Leak Detection for Loss Adjusters and Insurers: Scope, Report, Fee Basis

An instruction to attend an escape-of-water loss is not the same job as a homeowner asking us to find a leak. The insurer or adjuster is buying evidence: a defensible account of where the water came from, when it started, what had to be opened up to prove it, and what that work reasonably cost. This page sets out how we scope, report and price detection work on insured losses, so an adjuster or claims handler knows exactly what they are instructing before they send it.

What an Adjuster Needs From a Detection Instruction, and In What Order

An adjuster needs four things from a detection instruction, in this sequence: confirmation of the source, the date characteristics of the loss, the minimum access required to prove it, and a written record that a third party can follow without having been on site. Everything else (drying, reinstatement, recovery against a third party) depends on those four being settled first.

Source comes first because it determines the peril. A failed flexible hose under a basin, a split on a heating circuit and a defective seal around a shower tray produce identical damage downstairs and completely different claim outcomes. We name the failed component, not the room.

Date characteristics come second. Most escape-of-water wordings respond to sudden and accidental discharge and exclude gradual deterioration, so the question of whether this leak is days old or months old is often the whole claim. We record what supports the finding (staining pattern, corrosion or scale at the failure point, the condition of adjacent building fabric, moisture distribution) and we say plainly when the evidence does not allow a firm conclusion.

Access comes third, and only after the first two. Opening up before the non-invasive survey is finished destroys the evidence the claim rests on, and it is the most common reason we are asked to attend a second time after somebody has already lifted a floor.

To scope an instruction properly we need the property type and construction, what is already known about the loss and when it was noticed, whether the water is currently running or has been isolated, whether a drying contractor is already on site, the access and key-holder position, and any trace-and-access limit that applies. Where the property is a flat in a block, we also need to know who is instructing us (the buildings insurer, the leaseholder, or the managing agent) because that determines who our report is addressed to.

Scope: Detection Only, Detection and Access, or Full Make-Good

We work to three defined scopes, and confusion between them causes most of the disputes we see on trace-and-access costs.

• Detection only. Non-invasive survey to identify and locate the source. Nothing is opened up. This is the right instruction where the leak is live, where liability is not yet accepted, or where the policyholder is deciding whether to claim at all. It produces a located source and a recommendation for access.
• Detection and access. The survey, plus the controlled opening-up needed to expose and confirm the failed component: lifting a defined area of floor covering, cutting a stated aperture, removing a bath panel or a section of boxing. The area is agreed in advance and recorded before and after. This is the scope that maps directly onto the trace-and-access clause.
• Full make-good. Detection, access, repair of the failed component, and reinstatement of what was opened. Reinstatement of the search damage usually falls under trace and access; reinstatement of the water damage itself is a different head of claim and is normally a separate contractor.

Two scope boundaries are worth stating explicitly on the instruction. First, the repair of the failed component is frequently not covered (many wordings treat the defective part as a maintenance cost and cover only the resulting damage), so it should be priced and invoiced as a separate line whether or not it is recoverable. Second, consumer "no find, no fee" arrangements do not translate to insurer work. On an insured loss the investigation itself is the deliverable, and a negative finding that rules out plumbing as the source is a useful and chargeable result.

Report Format: Readings, Methodology, Photographs, Chain of Dates

A report that an adjuster can rely on states the methodology used, the readings taken, the location of the source, and the dates on which each step happened. If a reviewer three months later cannot reconstruct what was done and when, the report has failed, however good the fieldwork was.

Every report we issue on an insured loss carries the following:

1. Instruction details. Who instructed, the claim or policy reference, the date of instruction and the date of attendance.
2. Property description. Construction, floor build-up, pipework material and route where established, and the systems present.
3. Methodology, in the order applied. Which techniques were used, why each was selected, and what each ruled in or out. A method that found nothing is still evidence and is recorded as such.
4. Readings. Moisture readings with the instrument type stated and the distinction between non-invasive indicative readings and quantitative pin or resistance readings made clear. Atmospheric readings where relevant. Pressure test results with the pressure applied, the duration and the observed drop.
5. Photographs. Referenced to the plan or the room, showing the source, the surrounding fabric and the area opened up. Before and after on any access.
6. Findings and cause. The failed component named, its mode of failure described, and a stated view on whether the evidence indicates a sudden failure or a longer-standing defect, including where it does not support a conclusion either way.
7. Scope of works recommended. What is needed to repair, what is needed to reinstate the access, and what is outside our scope.

