buildings insurance advice

I would agree with KKelliher, that there is always someone better qualified, experience and available to assist (at a price). If you need to rebuild, then an architect and QS are high on your list as they are totally independent professionals. They get paid on the identifiable work they do ... drawings, bill of quantities etc.

I would say what a loss assessor brings to the table is an inside knowledge of the insurance industry, he/she would have regular dealings with the Insurance adjusters and over a period of time gets to know them (if not, then they must not have much work). I suppose this is why many people wonder if they need an assessor as the assessor gets paid by the insurance company and the issue of proving the negociations were genuine is difficult unless you are actually sitting in on them.... for many its seen as a game that both parties just play out and I think thats where hetty is coming from.

As said, if you know your rights and have the stomach to argue with Loss Adjusters, then go for it by all means. However if couldnt be bothered then a loss assessor is your ideal port of call.

Just to clarify your point and terminology - the "assessor" does not get paid by the insurance company. An assessor would be the person doing the work on your behalf.

The loss adjuster is appointed and paid by the insurance company.

peteb said:

Just to clarify your point and terminology - the "assessor" does not get paid by the insurance company. An assessor would be the person doing the work on your behalf.

The loss adjuster is appointed and paid by the insurance company.

Click to expand...

+1

Assessor is paid by the policy holder and their costs cannot be claimed as part of the claim as insurers exclude the costs of compiling a claim from the policy.

Adjuster paid by insurance company.

Ordinary Man said:

I would agree with KKelliher, that there is always someone better qualified, experience and available to assist (at a price). If you need to rebuild, then an architect and QS are high on your list as they are totally independent professionals. They get paid on the identifiable work they do ... drawings, bill of quantities etc.

I would say what a loss assessor brings to the table is an inside knowledge of the insurance industry, he/she would have regular dealings with the Insurance adjusters and over a period of time gets to know them (if not, then they must not have much work). I suppose this is why many people wonder if they need an assessor as the assessor gets paid by the insurance company and the issue of proving the negociations were genuine is difficult unless you are actually sitting in on them.... for many its seen as a game that both parties just play out and I think thats where hetty is coming from.

As said, if you know your rights and have the stomach to argue with Loss Adjusters, then go for it by all means. However if couldnt be bothered then a loss assessor is your ideal port of call.

Click to expand...

In the event that the Insurance company is insisting in reinstating, then the Loss Adjuster does not really have a very significant role to play so there is very little merit in arguing with him/her.

Whilst traditionally, the role of the Loss Adjuster was seen as being impartial, this over the years has been eroded to a huge extent and Loss Adjusters are more and more working under the express instructions of the insurance companies.

It is very likely not the Loss Adjusters that are insisting on using a particular builder, it is the insurance companies....two in particular that I am aware of....thankfully most insurers are moving away from MRN ( managed network repair) builders as guess what?....it wasn't working.

If the policy states that the insurers can indemnify by reinstatement, then unless a Loss Assessor can convince a court or the ombudsman that Insurers are acting outside of the policy, then I really don't see how a Loss Assessor can be of much benefit to the OP in this instance. Insurers have had these rights upheld by the Ombudsman in the past and going to court is a huge financial risk to the OP...intact, in past cases, Loss Assessor have been criticised by the ombudsman for obstructing and frustrating an insurance company builder from doing the reinstatement when Insurers have insisted upon it.

My initial advise to the OP stands...let the insurance company instruct their builder to do it.....but insist that in accordance with policy cover that professional fees for reinstatement is paid to her choice of Architect/Engineer/ Surveyor who will make sure that the repairs are carried out in accordance with the building regulations and to the appropriate standard.

Hi, I worked in the insurance industry for a number of years and unfortunately they really aren't impartial.

In your case I would recommend using someone to supervise the works as above and have a detailed specification for the scope of works agreed before the builder starts.

However I also wonder why you would have to replace radiators due to smoke damage. They are a sealed system and smoke would not get into them internally.

In other cases where the reinstatement clause is not being invoked then I would probably recommend the use of a good loss assessor. However from my experience there are a lot of poor assessors out there also who really don't add any value to proceedings.

Thanks for all your advice and comments

Claimsman you seem to have the most realistic point of view given what I have learnt myself in the past few months..
I have recently made contact with another family in a similar situation as myself but they have discovered that the builders that the insurance company recommend ( one of whom is the same as our builder) are up to their neck in debt and it's a real issue that the builder may go out of business during their repairs. How can the insurance company stand over a builder who is a risk, I certainly wish I didn't have to use them?

As regards the assessors, It may well be that they are useful for negotiating but this isn't about money this is about making sure the proper materials are replaced like for like and this is where correct supervision will be necessary by a professional in the building trade.

In the insurance company's haste to cut costs they appear to have completely forgotten their customers.

As regards the famous radiators, I have a serious concern that the radiators can't be cleaned sufficently to get rid of the disgusting sticky soot that is in the accordion style backing of the radiator . Again in my research I have come across a family who returned to their repaired home and as soon as they turned on the heating the smell returned. The stress caused by this event clearly has created a fear of the smell being in the house after we return home.

All I want is to return to our home with the minimum of stress before during and after the repairs. I am afraid this isn't possible thanks to the process my insurance is insisting on using. I understood insurance was there to remove the hassle in fact all it has done is make it worse.

Claimsman said:

thankfully most insurers are moving away from MRN ( managed network repair) builders as guess what?....it wasn't working.

Click to expand...

I wonder is this due to legal issues ? if an insurance company insists on using their builder and latent defects arise, could they be held responsible? (especially if said builder has ceased to trade).

I have heard that the homebond / pyrite saga is making a lot of people sit up and take notice. Builders cutting costs in order to meet some insurance companies xactimate generated scope could well have a rebound effect on the insurance company, am I right?

I agree about recommending the OP uses a professional to oversee the work, but who is ultimately responsible if it ends up in court further down the line ? is it the builder who will have long gone or the insurance company who guaranteed his work or maybe the poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work?

Ordinary Man said:

I wonder is this due to legal issues ? if an insurance company insists on using their builder and latent defects arise, could they be held responsible? (especially if said builder has ceased to trade).

I have heard that the homebond / pyrite saga is making a lot of people sit up and take notice. Builders cutting costs in order to meet some insurance companies xactimate generated scope could well have a rebound effect on the insurance company, am I right?

I agree about recommending the OP uses a professional to oversee the work, but who is ultimately responsible if it ends up in court further down the line ? is it the builder who will have long gone or the insurance company who guaranteed his work or maybe the poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work?

Click to expand...

The reason why most insurers have moved away from it is because using MRNs has caused a lot of hassle and resulted in claims being revisited for snags and unrelated issues that insurers were finding themselves stuck with...I suspect that they have not got the savings that they had hoped using MRNs would achieve.However, two companies in particular are persevering with it, so, as I have said before, check out what policy you are buying.

The poor sod who was brought in to oversee the work will be a highly qualified professional who will be registered in accordance with the 2007 building control act and who will have PI insurance in place. If this person is any good at their job, they will not certify shoddy work by the builder. My view is that it is likely that if the insurers insist on appointing a builder and a screw up happens, then, it will be the insurers who will end up carrying the can.

Finally, to the OP, if there are any concerns as to the financial viability of the insurers contractor, either insist that a bond be provided or alternatively, get a written undertaking from the insurers who are insisting on the work that in the event that the builder goes bang, that insurers will at their own cost meet all additional costs that arise in completing the contract....yes, insist on a formal contract ( not between the builder and you, but between the Insurers and you)with provision for damages arising from delays etc....your Architect/surveyor/Engineer will advise you on this.