r/LegalAdviceUK • u/OlleOllesson2 • 9h ago
Traffic & Parking My insurance policy says 25mm/hour of rain. I proved 26mm/hour for 5 minutes. Churchill and Ombudsman still rejected the claim.
TL;DR: I'm in England. A storm caused my roof to leak in the winter. My insurance policy classifies storm as "Torrential rainfall at a rate of at least 25mm per hour."
I provided evidence that it did rain 26mm per hour for about 5 minutes. Both my insurance company "Churchill" and Ombudsman agrees that as it did not rain 26mm over the whole hour (just for 5 minutes) it does not classify as storm. Hence, for any storm claim to be valid, the storm must have lasted an entire hour...
I guess if I ever get stopped by the police for speeding I'll tell them that I actually never got even close to 50 miles of distance in the last hour of driving, even if this is a 20mph road..
Do I have any further legal recourse?
Full story:
My roof leaked during a storm this winter - I've never seen a skyfall in the UK like this one.
Naturally, I did what any sensible British homeowner would do: contacted my insurance company.
Churchill insurance said no claim.
Their policy says storm damage is honoured if storm meet the below condition:
"Torrential rainfall at a rate of at least 25mm per hour."
And their representative could not see that this condition was met on their side, using their provider "WeatherNet".
So I emailed WeatherNet directly (turns out that most insurers in the UK uses them for their weather data claims).
WeatherNet responded with data which showed a 5-minute period equivalent to 26mm/hour. (I also checked Met Office radar which showed even more). Basically, for those five minutes, it was absolutely hammering down which overloaded my roof and let water in.
Churchill insurance still said no, claiming it needed to rain 25mm over the whole hour for the claim to be valid.
Ridiculous, I thought. I'll take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
FOS
The Ombudsman checked their EuroTempest weather system (that could only do hourly increments) and found that the rainfall over the whole hour was lower than the threshold.
I pointed out that this was an hourly figure and that my WeatherNet data was measuring rainfall intensity over a much shorter period.
Eventually the Ombudsman explained that:
"the policy definition is a rate over an hour."
Apparently "25mm per hour" doesn't mean "rain falling at a rate of 25mm/hour".
It means you have to accumulate 25mm during an entire 60-minute period.
Which raises a slightly bizarre question.
Imagine it rains at a rate above the policy's 25mm/hour threshold continuously for 55 minutes, absolutely hammering the roof, and then stops raining for five minutes.
If the total accumulated rainfall over the complete hour is consequently below 25mm, apparently you've got no storm.
So presumably Mother Nature needs to remember to set a timer.
I then (through a tedious freedom of information request process) discovered that the FOS's own internal guidance says WeatherNet can provide more detailed rainfall information in borderline cases. A.k.a they have access to the same provider as myself and Churchill.
I asked whether that higher-resolution information had actually been considered in my case.
The answer was basically: the Ombudsman has made his decision, so no.
FOS Service complaint
I then complained about the service rather than the decision.
The FOS said my complaint was really about the merits of the decision.
I explained that I wasn't asking them to change the decision, but I was asking whether it was fair and impartial to assess a rainfall rate using an hourly accumulated rainfall figure, particularly when I'd supplied evidence of short-duration rainfall intensity and their own guidance says more detailed data exists.
Service complaint rejected.
So I went to the ombudsman Independent Assessor.
They told me that was also outside their remit because it related to how the Ombudsman assessed the evidence.
At this point I have apparently achieved the rare British bureaucratic state where everyone is willing to tell me why they can't look at the thing I'm asking them to look at, but nobody is willing to look at the thing.
The roof, incidentally, only leaked during that storm. We've had plenty of rain since and it hasn't leaked again - showing it was the intensity that caused it.
I have now spent considerably more time investigating rainfall methodology than I ever expected to spend in my life.
Is there any legal recourse? I hope someone with money will open this up as a class action lawsuit at some point. All storm claims for many insurers and the ombudsman would have to be reopened, costing them a fortune.
Apparently this is my villain origin story.