The chain of dates is the part most often missing from reports we are asked to comment on. Date of discovery, date of isolation, date of instruction, date of attendance, date of report. Where those dates are inconsistent with the physical evidence, we say so rather than leaving the reviewer to notice it.

Fee Basis: Fixed, Time-and-Materials, and the Trace-and-Access Limit

Detection work is priced on one of two bases, and the right one depends on how well the scope can be defined before attendance.

Fixed fee suits a defined survey on a single property where the systems and access are known, a bounded piece of work with a predictable duration. It gives the adjuster a number to reserve against and the policyholder certainty.

Time and materials suits open-ended investigations: multiple possible sources, large or complex buildings, communal risers serving several flats, or losses where the first attendance is expected to narrow the field rather than close it. Where we work on this basis we agree a not-to-exceed figure and revert before passing it.

What actually moves the figure is the same short list every time: the number of distinct systems that have to be eliminated, the construction and how much of the pipework is concealed, whether the system can be isolated and pressurised for testing, the access position including scaffolding or working at height, whether attendance is inside or outside normal hours, and whether opening-up and reinstatement fall inside our scope. We quote against those variables rather than publishing a rate that does not survive contact with the building.

The trace-and-access limit is a separate matter and needs checking on the schedule before work is authorised, not after. It is a monetary cap on the cost of finding the leak and making good the damage caused by that search, and it is commonly a smaller figure than policyholders expect. Where our estimate approaches the limit we say so in writing before starting, so the adjuster can decide whether to extend authority or restrict the scope. Invoices are structured to sit inside that clause cleanly: detection and access on one line, repair on another, water-damage reinstatement nowhere near either.

Turnaround and Out-of-Hours Attendance for Surge Events

Standard turnaround on an insured detection instruction is attendance within an agreed window and a written report shortly after, with the located source confirmed verbally on the day so that isolation and drying can start without waiting for the document.

Surge behaves differently. A hard freeze followed by a thaw, or a prolonged cold snap, generates escape-of-water volume that no detection provider can absorb at normal turnaround, and the honest position is to say what the current window is rather than accept everything and slip. During surge we prioritise by whether water is still escaping, whether the property is occupied, whether the loss affects more than one demise, and whether a drying contractor is already committed and waiting on a source confirmation.

Out-of-hours attendance is available and is priced differently, and it is genuinely worth it in a narrow set of cases: water still running with no accessible isolation point, a communal riser affecting multiple flats, or a commercial property where every further hour compounds business interruption. Where the water is already isolated and the damage is done, a next-day attendance in daylight usually produces a better survey and a cheaper claim.

Working Alongside a Drying Contractor Without Duplicating Scope

Detection and drying are separate disciplines and separate invoices, and they overlap in exactly one place: moisture readings. Left unmanaged, both parties record moisture, both charge for it, and the adjuster receives two sets of figures taken with different instruments that do not agree.

The division that works is simple. Detection establishes the source and the extent of wetting at a point in time, and that survey is the baseline. Drying then owns the moisture record from that point forward: the drying log, the atmospheric readings, the daily monitoring and the target moisture contents. We do not re-monitor a property that a drying contractor is monitoring, and we do not issue competing readings.

Sequence matters as much as division. Drying equipment installed before the source is found and isolated will run against an active leak, which extends the drying period, inflates the equipment charge and produces a monitoring record that never converges. Where a drying contractor is on site before us, the first thing we establish is whether the supply has actually been isolated or merely turned down.

The other duplication to watch is opening-up. If the drying contractor has already lifted flooring or removed skirtings to gain access for airflow, that work should not appear again on a detection invoice as trace and access. We check what has been opened before we quote, and where drying access has already exposed what we need, the detection scope shrinks accordingly and the invoice reflects it.

To instruct us on an insured loss, send the claim reference, the property details, what is known about the loss and any trace-and-access limit that applies, and tell us whether you need detection only, detection and access, or full make-good. We will confirm scope and fee basis in writing before attendance.