I have a standard mid-1970s house in South Auckland, rented to a family.
About six weeks ago I called in on a Saturday morning, mainly to check up on some work that had been carried out there.
The work was OK, but the tenant happened to mention that something heavy had been dropped into the bath and cracked it. Sure enough, there was a sizeable crack right at the bottom of the acrylic bath.
As soon as I got back home I dug out the AMI policy on the house and rang their 24-hour help line.
"Sorry, there is nothing we can do today" I was told, "you'll need to file a claim on Monday".
So at 9.10 am on Monday morning I was at the AMI office filling out the paperwork. They admitted that as the claim fell under the sanitary fittings clause, I would not be liable for any excess.
At that time I stressed to them that as the family of tenants had small children, there was no way they were not going to not use the bath and that speed of repair was essential to minimise the leakage of water from the bath into the subfloor and the risk of extensive water damage to the structure of the building.
To cut a long story short, despite my perpetual hassling, they took a month to repair the bath damage. By this time the subfloor was waterlogged and starting to break down, with water damage spreading into the adjacent toilet and hallway.
AMI have now admitted liability for this quite extensive damage, and have engaged a contractor to carry out the repair work at their cost.
My problem is that this work means that the bathroom/toilet will be out of commission for several days, and what happens to the tenant during this time?
My policy, as it is written, does not cover this eventuality. My argument will be that as the work is now required due to AMI's failure to act in a speedy manner they have a liability to cover the costs of any tenant disruption.
Anyone else been down this track? What was the outcome? Informed feedback welcome.
About six weeks ago I called in on a Saturday morning, mainly to check up on some work that had been carried out there.
The work was OK, but the tenant happened to mention that something heavy had been dropped into the bath and cracked it. Sure enough, there was a sizeable crack right at the bottom of the acrylic bath.
As soon as I got back home I dug out the AMI policy on the house and rang their 24-hour help line.
"Sorry, there is nothing we can do today" I was told, "you'll need to file a claim on Monday".
So at 9.10 am on Monday morning I was at the AMI office filling out the paperwork. They admitted that as the claim fell under the sanitary fittings clause, I would not be liable for any excess.
At that time I stressed to them that as the family of tenants had small children, there was no way they were not going to not use the bath and that speed of repair was essential to minimise the leakage of water from the bath into the subfloor and the risk of extensive water damage to the structure of the building.
To cut a long story short, despite my perpetual hassling, they took a month to repair the bath damage. By this time the subfloor was waterlogged and starting to break down, with water damage spreading into the adjacent toilet and hallway.
AMI have now admitted liability for this quite extensive damage, and have engaged a contractor to carry out the repair work at their cost.
My problem is that this work means that the bathroom/toilet will be out of commission for several days, and what happens to the tenant during this time?
My policy, as it is written, does not cover this eventuality. My argument will be that as the work is now required due to AMI's failure to act in a speedy manner they have a liability to cover the costs of any tenant disruption.
Anyone else been down this track? What was the outcome? Informed feedback welcome.
Comment