A homeowner in the Falkirk area contacted PCLA after their insurer offered approximately £15,000 for water damage caused by an escape of water within their home.
The damage affected several areas across the ground floor, including flooring, skirting boards, plasterboard, kitchen units and internal finishes. Drying works had already been carried out by the insurer’s appointed contractor, and a drying certificate had been issued.
Despite this, the homeowner was concerned that the offer did not reflect the full cost of reinstating the property properly.
Those concerns became more serious when mould was found behind removed skirting boards and later reappeared on retained plasterboard after cleaning works had been completed.
Following PCLA’s involvement, the insurer’s scope was challenged, independent restoration evidence was obtained, and the matter was escalated through the insurer’s complaint process. Further intrusive investigations then identified mould on the studwork behind the plasterboard.
The claim ultimately settled for approximately £33,000, around £18,000 higher than the insurer’s original offer.
Case Summary
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Location | Falkirk area, Central Scotland |
| Claim type | Escape of water |
| Property type | Residential property |
| Initial insurer offer | Approximately £15,000 |
| Final settlement | Approximately £33,000 |
| Increase achieved | Approximately £18,000 |
| Main dispute | Mould, retained plasterboard, flooring preparation and reinstatement scope |
| Key evidence | Independent restoration report and intrusive inspection |
| Outcome | Settlement agreed following further evidence, complaint escalation and negotiation |
This Case May Be Relevant If
You may want to have your water damage claim reviewed if:
- your insurer has made an offer that does not seem to reflect the full damage;
- drying works have been completed but mould has appeared or returned;
- plasterboard, skirting boards, flooring or kitchen units have been affected;
- your insurer is relying heavily on a drying certificate;
- you are worried that concealed areas have not been inspected;
- you are concerned about retained flooring adhesive or floor preparation;
- you have not accepted the insurer’s offer as a final settlement.
A review does not commit you to challenging the insurer. It helps you understand whether the offer reflects the likely cost of reinstatement before you make a decision. Find out how we help Scottish homeowners with water damage claims across Scotland.
The Problem: Water Damage Across the Ground Floor
The claim arose following an escape of water within the property.
Water had affected several rooms across the ground floor, including the hallway, kitchen and dining area, lounge, utility area and WC. Flooring had been lifted in several areas, skirting boards had been removed, and drying works were undertaken.
The insurer’s appointed contractor issued a drying certificate. The insurer relied on that certificate when assessing the claim and the proposed reinstatement works.
However, a drying certificate does not always resolve every issue in a water damage claim.
Drying and reinstatement are separate matters. A property may be considered dry enough for the drying phase to end, but there can still be legitimate concerns about retained materials, concealed contamination, floor preparation and the correct scope of reinstatement.
That became a key issue in this claim.
Drying and Reinstatement Are Not the Same Thing
A drying certificate may confirm that the drying contractor considers the drying phase complete. It does not automatically confirm that every retained material is suitable for reinstatement.
In this case, the key dispute was not only whether drying works had been completed. It was whether affected plasterboard, concealed timber, flooring adhesive and other retained materials had been properly assessed before reinstatement works began.
A drying certificate does not automatically prove that:
- all retained materials are suitable;
- concealed wall cavities are unaffected;
- mould contamination has been fully remediated;
- floor adhesives remain bonded;
- reinstatement can proceed without further preparation.
This case shows why policyholders should be cautious where an insurer treats a drying certificate as a complete answer to all reinstatement concerns.
The Insurer’s Initial Offer
The insurer’s loss adjuster offered approximately £15,000 in settlement of the claim.
Their position was that the proposed scope of works was reasonable and proportionate. They relied heavily on the drying certificate and the opinion of their appointed restoration contractor.
The insurer did not agree to a number of items which the homeowner considered necessary, including:
- removal of plasterboard to inspect and treat concealed areas;
- wider plasterboard reinstatement;
- replacement of WC wall tiling;
- removal of retained flooring adhesive;
- kitchen unit removal to allow reinstatement;
- disturbance or alternative accommodation considerations.
The insurer’s position was that the available evidence did not justify the additional works being requested.
The homeowner was concerned that accepting the offer would leave them unable to properly reinstate the property and appointed PCLA to assist.
PCLA’s Review
Following instruction, PCLA reviewed the insurer’s settlement offer, the damage present at the property and the proposed reinstatement scope.
It was clear that there were legitimate concerns about the adequacy of the proposed works.
Mould growth had been visible behind removed skirting boards and to the lower sections of plasterboard. This raised concerns that surface cleaning alone may not have dealt with all affected materials.
There were also concerns about retained floor adhesive and whether it remained suitable to receive new flooring.
