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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?