***

I am writing to formally dispute the rejection of my claim relating to water ingress that occurred during the hailstorm on 30 November at approximately 22:35.

On this date, we experienced a severe hailstorm, during which hail accumulated in the roof valleys and gutters, blocking water flow and causing water to enter the house near the outside balcony. This point of ingress is approximately 4 metres away from the chimney.

To provide clear and relevant context:

August: Heavy rainfall – no water ingress, no claim lodged

October: ±75 mm of rainfall – no damage

November (prior to 30th): ±80 mm of rainfall – no damage

30 November: Severe hailstorm – water entered the house due to blocked valleys and gutters

December: ±100 mm of rainfall – no water ingress

January (to date): ±50 mm of rainfall – no water ingress This clearly demonstrates that rainfall alone has never caused water ingress at the property. The only incident where water entered the house coincided specifically with the hailstorm, during which hail blocked the roof drainage system. Attached photographs show hail accumulation approximately six hours after the storm, supporting this explanation. Despite this, I have been informed that the claim was rejected on the basis that the chimney is allegedly leaking due to lack of maintenance. This conclusion is unacceptable for the following reasons:

The chimney is 4 metres away from the point of water ingress.

The chimney has not leaked during multiple heavy rainfall events, including rainfall exceeding that of 30 November.

While the chimney may require an additional UV paint coat, it is not leaking.

The contractor’s assessment was conducted when it was not raining, and no water testing was performed.

No allowance was made for the extraordinary hail accumulation blocking roof valleys and gutters, which was the direct cause of the incident.

I am more than willing to have an independent assessor attend the property, and I am confident enough in my position to run a hosepipe over the chimney for an entire day to demonstrate that it does not leak.

It is extremely upsetting that this claim has been dismissed despite clear evidence of:

An exceptional hail event

No prior or subsequent water ingress during heavier rainfall

Photographic proof of hail accumulation

A clear, logical cause of loss unrelated to the chimney

I request that this claim be formally reassessed, preferably by an independent assessor, and that the decision be reviewed based on factual evidence rather than assumptions.

I am very unhappy with the handling of this claim, the professionalism of the contractor, and the manner in which the claim department at Iwyze has addressed this matter.

I look forward to your written response and confirmation of reassessment.

Kind regards,

Trevor Rose