buildings insurance advice

H

hettyhoop

Registered User
Messages
6
We had an extensive house fire 8 weeks ago, the insurance have offered what we considered to be a very low quote for their builder to complete the scope of work ( which by the way is incomplete). They refuse to outline the like for like materials they intend to put into our house. They just guarantee the work and when their builder gets into our house we can sort out the different costs with him. Totally unrealistic especially when for example the cost to replace our kitchen is 6000 he has only quoted for 4000

We are very concerned that their builder will be forced to cut corners to meet the low quote. We got an independent quote from a QS and it's more than double the insurance quote. So as a result we don't have the option to use our own builder.

This has caused more stress and upset than the fire. By the way the insurance company can counter sue the makers of the faulty appliance which caused the fire.

What can we do? how are insurance companies allowed to get away with this?
 
Hire yourself a loss assessor if you don't feel you confident enough to deal with the matter yourself. Probably worth the 10% if the matter is complicated.
 
+1 Peteb.

You are entitled to be put back in the same position you were. Could your QS not discuss with loss adjuster for insurer? The replacement kitchen for example at €6K - is this like for like with the old one, or is it an improvement, that you are only being offered €4K?

You mention 'countersue'. Have you the correct term? If your insurers are happy that a defective appliance caused the fire, then they will probably sue the manufacturer/importer, in your name (under subrogation clause of policy). Have you told them of the defect and if so, are you pushing them to sue, or at least tell you what they intend to do?
 
all quotes we have received are like for like.

Sorry Counter claim is the correct term and we have been told by the adjuster and the manufacturer that this will happen.

The insurance company obviously work off rates and a pricing programme that bears no relevance to the real world. Also the "builder" they are recommending is in very serious debt and yet they insist we use him!

We have also been advised that we are more than likely to be out of pocket ( why do we have insurance?) and we'll have to approach the manufacturer ourselves.

Our QS report is being finalised but does it necessarily follow that the insurance will agree to their estimate?
 
hettyhoop said:
all quotes we have received are like for like.

Sorry Counter claim is the correct term and we have been told by the adjuster and the manufacturer that this will happen.

The insurance company obviously work off rates and a pricing programme that bears no relevance to the real world. Also the "builder" they are recommending is in very serious debt and yet they insist we use him!

We have also been advised that we are more than likely to be out of pocket ( why do we have insurance?) and we'll have to approach the manufacturer ourselves.

Our QS report is being finalised but does it necessarily follow that the insurance will agree to their estimate?
Click to expand...


The correct term for the Counter claim is subrogation as the iunsurance comapny takes on the right to recover costs from the neglegent party if they pay out on the claim.

The insurance company should pay the cost of replacing your property back to the preloss state without exception. As the majority of the Adjusters working in the industry have no actual property costing qualifications, experience or knowledge they generally do work off schedules of rates which do not reflect reality. It is down to you (or someone on your behalf) to argue the facts of the case as best you can. You need to outline the pre loss items against their offer and substanciate exacly where they are wrong by backing up with other quotes. I would generally advise you to get a scope of works agreed and then sent it out to two/three local builders and submit the quotes to the insurance company, this will clearly outlined the market value of the repairs and will better assist with you complaint.

Failing this you can complain to the ombudsman with as much detail as possible or instruct a solicitor to act on your behalf and draft a complaint.

Unfortunatly some insurers go down the route of reinstatement and appointing builders which is in no way policy holder friendly as generally you have no say on the builder or his quality of work. The insurance company will be fully liable for any damage or under spec works completed by the builder as he is appointed by them
 
hettyhoop said:
We had an extensive house fire 8 weeks ago, the insurance have offered what we considered to be a very low quote for their builder to complete the scope of work ( which by the way is incomplete). They refuse to outline the like for like materials they intend to put into our house. They just guarantee the work and when their builder gets into our house we can sort out the different costs with him. Totally unrealistic especially when for example the cost to replace our kitchen is 6000 he has only quoted for 4000

We are very concerned that their builder will be forced to cut corners to meet the low quote. We got an independent quote from a QS and it's more than double the insurance quote. So as a result we don't have the option to use our own builder.

This has caused more stress and upset than the fire. By the way the insurance company can counter sue the makers of the faulty appliance which caused the fire.

What can we do? how are insurance companies allowed to get away with this?
Click to expand...