In water damage claims, the condition of the substrate is critical. If adhesive has been affected by moisture or is no longer fully bonded, simply covering it with a levelling compound may risk later failure of the new floor finish.
PCLA therefore challenged the insurer’s position and obtained further independent evidence.
What PCLA Did
PCLA assisted by:
- Reviewing the insurer’s offer and proposed reinstatement scope.
- Inspecting the property and identifying concerns with mould and retained materials.
- Challenging the insurer’s reliance on the drying certificate as a complete answer to the reinstatement dispute.
- Obtaining an independent restoration report.
- Reviewing the condition of plasterboard, flooring adhesive and affected finishes.
- Escalating the matter through the insurer’s complaint process.
- Securing further intrusive investigation.
- Negotiating a revised settlement.
This gave the claim a stronger evidence base and helped move the dispute away from general disagreement and towards the practical reinstatement issues that needed to be resolved.
Evidence Used in This Claim
The challenge was supported by several forms of evidence, including:
- photographs of mould behind removed skirting boards;
- evidence that mould returned after drying and cleaning;
- an independent restoration contractor’s report;
- recommendations for further strip-out and inspection;
- intrusive inspection findings showing mould on studwork behind plasterboard;
- review of flooring adhesive and substrate condition;
- assessment of the reinstatement works required across the affected ground-floor areas.
This evidence was important because the dispute was not simply about cost. It was about whether the proposed works were sufficient to properly reinstate the insured damage.
Independent Restoration Report
An independent restoration contractor attended the property and prepared a report on the damage identified.
The report recommended further strip-out works, including removal of plasterboard to a height of approximately 1 metre in affected areas. This was to allow inspection and treatment of concealed timber elements, check the condition of wall cavities and insulation, and ensure that mould contamination had been properly addressed.
The report also identified concerns regarding moisture levels within the floor slab and recommended that retained adhesive be removed before new flooring was installed.
This independent evidence materially differed from the insurer’s proposed scope.
It also gave the homeowner a clearer basis for challenging the settlement offer.
The Mould Dispute
One of the most important parts of the claim related to mould contamination.
Before cleaning works were carried out by the insurer’s contractor, photographs showed mould growth behind removed skirting boards and to the lower section of plasterboard in the hallway.
The insurer initially maintained that there was no evidence to support more intrusive works. Their position was that the property had been dried and that the visible mould had been dealt with.
However, mould later reappeared on the face of retained plasterboard after the drying certificate had been issued and after cleaning works had been undertaken.
This was an important development.
The recurrence of mould raised clear concerns that the underlying issue had not been fully resolved. It also supported PCLA’s concern that retained materials and concealed areas required further investigation.
Why Recurring Mould Needed Careful Consideration
Recurring mould after drying and cleaning should not be treated as a routine cosmetic issue.
In this case, the mould had appeared behind removed skirting boards and later returned on retained plasterboard. That raised a practical question: had the affected materials and concealed areas been properly investigated before reinstatement works were agreed?
The complaint also highlighted that the policyholder had asthma.
PCLA did not treat this as a medical assessment. However, it was a relevant practical factor when considering whether recurring mould should remain unresolved in the home while the claim was still being assessed.
Where a vulnerable customer may be affected by mould following a water damage claim, the issue should be considered carefully and supported by proper investigation.
Complaint Escalation
As the parties remained in dispute, PCLA requested that the matter be escalated as a formal complaint.
The complaint focused on:
- the insurer’s response to the independent restoration evidence;
- the recurrence of mould following drying and cleaning;
- the concern that retained materials had not been fully assessed;
- the need for further investigation before reinstatement;
- the risk that the proposed scope would not achieve a full and proper reinstatement of the insured damage.
Formal complaint escalation is not required in every claim. In this case, it became appropriate because the evidence submitted by the policyholder’s side had not resolved the dispute.
Intrusive Inspection
Following escalation, the insurer agreed that their contractor should return to the property and carry out opening-up works.
Access hatches were cut into retained plasterboard so that concealed areas behind the wall lining could be inspected.
When the walls were opened, mould was identified on the studwork behind the plasterboard.
This finding was significant because it supported PCLA’s concern that the issue was not limited to visible surface mould.
The discovery of mould behind the plasterboard showed why visual inspection and a drying certificate were not enough to resolve the reinstatement dispute.
Settlement Achieved
Following further investigation, complaint escalation and negotiation, the insurer increased its settlement position.
The claim ultimately settled for approximately £33,000.
This represented an increase of around £18,000 over the insurer’s original offer.
The increased settlement allowed the policyholder to proceed with a more appropriate scope of reinstatement works, including consideration of the concealed mould issue, affected plasterboard, flooring preparation and associated repairs.
