The owners of a three bedroom detached house in Patterton, on the edge of Newton Mearns in East Renfrewshire, contacted PCLA after becoming frustrated with the progress of their escape of water claim.
A leak from a first floor hot water cylinder had caused damage across both levels of the home. The insurer had appointed a restoration contractor and a loss adjuster, and the homeowners were satisfied with the drying work, but after roughly a month they felt the claim itself was not moving forward.
PCLA inspected the property, took moisture readings and prepared a detailed costed schedule of works. The insurer’s loss adjuster responded with a settlement proposal of £17,000, which did not reflect the reinstatement requirement PCLA had set out. PCLA challenged the assessment and requested that the claim be escalated. Following a further inspection by the insurer’s surveyor, the claim settled at £32,000.
Insurer offer
£17,000
Settled at
£32,000
Case Summary
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Location | Patterton, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire |
| Property type | Three bedroom detached house |
| Claim type | Escape of water |
| Cause | Leak from a first floor hot water cylinder |
| Areas affected | Bathroom, landing, bedrooms, hallway, kitchen, living room and dining room |
| Claim duration before PCLA | Approximately one month |
| Insurer’s proposed settlement | £17,000 |
| Final settlement paid | £32,000 |
| Increase secured | £15,000 |
| Main issue | Delays and an insufficient reinstatement offer |
| Outcome | Increased settlement agreed and paid |
This Case May Be Relevant If
You may want to have your escape of water claim reviewed if:
- the claim is not progressing as quickly as expected;
- you are finding it difficult to obtain answers from the loss adjuster;
- the insurer’s offer does not appear to include every affected area;
- water has travelled between floors or adjoining rooms;
- you are concerned about moisture beneath floors or behind finishes;
- the drying work has gone well but the repair figure still looks low;
- you do not have the time or technical knowledge to manage the claim yourself;
- you have not accepted the insurer’s offer as a final settlement.
An independent review can help establish whether a proposed settlement reflects the damage and the reasonable cost of returning the property to its pre-loss condition.
The Problem: Water Damage Across Two Floors
The claim arose after water escaped from a hot water cylinder in a first floor cupboard.
The incident affected the bathroom, landing and bedrooms upstairs. Water also travelled to the ground floor, damaging the hallway, kitchen, living room and dining room.
The homeowners reported the damage to their insurer, which appointed a restoration contractor to stabilise and dry the property. A loss adjuster was also appointed to manage the claim.
The homeowners were pleased with the restoration contractor’s work. What concerned them was the progress of the claim itself. After approximately one month they felt there had been unnecessary delays and that they were spending too much of their own time trying to move matters forward.
The plumber who repaired the leak recommended that they contact PCLA for independent advice.
PCLA’s Inspection
PCLA attended the property the day after the homeowners made contact.
During the inspection we recorded the visible damage across both floors and took moisture readings in the affected areas. These readings help establish whether moisture has travelled into materials or areas where damage is not immediately apparent.
Water damage is not always limited to visible staining. Moisture can travel beneath flooring, behind decorative finishes and through adjoining building materials. This affects the drying, removal and reinstatement work required.
We used the inspection findings to prepare a detailed costed schedule, setting out room by room the work needed to reinstate the property across both floors.
The Insurer’s Proposed Settlement
After receiving PCLA’s schedule, the insurer’s loss adjuster proposed a settlement of £17,000.
Based on the number of rooms affected and the work identified during our inspection, PCLA did not consider the proposal reflected the reasonable cost of reinstating the property. The homeowners were concerned that accepting it would leave them without enough money to complete the repairs properly.
PCLA submitted the inspection findings, moisture evidence and costed schedule to the loss adjuster, then managed the communications and negotiations on the homeowners’ behalf. This allowed the clients to step back from the day to day administration of the claim while PCLA dealt directly with the insurer’s representatives.
A number of discussions followed. PCLA set out why the proposed settlement did not reflect the full extent of the damage or the work required across both floors. When it became clear that agreement could not be reached at that level, PCLA requested that the claim be escalated for further review.
Escalation and Further Inspection
Following the escalation, the insurer appointed a surveyor to reassess the claim.
A further inspection took place at the property. PCLA attended and presented the damage, the moisture findings and the reinstatement schedule in person.
The insurer’s surveyor accepted PCLA’s position on the principal areas of damage and the work required. This resulted in a substantially increased settlement proposal.
The Outcome: £32,000 Settlement Paid
The claim settled at £32,000, compared with the £17,000 proposed by the loss adjuster. That is an increase of £15,000.
The agreed settlement was paid to the homeowners, allowing them to move forward with the reinstatement of their home.
PCLA’s involvement also reduced the burden on the clients. We managed the property assessment, the supporting evidence, the insurer communications, the escalation and the settlement negotiations on their behalf.