Without seeing your policy, I cannot be sure but I would imagine that your insurers are exercising their right under the policy to indemnify you by reinstatement...that is they have decided that they will do the work. whilst most insurers don't do this, it is their right under the policy.

That being the case, they are taking it upon themselves to effectively have all the work carried out to your home. In such circumstances, it really is irrelevant as to how much that their contractor is doing the work for, as long as it is not more expensive than you can have it done for.

You have obtained a price from a QS and it would seem to me that this is a notional price and is not based upon a firm price quotation from a contractor...again, without seeing this, I cannot be sure. However, as this is twice the price of the insurance company contractor, all that this has done from the insurance companies perspective is demonstrate why they should stick with their own contractor....why would they pay twice the amount that their own builder can do it for?

What is relevant is that the contractor who is doing the work, is suitably qualified to do the work and most vitally, carries out the work in a proper manner and to an appropriate standard. All work and materials should meet with the building regulations. Your house should be reinstated to the same position ( but as new) following the fire that it was in prior to the fire.

In your position, I would let them at it...let the insurance company builder do the work....but with one provision...have the work supervised by your own choice of Architect/surveyor or Engineer.....under your policy, there is cover for professional fees in reinstatement..that is, the policy covers the cost of having the reinstatement work supervised and certified by a suitably qualified professional. Your engineer will assess the work as it proceeds and will have authority to insure that no corners are cut, no substandard materials are used and that all work meets with the building regs. That way, regardless of how much the insurance company builder is doing the work for, you will get your entitlement under the policy.

If your insurers refuse to allow you the costs of supervision then, they will be acting outside the scope of the policy. If they are being really sticky ( and really stupid), then they may insist that their own choice of engineer supervise the work....if this is the case, then simply, have the matter referred to Arbitration. If there is no arbitration clause under the policy, have the matter referred to the ombudsman, who will rule on the case.
 
Claimsman said:
Without seeing your policy, I cannot be sure but I would imagine that your insurers are exercising their right under the policy to indemnify you by reinstatement...that is they have decided that they will do the work. whilst most insurers don't do this, it is their right under the policy.

That being the case, they are taking it upon themselves to effectively have all the work carried out to your home. In such circumstances, it really is irrelevant as to how much that their contractor is doing the work for, as long as it is not more expensive than you can have it done for.

You have obtained a price from a QS and it would seem to me that this is a notional price and is not based upon a firm price quotation from a contractor...again, without seeing this, I cannot be sure. However, as this is twice the price of the insurance company contractor, all that this has done from the insurance companies perspective is demonstrate why they should stick with their own contractor....why would they pay twice the amount that their own builder can do it for?

What is relevant is that the contractor who is doing the work, is suitably qualified to do the work and most vitally, carries out the work in a proper manner and to an appropriate standard. All work and materials should meet with the building regulations. Your house should be reinstated to the same position ( but as new) following the fire that it was in prior to the fire.

In your position, I would let them at it...let the insurance company builder do the work....but with one provision...have the work supervised by your own choice of Architect/surveyor or Engineer.....under your policy, there is cover for professional fees in reinstatement..that is, the policy covers the cost of having the reinstatement work supervised and certified by a suitably qualified professional. Your engineer will assess the work as it proceeds and will have authority to insure that no corners are cut, no substandard materials are used and that all work meets with the building regs. That way, regardless of how much the insurance company builder is doing the work for, you will get your entitlement under the policy.

If your insurers refuse to allow you the costs of supervision then, they will be acting outside the scope of the policy. If they are being really sticky ( and really stupid), then they may insist that their own choice of engineer supervise the work....if this is the case, then simply, have the matter referred to Arbitration. If there is no arbitration clause under the policy, have the matter referred to the ombudsman, who will rule on the case.
Click to expand...

All good advice however there are a number of errors in their original scope, which by the way their recommended builder never picked up on. There are also items omitted out of the scope such as what will happen our radiators which are all smoke damaged.

Are we expected to let their builder carry out a vague work scope, and what happens if items he has priced, which remain unspecified are more expensive to purchase than he allowed for i.e. specific branded windows or items not in the scope which should be, i.e radiators.

Also our concern is that there are several weeks of work required, what the builder has quoted couldn't possibly cover wages, so if you pay buttons you get monkeys. I'm not happy to risk shoddy work just to please the insurance company.

