Allkare blog
Information tips and suggestions from a UK property repair specialist
Loss Adjuster V Signed Mandate
Loss adjuster V Signed Mandate
I would like to chair the following situation to see if any members can share their experience. Following the last couple of weeks bad weather we received a large amount of calls from policy holders who could not get through to their Insurance Company so asked Allkare to attend to their and put drying equipment in. In all cases to the Insurance company and explained what we were doing and received the go ahead verbally. We also have a signed mandate from the policy holder
We are now taking calls from the policy holder s telling us that as a Loss Adjuster has been we are to take out our drying equipment , the loss adjuster giving no other reason than that they must use the Insurance Companies approved contractors – in this case Rainbow or Chem-Dry.
We have installed desiccant drying systems so have achieved almost 60-70% of drying so my point is can a loss adjuster override an Insurance Company and also a signed mandate and insist that we remove our drying purely to use another contractor. I am assuming that the franchise operations are going to be cheaper as they have won the contracts on room rates
I think it is safe to also assume that the drying times are going to be extended as the majority of franchise operations are using traditional equipment in water damaged houses that have no heating
John Toms • 1. The Policyholder is your customer, and is the only person who can authorise work here, regardless of national connections.
2. Franchise operations are not used by Insurers because they are inexpensive; I am sure there are plenty of examples of cases where pretend drying goes on where it is not needed.
3. The specifics of your equipment versus someone else's is irrelevant; you have a signed mandate to proceed, from the Policyholder, and whether the Insurer 'verbally approved' or not is also irrelevant; the Policyholder is due to pay your account, and whether they get paid from the Insurer or not is also irrelevant.
The Loss Adjuster can ask the Policyholder to instruct you to remove your drying equipment. The Policyholder, being your client, can instruct you accordingly. At that juncture, you must raise your invoice, addressed to the Policyholder, for payment. Story ended.
Jeff Charlton • Mention to the loss adjuster that he is breaking the law. As John mentioned your contract is with the insured not the loss asdjuster or indeed the insurer.It is a fact which has been published by the FSA that insurers cannot nominate contractors of choice and that the policy holder has the ultimate decission. The usual threat by adjusters is "If you don't use nominated contractors insurers may not pay the full invoice if they could get it done cheaper by their nominated contractor or that chosen contractors won't offer guarantee".
This restrictive practice and support for a cartel cannot be substantiated and if as you state your work and results are better than most nominated contractors you should fight. Good luck.
I am in a similar position, a call on Christmas eve from a high net worth policyholder who said he could not get assistance from his insurer saw a loss adjuster turn up a week later and who thought there was almost no damage and that my reserve of 15K was too high.This conclusion in the wake of damage mitigation and speed drying typifies why the use of technology and competence is a waste of effort when you can rack up costs by incompetence which adjusters accept as the norm.
Blaine Parry • I would be curious to know the reasoning behind the adjuster's request or demand to have you pull your equipment. What is the true basis for this decision?
Does he/she think the property is "dry enough"? Perhaps the adjuster thinks your approach is "overkill" and unnecessary? Is there a chance to educate the adjuster on your approach as well as the fact that you were there for their policy holder when they were not?
In the States, this tortious interference is illegal and am sure there are laws in the UK that are similar?
- • Peter Hargreaves • Thanks for all the advice but the reality is that the damage has already been done by the Adjuster from the Halifax. From a policy holders view point when faced with a possible repair bill of around £40000 they do feel that they have to go with what a loss adjuster has said.
However she is not at happy when I pointed out to her that she is now liable for our invoice payment and will be on the phone to her Insurance Company about this
Unbelievable the loss adjuster has instructed her to tell us to take out our equipment but not arranged for the drying to be completed by the preferred contractor. It would be interesting if any senior management from the Halifax would comment and explain why this sort of “project management” is deemed to be cost saving. I can say that the loss adjuster involved has not called me to explain his reasoning
Questions
If we have a signed mandate do we have to
• Do the job at the same price as the Insurance Companies preferred Contractor for drying
• In my experience the Insurance Company always takes the cheapest quotation however it is not based on a like for like basis. Ours are generally higher but we have picked up items that have been overlooked...how do others deal with this?
• What is the point of putting in desiccant/speed drying equipment if this is undermined by poor “project management”...I won’t bore everyone with traditional drying in cold temperatures but I would expect by now senior management level at Insurance Companies must know this is ineffective. Again it would be interesting to get a comment from this level to explain why a policy holder has to put up with noisy and inefficient equipment when the technology is here to do this in a fraction of the time and at not more cost
John Toms • 1. you don't need to agree to any rates; the rates are yours.
2. Forget all that nonesense; client pays for what you have done.
3. as per point 2.
Peter, this is the precise problem which experienced people have been going on about in this and other forums. Your client is the Policyholder (the one who signed the mandate). The Policyholder acted to mitigate the loss because her Insurer/Adjuster didn't act quickly enough. It's as simple as that.
By the way, is it a Loss Adjuster you are dealing with? Are you sure? Checked credentials?
