Water-damaged MDF kitchen units

[edb49]

I've got an insurance claim that's been going on since November and it has come to a bit of a head.

 

Quite a high spec kitchen, I'm told £50k+ by the previous owner who had it done in 2004. Escape of water which led to lots of the units soaking up moisture into them. About 1/3rd of the kitchen is solid pine, the rest MDF.

 

The insurer appointed a surveyor who said that the damp sections could be cut out and replaced by a joiner. I instructed my own surveyor who said that when water gets into MDF you need to replace the item, not do a 'patch repair'.

 

The loss adjuster is Crawford's. Their position is to do the patch repair, my position is the full repair. I've offered them one of two positions:

1) Do the full repair as per my surveyor's suggestion

2) Do the patch repair as per their surveyor, but they give me a guarantee in case the repair is not sufficient. (E.G. If in 3, 5, 10 years time it becomes apparent my surveyor was right.)

 

The position they're taking (unsurprisingly) is that they only want to do the cheap repair, and have no liability if it turns out they should have done the full repair.

 

Can anyone offer any advice over how to handle this?

[unclebulgaria67]

The Insurers via the loss adjuster can insist upon the repair, if this is adequate to put the kitchen back to the same state as it was before the loss event. Yes you can argue about this using alternative options, but what would you do if you reached stalemate. If you went to the FOS, they would probably take a year to look into it.

 

The advice is therefore to go with the flow, letting the loss adjusters effect the necessary repairs. Put the Insurers on warning, by sending a copy of your sureyors report, that if the repairs are found to be inadequate, you will be back on to them. When Insurers arrange repairs, they are then legally joint contractees of the works and therefore they are liable whether they like it or not for any additional works/costs as is required. In these situations, if the repair works are proved faulty, the Insurers would then sort out with the contractors involved. The normal statute of limitations would apply. 6 years in England/Wales and 5 in Scotland. I have known Insurers to pay for repairs, which then are found faulty, only to have to replace damaged items several years later.

[edb49]

Unclebulgaria, your suggested action of just 'going with the flow' is certainly the easiest option. However, this puts me in a potentially worse position than I should be. If we discover in 7 years time that things have deteriorated as a result of doing the patch repair, if we 'go with the flow' then we have no easy recourse against them because of the Limitation Act.

 

What I don't want to do is go with the flow and suffer in the future as a result of this - I'm trying to protect myself against this.

[unclebulgaria67]

Speak to a manager at the Insurers about this before you get into a long winded complaint. If the Insurers are able to evidence that the repairs are likely to be adequate, there is not much chance the FOS will take your side. The FOS will just say that the Insurers are able to use the cheapest method of reinstatement, provided the kitchen is put back in the same position as it were before the loss event.

 

Your argument would actually be much stronger, if a contractor does the work and you can then evidence it not being satisfactory.

[edb49]

How would the insurer's go about 'evidencing' the repairs are likely to be suitable? And how would I go about the opposite? Essentially there are two surveyors with two different opinions. My builder shares the same opinion as my surveyor.

[unclebulgaria67]

How would the insurer's go about 'evidencing' the repairs are likely to be suitable? And how would I go about the opposite? Essentially there are two surveyors with two different opinions. My builder shares the same opinion as my surveyor.

 

This is where a chat with someone senior at the Insurers may help. Given the two opposite opinions, what other independent opinion would the Insurers accept for the claim to be settled as you want it to be.

 

The problem for you is that the Insurers and their loss adjusters, just view the opinions you have obtained as people either looking for work or justifying their fee. If you review forums about Crawfords they are gaining a reputation as being loss adjusters that tend to be extremely helpful to Insurers in limiting claims to the lowest level possible. Once upon a time loss adjusters were independent and were there to help policyholders, but now as Insurers tend to have options of various companies to use, they appear to select ones that are most helpful to them.