Essentially they have produced a list from a computer which bears no relationship to real quotes. Our quote came from a builder via a QS.

Is is feasible for us to request an updated scope and a different recommended builder to quote?
 
DEAR CLAIMSMAN

would you have a look at my thread please.

Me and my father have been in business in Scotland for over 40 years and three years ago he retired and left all responsibility to me. We have a lease between us that says i have to insure and take full responsibility of the building.

A recent fire occurred in our neighbours premises and affected us. This has led me to look at my policy in greater detail and now it seems that i may be faced with some issues.

First issue is that my father owns the building but i insure its. loss assessors informed me that insurance may be declined because i do not own the property.

the second issue is that the company is a limited company and i am the sole owner but in the policy it has my name and not the limited company name.
 
hettyhoop said:
All good advice however there are a number of errors in their original scope, which by the way their recommended builder never picked up on. There are also items omitted out of the scope such as what will happen our radiators which are all smoke damaged.

Are we expected to let their builder carry out a vague work scope, and what happens if items he has priced, which remain unspecified are more expensive to purchase than he allowed for i.e. specific branded windows or items not in the scope which should be, i.e radiators.

Also our concern is that there are several weeks of work required, what the builder has quoted couldn't possibly cover wages, so if you pay buttons you get monkeys. I'm not happy to risk shoddy work just to please the insurance company.

Essentially they have produced a list from a computer which bears no relationship to real quotes. Our quote came from a builder via a QS.

Is is feasible for us to request an updated scope and a different recommended builder to quote?
Click to expand...

Your insurance company are engaging the contractor and if he leaves something out, does something shoddy, runs out of money, under prices some element of the work, even burns down the house....whatever, then that's your insurance companies problem, not yours. They have elected to reinstate, so reinstate they must regardless of what happens....you will not be taking the risk, they will.

Your insurance company are undertaking to repair your property and if the policy allows them to do that, then if you are attempting to frustrate them in executing the work, you may find that you are in breach of the policy....in other words, you may have little choice but to let them do the work and a legal challenge may be the only option open to you, one which you are far from guaranteed to win.

I will reiterate my original advice.....let them at it, but only under the supervision of your choice of Architect, Engineer, Surveyor who you can entrust to make sure that the work is done to the appropriate standard and in accordance with the building regs. You should even insist that your engineer agrees the scope of work beforehand.

I hope things work out for you.
 
In order to make a claim you need to have legal interest in the property. The exact conditions of the lease will dictate the issue. You may have an issue if the lease and the insurance policy dont match
 
Hetty: I am a long time on this earth and with God's help, will be longer still, but in all my years, I have never heard of radiators having to be replaced due to smoke damage. Would not a coat of paint fix them?

This may, and I say may, be the root of your problem. Are you looking for the moon and stars and not just the moon?
 
Ravima said:
Hetty: I am a long time on this earth and with God's help, will be longer still, but in all my years, I have never heard of radiators having to be replaced due to smoke damage. Would not a coat of paint fix them?

This may, and I say may, be the root of your problem. Are you looking for the moon and stars and not just the moon?
Click to expand...

Have you ever had a fire in your home? The extent of the smoke damage is beyond belief. Not to mention the trauma. The rise in outside temp increases the smell in the house so you can only imagine what the smell will be in the house will be like turning on the heaters given that the soot has settled in the accordion style insides of the radiator.
 
+1 on loss assessor
Employ your own and they work for you to agree the damage with the insurer
You will not have to deal with the insurer, they will do so on your behalf with your consultation. They take a % of the final figure, 10% i think is normal but well worth the money. You might be surprised with the result. They will probably come and look at the damage and give you an estimation of what they might achieve.
 
Insurance does not compensate for 'trauma'. I would think that if rads were properly cleaned and repainted, they would be grand.

Those that suggest employing your own assessor are giving good advice.
 
Insurance certainly does not compensate for trauma, however Insurance Companies certainly create it.

My uncle was unfortunate enough to have a house fire last year and trustingly let the insurance companies recommended builders in. They basically did a quick cheap, in and out job on his house and three months later the problems started to arise. He contacted the Inusrance Company, who then said contact the builder as he did the work. The builder ignored him and refused to even visit his house and look at the problems. He went back to the insurers and was getting nowhere, they just screened his calls and sent him around the offices ... all the while insisting it was an issue between him and the builder.