What This Case Shows
An escape of water claim should be assessed across every affected area, not only where the leak originated. Water from the first floor cylinder had travelled through rooms on both levels of the property, and it took moisture readings and a room by room inspection to establish the wider extent of the damage.
The case also shows that a costed schedule on its own does not always change an insurer’s figure. PCLA’s schedule had already been submitted when the £17,000 proposal was made. What changed the outcome was escalating the claim beyond the loss adjuster and presenting the evidence directly to the insurer’s surveyor at a second inspection.
Two further points are worth drawing out for homeowners in a similar position:
- Drying and reinstatement are separate stages. The drying work here was carried out to a standard the homeowners were happy with, and the repair figure was still short by £15,000. Satisfaction with one stage says little about the other.
- A loss assessor can be appointed after a claim has begun. PCLA became involved approximately one month after the incident, once the insurer had already appointed both a restoration contractor and a loss adjuster.
Every claim depends on its own facts, evidence and policy terms. However, homeowners should understand the complete reinstatement requirement before accepting a final settlement.
Have You Received a Low Offer for an Escape of Water Claim?
If your insurer’s proposal does not appear sufficient to complete the necessary repairs, it may be worth having the claim independently reviewed before you accept it.
PCLA acts for policyholders, not insurers. We inspect the damage, prepare the supporting evidence, produce a detailed costed scope of works and negotiate with the insurer or its appointed loss adjuster.
We help homeowners across Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire, Glasgow and Central Scotland with escape of water and other property damage insurance claims.
Contact PCLA for an initial discussion about your claim.
A short call costs nothing and does not commit you to anything.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will challenging the offer put my settlement at risk?
Asking for a settlement to be reviewed does not withdraw the offer already made. In this claim, the £17,000 proposal remained available throughout the discussions that followed. A claim can be escalated for further review while the original position stands. What changes the figure is evidence, not pressure.
The drying went well and we were happy with the contractor. Does that mean the claim is nearly finished?
Not necessarily. Drying and reinstatement are separate stages. Drying stabilises the property and removes excess moisture. Reinstatement is the repair and replacement of the building elements and finishes damaged by the escape of water. Drying can be completed to a good standard while a genuine disagreement remains over the extent and cost of the repairs. That was the position in this claim.
What does it mean to escalate a claim beyond the loss adjuster?
A loss adjuster assesses the claim on the insurer’s behalf and has a level of authority to settle it. When a disagreement over scope cannot be resolved at that level, the claim can be referred upward for further review. In this case the insurer responded by appointing a surveyor to reassess the property. A further inspection took place, PCLA attended and presented the damage, moisture findings and reinstatement schedule, and the settlement proposal increased substantially.
Is it too late to appoint a loss assessor once a claim has started?
No, provided the claim has not been finally settled. PCLA became involved in this claim approximately one month after the incident, after the insurer had already appointed both a restoration contractor and a loss adjuster. We inspected the property, took moisture readings, prepared the costed schedule and managed the negotiations from that point.
What does full and final settlement mean?
It means the claim is treated as concluded on the agreed figure. Before accepting, it is worth being satisfied that the sum reflects the complete reinstatement requirement, including any areas where damage may not yet be fully apparent. Once a settlement has been accepted as final, reopening it is considerably harder than reviewing an offer before acceptance.
How can moisture readings show damage that is not visible?
Water damage is not always limited to visible staining. Moisture can travel beneath flooring, behind decorative finishes and through adjoining building materials, particularly where water has passed between floors. Readings taken across the affected areas help establish how far moisture has moved, which in turn affects the drying, removal and reinstatement work required.
Would your fee have cancelled out the increase in this case?
In this claim, the choice was not between £32,000 and £32,000 less our fee. It was between £17,000 and £32,000. The offer already on the table was the homeowners’ realistic alternative to instructing PCLA.
That distinction matters, because the £17,000 was proposed after our costed schedule had been submitted. The evidence on its own did not move the figure. What moved it was escalating the claim beyond the loss adjuster, attending the reassessment, and presenting the damage and moisture findings to the insurer’s surveyor in person.
We cannot promise that every claim will increase by more than our fee, and every claim turns on its own facts, evidence and policy terms. What we can do is make sure the damage is properly assessed, the claim is fully evidenced and presented, the insurer’s assessment is properly examined, and the negotiation is managed through to settlement. On this claim, the settlement increased by £15,000.
Do you cover Patterton and East Renfrewshire?
Yes. PCLA assists homeowners across Newton Mearns, Patterton, Giffnock, Clarkston and the wider East Renfrewshire area, along with Glasgow and Central Scotland, with escape of water and other property damage claims.
