask for the decline in writing with the specific clause relied on, make a formal complaint to the insurer, and if the answer does not change, refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is free to use. Send the evidence with the complaint rather than describing it. None of this is legal or financial advice, and we do not act in claims; we produce the technical evidence that a claim stands or falls on.
What to look for in your own schedule
- Gradually operating cause, gradual damage, and any definition of the term.
- Wear and tear and lack of maintenance in the general exclusions.
- Good state of repair, where it is defined and imported into the whole policy.
- Trace and access, its limit, and any condition that damage must exist.
- The escape of water excess.
Cover varies between insurers and between tiers of the same product, and your schedule and booklet are the only authority on what you hold. Nothing here is a statement about your policy.
When not to call us
If you can see the drip, you do not need detection, you need it fixed. If your meter does not move over an hour with everything off, there is no ongoing loss to find, and the damp has another explanation such as condensation or ingress. If the only symptom is a boiler losing pressure, start with the checks on our boiler pressure hub, because the expansion vessel accounts for a good share of those and is not a leak at all.
What we do and what it costs
We pressure-test to confirm the loss is real and to size it, trace it with thermal imaging, acoustics and tracer gas, repair it, and reinstate what we opened. Detection is £150 per hour, fixed before we attend, and if we do not find the leak you do not pay for the time we spent looking. The report states method, what was ruled out, the location and the failure mode, which is what a trace and access claim is judged on. The rest of the claim detail sits on our insurance claims hub.