Mike Burrows • If it was a Halifax adjuster then I'm guessing the policyholders insurance company was Halifax (part of Lloyds Banking Group). If this is the case I know the adjuster will either appoint a local builder (who is a Halifax contracted supplier) to do the drying and the reinstatement work, or, alternatively Polygon restoration company (formally Munters) would be able to install desiccant dehumidifiers. From my experience you should be able to charge for the work you have completed already at your rates. The Halifax supplier will charge their preferential rates and apply agreed procedures. If the policyholder was happy with what you were doing then they have the right to ask your services to be retained, although the cost of the drying would need to be competitive. The loss adjuster will try to select the most cost effective approach and reduce the amount of stripping out prior to reinstatement, and the builder will only commence his work once a drying certificate is supplied by the restoration company. (Polygon are sole suppliers to Halifax Insurance). Finally, franchised restoration companies are used by most of the top 10 UK property insurers. Hope this is of help.
John Kelly • This is an all too often scenario unfortunately. I believe most of the Halifax staff are claims advisors rather than qualified Loss Adjusters, I may be wrong.
They use a building company up in my neck of the woods and I am told they can only charge £35 per week for a dehumidifier and if they have been in for more than 2 weeks they demand to know why. After 17 years in this business I am dismayed that nothing at all has changed in that time despite the efforts of people like Jeff. If anything, things have got worse. By the way I am currently insured with Halifax but won't be renewing.
James Every • Peter, John Toms is absolutely right in his advice and good luck to you with your PH. They are so often frightened by adjusters who seem to be unable to take decisions that actually help to mitigate the loss. We are very fortunate to work for adjusters who listen to advice and support professional restoration at sensible prices, knowing that it is in the best interests of both the PH and the insurer to get it right. Do we achieve this 100% of the time? Probably not, but we believe that we are closer than many. Unfortunately when it comes to restoration the insurance industry is focused on price, not cost and they inevitably lose sight of the total claim cost. I could say so much more, but unfortunately am still at my desk sorting out claims...
John Toms • Do yourselves a favour: www.hiscox.com
Peter Hargreaves • Again thanks for all the advice the big lesson learnt is that it is never really good for business trying to lock horns with Insurance Companies as they are always right
A mere comment by a loss adjuster saying that They are not an approved Contractor for the Halifax is probaly enough to frighten most potential customers. The fact we work for most other networks is not relevant!!
Suzette End • I have a question regarding warranty on work performed to date...who is the responsible contractor if the structure was not dried properly... as a restoration company I have a waiver of liability signed should we be asked to remove equipment before our work was completed.
This is unfortunately the perils of being in the Insurable Peril Restoration Industry.
John Kelly • If you have been instructed to remove equipment before the structure has been dried to a safe condition then it is imperative to have a document stating this and have the instructing party sign and date it. Until that is signed our equipment stays put.
Andy Habbershaw • I've lost count on the number of times that I've heard these comments. Insurers have 'commoditised" the industry, managing down prices are that leave little room for reasonable and fair profit. By commoditising a claim, the procurement experts have worked out how many p/h's, how many claims, the average value of the claim etc etc..
so, they can average out costs and work out margins...
The result is many "busy fools" (also known as National DM contractors) working to pay their overdrafts. Neither Adjusters or the leading DM contractors have the balls to stand up and pull the plug on the insurer. Good luck to them all! I've set my prices and they can take them or leave them - and more fool those Insurers or Adjusters if they don't take advantage of our services. I don't care a shit! 95% of my work is from non insurance /adjuster sources and I like it that way AND when the Adjuster does comes bleating to me that my prices have been checked by their preferred supplier and are considered "high' (by that contractors managed down standard") and that they won't pay all the bill, I take great pleasure and pull no punches in spelling out to them why they WILL end up paying my bill - despite their bleating, they end up paying - why? because the client has engaged us, they were given copies of our price lists and I can show that our actions have mitigated the loss and that our prices are regularly accepted and paid by Insurers. NOT ALL CARS ARE THE SAME!
Ask yourselves, the policyholder has a duty in law to mitigate the loss. The contractor also has a duty: Does the Insurers or adjuster? I would have thought yes but their actions show otherwise. (they endorse wholesale stripout which increases re instatement costs and other actions such as ineffective drying which helps increase A/A or BI).
It seems to me that we should all stop doing insurance work- here s another observation- It is claimed that during surge and super surge events occur - like perhaps what we see at the moment with the number of burst pipes - there are not enough competent contractors (comment from a recent CIRIA publication). I was shocked and outraged to see this as there are plenty of competent independent contractors who don't even get a look in! SHAME.
But guys' you're banging your head on a brick wall.... I know i was the same... but not any more.....
Recent Posts
- Leak Detection, Trace & Access and Complete Thermography Services...
- Tracking Down More Than Just Moisture Problems...
- Industry complaint rate increasing...
- Are insurance companies settling claims too cheaply?
- 200,000 homes in England and Wales could be left without flood insurance cover
- What is a Loss Assessor?
- ABI says 200,000 homes at flooding risk
- Loss Assessors
- Allkare Disaster Restoration Franchise
- Carpet Cleaning Manchester
Comments
Post has no comments.