Why the Original Offer Was Too Low
The original settlement offer did not properly reflect the full extent of the damage or the practical requirements of reinstating the property.
In particular, it did not adequately account for:
- concealed mould behind retained plasterboard;
- the need for intrusive investigation;
- treatment of affected studwork;
- plasterboard removal and reinstatement;
- flooring substrate preparation;
- removal of retained adhesive;
- associated kitchen works;
- decoration and making good;
- practical disruption to the household.
This was not simply a disagreement over cost.
It was a dispute about the correct method of reinstatement.
What Homeowners Can Learn from This Claim
This claim highlights several important lessons for homeowners dealing with water damage.
First, do not assume that an insurer’s first offer reflects the true cost of repair.
Second, a drying certificate does not always resolve every issue. It may confirm that drying works have been completed, but it does not necessarily confirm that retained materials are suitable or that concealed contamination has been addressed.
Third, recurring mould after cleaning and drying should be taken seriously. It may indicate that further investigation is required.
Fourth, where mould is present and a policyholder has a health condition such as asthma, the issue should be handled carefully and supported by proper evidence.
Finally, formal complaint escalation may be appropriate where an insurer has not properly engaged with evidence submitted by the policyholder or their representative.
Result
| Detail | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Original insurer offer | Approximately £15,000 |
| Final settlement achieved | Approximately £33,000 |
| Increase secured | Approximately £18,000 |
| Claim type | Escape of water |
| Property type | Residential property |
| Location | Falkirk area, Central Scotland |
| Outcome | Settlement agreed following dispute over mould contamination, drying, intrusive inspection and reinstatement scope |
Have You Received a Low Offer for a Water Damage Claim?
If your insurer has made an offer that does not appear to reflect the true cost of repair, you do not have to accept it without question.
This is especially important if mould has appeared after drying works, if retained materials have not been inspected, or if the proposed scope does not seem to reflect the damage across your home.
PCLA acts for policyholders, not insurers. We inspect the damage, review the insurer’s offer, prepare evidence, produce a costed scope of works and negotiate with the insurer or their appointed loss adjuster on your behalf.
We help homeowners throughout Scotland with water damage, escape of water, fire, storm and other property damage claims.
If you need help with a water damage claim in the Central Belt, speak to our loss assessor team or read more about escape of water insurance claims.
You can also read our guide on what happens when you appoint PCLA as your loss assessor.
FAQs
Can I challenge a water damage insurance offer?
Yes. If you have not accepted a final settlement, you can challenge an insurer’s offer.
A challenge is much stronger when supported by photographs, moisture evidence, contractor reports, inspection findings and a detailed scope of works.
Does a drying certificate mean the claim is settled?
No. A drying certificate may confirm that the drying contractor considers the drying phase complete, but it does not automatically decide the correct reinstatement scope.
There may still be issues relating to plasterboard, flooring, mould, decoration and retained materials.
What if mould appears after drying works?
If mould appears or returns after drying works, it should be investigated.
Recurring mould may indicate that retained materials, concealed areas or environmental conditions have not been properly addressed.
Can mould after a leak affect my insurance claim?
Yes. If mould appears after an escape of water, it may affect the reinstatement scope.
The key issue is whether the mould relates to the insured incident and whether further investigation, treatment or replacement of affected materials is required.
Is mould behind plasterboard covered by insurance?
It depends on the policy, the cause of damage and the evidence available.
If mould is linked to an insured escape of water, it may form part of the reinstatement discussion. The claim should be supported with photographs, inspection findings and technical evidence.
Should plasterboard be removed after water damage?
It depends on the extent of damage, moisture levels, contamination risk and construction type.
Where mould is present or suspected behind finishes, removal or opening-up may be required to properly inspect and treat affected areas.
Can a drying certificate be challenged?
The certificate itself may not need to be challenged, but the reinstatement scope can still be reviewed.
A drying certificate does not automatically prove that plasterboard, flooring adhesive, concealed timber or other retained materials are suitable.
What should I do if mould comes back after drying?
Take photographs, avoid covering over the affected area, and ask for the issue to be investigated before reinstatement works continue.
If your insurer has already made an offer, it may be sensible to have the scope reviewed before accepting a final settlement.
Can PCLA help if the insurer has already made an offer?
Yes. PCLA can assist after an insurer has made an offer, provided the claim has not been finally concluded.
We can review the offer, inspect the property, prepare evidence and negotiate with the insurer on your behalf.
Does PCLA help with water damage claims in Falkirk?
Yes. PCLA helps homeowners in Falkirk and across Central Scotland with water damage, escape of water and other property damage insurance claims.
Our role is to act for the policyholder, prepare the claim properly and negotiate with the insurer or their appointed representatives.