8 months later and his solicitors and architect finally got the Insurance Company to send a builder out ...... this new builder had to repair all the previous cowboys mistakes. According to the new builder, his predecessor must have had his labourer do everything from rewiring to painting as in his opinion it was a disaster waiting to happen, but how could my uncle have known that in advance.

My uncles mistake was believing the insurance company were acting in his interests by bringing in their builder. He ended up out of pocket after having to fight for his rights as the insurance company referred him to the builder and the builder has now allegedly gone bust (missing). He is still chasing the insurace company for settlement, but the hassle and stress is unreal.

Insurance Companies have only one agenda when you make a claim: cost savings. Innocent people like my uncle are easy prey for cowboy builders, I would not go near an insurance recommended builder as they are only there to cut corners, getting a regular stream of work at reduced rates.

Of course those in the industry will decry such incidents as my uncles as once offs, but I suspect theres a lot more out there. My advice to anyone faced with using an insurance company recommended builder, is

1. to get an independent architect or project manager to act on your behalf during the rebuilding work and demand an independent (not from the builders) certificate of completion be provided as part of your settlement.
2. photograph everything everyday ..... before, during and after.
3. always ask for details ahead of any agreement, you are entitled to know what materials are going to be used on your house repairs and what the builder is going to do.

'Buyer beware' is never more true in todays world of cost cutting, always ask the questions and demand answers when it come to letting builders into your home !!!
 
How is your uncle still waiting for settlement from an insurance company who would likely have directly settled with the builder as it from their panel?
 
When the issues started arising at my Uncles house, he phoned the Insurance Company who referred him to the builder and assured him the builder would take a look ..... this went around the houses as I have said and in the end, he finally got his Solicitor on the case. He then had to get an Architect to prove the defects were genuine and caused by poor repairs. It was only at that stage did the Insurance Co send out another builder, so in all fairness I think the man is right in seeking redress for the costs of having to make his case. The original claim was settled with the cowboy builder as you suggested, but architects and solicitors are not cheap.

Make no mistakes, there are builders out there up to their necks in debt and their creditors are knocking at the door every day. Sadly my Uncle ended up with one such outfit thanks to the Insurance Company, anyone offered a cheap repair should ask about the builders history and check everything from materials to be used to the qualifications of the operatives carrying out the work. If the Insurance Company tell you they do all this, just ask to see the details in writing as proper builders will have a detailed quotation, plan of work with a timeline, employees details and full Health & Safety details for the work on your house. Cowboy builders will give little away in details and provide no information other that verbal guarantees.
 
I have to ask the question why should I hire an assessor? If I pay insurance ,when an event happens that requires me to claim on my insurance why do I need someone to negotiate on my behalf? It's a twisted system, clearly the existence of assessors has led insurance companies to quote cheap on the basis that an assessor will negotiate. I've heard too many bad assessor stories to trust them. Also I am clearly a number in a computer system and I'm only waiting for a letter saying "computer says no!". No logic is being applied in this case. Claimsmans approach to get an expert to supervise the work seems the most practical , but the behaviour of insurance companies once you dare to claim from them leaves little to be desired
 
In the event of an insurance claim, the onus is on you - the insured - to proof and substantiate your loss. As pointed out from the start you seem completely unconfident of successfully handling the matter yourself.

If you feel confident negotiating on your own behalf then by all means proceed.
 
hettyhoop said:
I have to ask the question why should I hire an assessor? If I pay insurance ,when an event happens that requires me to claim on my insurance why do I need someone to negotiate on my behalf? It's a twisted system, clearly the existence of assessors has led insurance companies to quote cheap on the basis that an assessor will negotiate. I've heard too many bad assessor stories to trust them. Also I am clearly a number in a computer system and I'm only waiting for a letter saying "computer says no!". No logic is being applied in this case. Claimsmans approach to get an expert to supervise the work seems the most practical , but the behaviour of insurance companies once you dare to claim from them leaves little to be desired
Click to expand...

why do you need an assessor?, in theory you dont, but the same could be said for any other situation or profession. In theory you never need to employ anyone to do anything if you are confident and capable of tackling it yourself but generally there are always people better qualified, experienced and positioned to assist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top