Home / Services / Water Damage
Water damage: what happened, when, and whether the claim stands up
Escape of water is one of the most commonly declined categories of household claim in the country, and it is almost always declined on the same point: the insurer says the damage happened gradually rather than suddenly. That is a surveying question before it is an insurance one, and it is what we are instructed to answer.
When an independent report changes the outcome
- A claim declined as gradually operating cause, wear and tear, or a pre existing defect
- A loss adjuster's conclusion you believe is wrong, or reached without a proper inspection
- A leak from the flat above, where the damage is yours and the pipe is not
- Scope of works you think is too narrow, leaving damp fabric behind a new finish
- A property being bought or sold with a history of water damage on the file
- Damage that is genuinely a mixture: an escape of water on top of damp that was already present
Sudden or gradual, and why the whole claim turns on it
Nearly every policy covers a sudden escape of water and excludes damage that has developed slowly. Insurers apply that distinction because it is in the wording, and policyholders lose claims on it because nobody has established which it is on the evidence rather than on assertion.
It is answerable. A wall wetted three weeks ago behaves differently from one that has been wet for three winters, and the difference is visible in the moisture profile through the depth of the material, in the salt contamination at the surface, in the state of the plaster and the timber, and in what has happened to the decoration. Those are measurable, and they are what a report should carry.
Sometimes the honest answer goes against the policyholder, and we say so. A report that only ever finds for the person paying for it is worth nothing to an insurer, and it is worth nothing to you either the first time it is tested.
Where the water actually came from
A leak appearing in a ceiling has very often not come from the flat directly above it. Water tracks along joists, follows service runs and boxed in stacks, and emerges at the first place it meets a surface, which may be several rooms away from the failure and on the far side of a party wall.
In London that matters more than almost anywhere, because so much of the housing is converted, the pipework is shared and rerouted, and the person whose ceiling is stained is rarely the person who owns the pipe. Establishing the source is what turns a dispute between neighbours into a claim against the right policy.
We also separate the escape of water from what was already there. A flat with a long standing condensation problem that then suffers a burst pipe has two problems, and only one of them is insured. Reporting both, clearly divided, is more use than pretending it is all one event.
What the report contains
The source of the water and the route it took, supported by inspection and photographs. Calibrated moisture readings taken to depth, not surface readings from a pin meter, because the surface tells you almost nothing about age. Where relevant, surface temperatures and relative humidity, so condensation can be excluded rather than assumed away.
An opinion on timing: whether the evidence is consistent with a sudden escape, with long term wetting, or with both, and what specifically supports that. The extent of affected fabric, including what is wet behind finishes that look dry. And where remedial work is needed, a specification detailed enough to price, which you can put out to tender or hand to your insurer to compare against their own scope.
It is written on the assumption that a loss adjuster will read it looking for reasons to reject it, because that is usually exactly what happens next.
Why the report has to come from somewhere neutral
A drying company or a restoration contractor who would carry out the works has an obvious interest in the scope being large, and insurers treat their reports accordingly. A loss adjuster is appointed and paid by the insurer. Between those two positions there is often nobody looking at the building on its own terms.
ATi carries out no remedial work of any kind, takes no commission, recommends no contractors and has no relationship with any insurer. There is nothing in the conclusion for us either way, which is the only reason the conclusion carries weight with the party being asked to pay.
Fixed fee agreed before we attend, and the written report within 24 hours of the inspection. The fee is payable by whoever instructs us. If you intend to put it to your insurer, that is a conversation to have with them first, and it does not change what you owe us.
Questions
My insurer says the damage is gradual, not a sudden escape. Can that be challenged?
Often, yes, but only with evidence rather than argument. The distinction is a physical one and it leaves physical traces: how deep the moisture goes, whether soluble salts have come to the surface, what has happened to plaster, timber and decoration, and whether the pattern matches the failure being claimed for. A report that sets out those observations gives you something to put back to the insurer that is not simply your word against the adjuster's. It may also confirm the insurer is right, and we will tell you that before you spend anything further on it.
Water is coming from the flat above. Whose insurance deals with it?
Generally your own policy covers the damage to your flat and its contents, and the leaseholder above is responsible for the pipe, with the building policy covering the structure. In practice the argument is rarely about the principle and almost always about where the water actually came from, because it frequently is not the flat immediately above. We establish the source and the route with readings and photographs, which is the fact everyone else's position has to be built on.
Do you dry the property or carry out the repairs?
No. We survey and we report, and that is the whole practice. We install nothing, dry nothing and take no commission from anyone who does. That is precisely why the report is useful in a claim: there is no version of the conclusion that earns us more work. If you need drying or reinstatement, the report specifies what is required in enough detail for you to obtain competitive quotes.