Evening folks, wanted to get some thoughts on a little situation that's cropped up.
We had a leak under the kitchen floor which was caused by the rubbing of a pipe creating a small pin hole sized escape route for our cold water - the time scale of how long it was going is unknown since it didn't change the behaviour of anything in our house.
I noted the start of a damp smell last and noise Tuesday morning and investigated by pulling up the floor to check after ruling out other potential causes and was met with water under the Lino so immediately turned off the Water. At this point I called British Gas as I have home care including plumbing and drains cover and they sent out someone who pulled the Lino off and confirmed there was a leak.... I know..
On Friday the British Gas supplied plumbing co. came and cut into floor boards, cut out the leaking area on the pipe (it had been rubbing on another pipe causing the eventual failure) and swaged on a new fitting to remedy the problem.
I was then told that the £1,000 cover which under the policy states "Up to £1,000, including VAT, for getting access and making good for each repair" (BG policy NOT my home insurance) would not be enough to replace the needed floor boards and it would be an insurance job and he left it there.
It was the missus who dealt with the plumbing co and she didn't sign anything off - we are waiting for an email report to come through tomorrow. When I finished work and inspected the repair this is what has been done.
I have a dehumidifier for boat stuff which can pull around 50L a day and the humidity level of the room is around 30% (nice and toasty too) but the whole episode seemed a little off to me. I spoke to my plumber and a friend who is a joiner to come and give me an assessment over a cuppa so I would know what I'm getting into if we went the home insurance route but came to a different conclusion to the BG plumbers.
We took up the floors in the adjacent rooms to asses the state of the chipboard there (all dry) and also under them to check for standing water on the concrete and found nothing concerning, as it looks like it was contained mostly to the area where the pipe has failed. The joiners opinion was yeah other than replacing the chipboard floors where there had been water its should fall within the £1k to make good the repair blurb..
The plumbers opinion was more scathing, not of the scale of the repair, he agreed with the joiner that its not as bad when the water damage was localised to the areas it was, but more the actual repair itself is problematic.
A smaller diameter pipe was put in place to try and reduce the contact with the lower pipe (the piping here gives me the chills as an Engineer tbh) but the fact the repair was done so close to the lower pipe and the top of new fitting now touches the level where the underside of the chipboard flooring will be means that as soon as a new floor is laid, it will be pushing down on the fitting and then the new pipe will be right back down on the pipe below - with more force than the original solution and a timebomb waiting to happen.
He advised that if it was him the repair should have been done way further back so that there was more flex allowing for a rubber shim or other protective surface to be installed between the pipes - metal on metal is never good!
Their opinions aligned with mine that the repair was potentially hazardous and the fact that it was left as it was appalling for something which there should be cover for.
I've not touched the kitchen since other than running the dehumidifier as I think that it's up to them to make good on the repair. I've no doubt that I would get a solution form my home insurance as we have a decent policy in place, its just that belief that it should be more than covered under the Plumbing specific policy we have with BG that makes me not want to submit my 1st claim under the home insurance and then be paying for it for years to come if I dont have to.
FYI the concrete is bone dry now, the timber joists which where wet with the leak have all dried nicely and the chipboard while ugly has retained its shape (bar the one right under the leak) and apparent strength with no bounce - ill still be replacing these regardless.
Another thing to note is that while the chipboard on top was wet, it was only upto the edge of the lino which came just shy of the units all round due to a trim piece meaning very little discoloration of the boards under or around the units.
The edge of the units also appears to be on joists with the chipboard flooring having its ends (bar one) on that joist - in total 5 standard size chipboards would be needed to replace the previously wet ones and something that could be done without touching the units.
So am I being unreasonable? is that a state you would expect something to be left in by a plumber? Is the fix sound or just a half baked solution which should be done better and are they trying to wriggle out of the making good on the job part of the policy... I know the answer to that last one
We had a leak under the kitchen floor which was caused by the rubbing of a pipe creating a small pin hole sized escape route for our cold water - the time scale of how long it was going is unknown since it didn't change the behaviour of anything in our house.
I noted the start of a damp smell last and noise Tuesday morning and investigated by pulling up the floor to check after ruling out other potential causes and was met with water under the Lino so immediately turned off the Water. At this point I called British Gas as I have home care including plumbing and drains cover and they sent out someone who pulled the Lino off and confirmed there was a leak.... I know..
On Friday the British Gas supplied plumbing co. came and cut into floor boards, cut out the leaking area on the pipe (it had been rubbing on another pipe causing the eventual failure) and swaged on a new fitting to remedy the problem.
I was then told that the £1,000 cover which under the policy states "Up to £1,000, including VAT, for getting access and making good for each repair" (BG policy NOT my home insurance) would not be enough to replace the needed floor boards and it would be an insurance job and he left it there.
It was the missus who dealt with the plumbing co and she didn't sign anything off - we are waiting for an email report to come through tomorrow. When I finished work and inspected the repair this is what has been done.
I have a dehumidifier for boat stuff which can pull around 50L a day and the humidity level of the room is around 30% (nice and toasty too) but the whole episode seemed a little off to me. I spoke to my plumber and a friend who is a joiner to come and give me an assessment over a cuppa so I would know what I'm getting into if we went the home insurance route but came to a different conclusion to the BG plumbers.
We took up the floors in the adjacent rooms to asses the state of the chipboard there (all dry) and also under them to check for standing water on the concrete and found nothing concerning, as it looks like it was contained mostly to the area where the pipe has failed. The joiners opinion was yeah other than replacing the chipboard floors where there had been water its should fall within the £1k to make good the repair blurb..
The plumbers opinion was more scathing, not of the scale of the repair, he agreed with the joiner that its not as bad when the water damage was localised to the areas it was, but more the actual repair itself is problematic.
A smaller diameter pipe was put in place to try and reduce the contact with the lower pipe (the piping here gives me the chills as an Engineer tbh) but the fact the repair was done so close to the lower pipe and the top of new fitting now touches the level where the underside of the chipboard flooring will be means that as soon as a new floor is laid, it will be pushing down on the fitting and then the new pipe will be right back down on the pipe below - with more force than the original solution and a timebomb waiting to happen.
He advised that if it was him the repair should have been done way further back so that there was more flex allowing for a rubber shim or other protective surface to be installed between the pipes - metal on metal is never good!
Their opinions aligned with mine that the repair was potentially hazardous and the fact that it was left as it was appalling for something which there should be cover for.
I've not touched the kitchen since other than running the dehumidifier as I think that it's up to them to make good on the repair. I've no doubt that I would get a solution form my home insurance as we have a decent policy in place, its just that belief that it should be more than covered under the Plumbing specific policy we have with BG that makes me not want to submit my 1st claim under the home insurance and then be paying for it for years to come if I dont have to.
FYI the concrete is bone dry now, the timber joists which where wet with the leak have all dried nicely and the chipboard while ugly has retained its shape (bar the one right under the leak) and apparent strength with no bounce - ill still be replacing these regardless.
Another thing to note is that while the chipboard on top was wet, it was only upto the edge of the lino which came just shy of the units all round due to a trim piece meaning very little discoloration of the boards under or around the units.
The edge of the units also appears to be on joists with the chipboard flooring having its ends (bar one) on that joist - in total 5 standard size chipboards would be needed to replace the previously wet ones and something that could be done without touching the units.
So am I being unreasonable? is that a state you would expect something to be left in by a plumber? Is the fix sound or just a half baked solution which should be done better and are they trying to wriggle out of the making good on the job part of the policy... I know the answer to that last one
Last edited:
