Just over two months ago my wife and I got back from holiday to discover our kitchen was flooded as the result of a burst pipe situated behind the plasterboard located in the area of the sink unit.

I notified the insurer, Esure, who promptly sent out a company called Building Validation Solutions (BVS) to assess my claim. The guy from BVS acknowledged the claim and agreed we were entitled to a settlement. During the site visit I was told that he would draw up a scope of works and then authorise a cheque by way of settlement, and that he'd phone through the amount of the payment that evening.

The damage was quite extensive and required the installation of dehumidifiers, replacement chipboard flooring throughout the kitchen & utility, replacement base level kitchen units (for our bespoke kitchen) and new vinyl flooring that had been fitted less than one year ago. Also included in the scope of works were replacement architraves and skirting boards, and a contribution towards the cost of redecoration. The guy from BVS said that they leave the customer to find their own contractors, preferring to put the insured in a position to get the work done quickly by making a speedy settlement.

I got a phone call from the BVS assessor at approximately 7.30 pm that same evening with an offer of £1700, minus the policy excess for water damage of £350, a net amount of £1350! The vinyl flooring we'd installed less than a year prior to the claim cost £500 alone.

The BVS claims assessor further said that he'd instruct a cheque to be issued the very next day. I then remonstrated that the settlement figure seemed awfully low, but was assured that the figures were properly costed and a breakdown of the scope of works he'd drawn up would be available on BVS’s website for my inspection.

Having spent a sleepless night wondering how on earth I’d get the work done on the payment I’d been offered, I phoned the BVS chap the following morning and told him to hold fire on a settlement; I was going to conduct my own research.

To cut a very long story short, I decided to appoint a Chartered Loss Adjuster to work on my behalf and paid for a RICS survey, the cost of which would be reimbursed IF BVS’s scope of works was found wanting.

Following several meetings between my loss adjuster and then another claims company appointed by the insurer, I had a telephone call today informing that Esure had agreed to settle the claim at a figure in excess of £10,000.

My learning points from this experience:

Do not take it for granted that the insurer will appoint an impartial loss assessor

Do not accept a first offer of cash settlement

Appoint your own Chartered Loss Adjustor if you think your claim will likely run into thousands of pounds

Did exactly the same to me. Then sent their "flooring specialist" who confirmed the Wood to him trade was more than the settlement never mind labour. Swapped insurance provider and let them know why.

How many claimants accept the rubbish spewed out by BVS I wonder?

I view my experience as a cynical and calculated attempt to rip me off.

Did you get satisfaction with your claim?

That is a heck of a difference. Well done you for not accepting the first decision.

Yes thanks, got a quote from local supplier and sent it in which they thrn sent to their chap who visited, who in turn replied it was reasonable. Cheers.

Thanks citizenb, and well done gregs07.

When I got the scope of works from BVS, the breakdown of items weren't costed. I asked BVS why this was so, to which they replied that the pricings were "commercially sensitive". Subsequently, I formally complained to Esure, demanding that I get a breakdown so that I could see how this figure had been calculated. Again, I met the same brick-wall answer.

That's when I'd had enough and decided to appoint my loss adjustor and have the RICS survey completed. Their so called "commercially sensitive" rates must be miles off actual replacement costs.

Fortunately I haven't had to take this to the FOS, but I would've done so, and from looking on the FOS website it appears that most of the rulings regarding insurance claims are in favour of the claimant.

At best the practices I've witnessed by Esure and BVS are sharp; at worst, the word charlatans springs to mind.

I wonder whether a Subject Access Request would have provided you with the information they were unwilling to give ?

Don't thinks so citizenB. My understanding is that a subject access request relates to personal data held by an organisation on an individual (Data Protection Act 1998 I think?)

But, I don't feel it's right that they can hide their sums behind something as convenient as "commercially sensitive data". I wonder what the FOS would say in the event of a claim?

Don't thinks so citizenB. My understanding is that a subject access request relates to personal data held by an organisation on an individual (Data Protection Act 1998 I think?)

 

But, I don't feel it's right that they can hide their sums behind something as convenient as "commercially sensitive data". I wonder what the FOS would say in the event of a claim?

What I think they must do, is purely work from a guide based on bottom values for the different aspects. It is not based on your specific situation in terms of the quality of the materials and exact labour hours needed. It is a cheap way of dealing with claims, that tries to offer the lowest they think they can get away with.

Not a very good practice, as I should imagine they get a lot of complaints and customers having their own assessments done. In the end Esure would have to pay the cost of putting their policyholder back in the same position as they were pre the claim event.

I wonder whether the FCA would be interested in receiving details for their files, so they can look into this, the next time there is any review. The FCA does not look into individual complaints, but they may be interested in cases like this.

Hi ub67

If I thought I could spare someone else the aggravation I've had during this process by contacting the FCA, I would willingly do so. In my professional life I have experience of the FCA and, unfortunately, I very much doubt they would add any value on this one.

What I will likely do once the claim is settled is draw my experience to Esure's CEO, with the suggestion that I may seek media coverage of my claim. I have a feeling this would likely resonate and possibly get them to review their relationships with companies like BVS.

Update:

My claim has been agreed in excess of £10,000 and an additional disturbance allowance (and refund of the RICS survey I paid for) puts the total claim in excess of £11,500.

My Loss Adjuster is so appalled at the actions of BVS they are considering taking the case to the FCA. Apparently, they have other cases where BVS have caused claimants considerable distress. Let's hope this bunch of clowns get their just desserts!

L

Update:

 

My claim has been agreed in excess of £10,000 and an additional disturbance allowance (and refund of the RICS survey I paid for) puts the total claim in excess of £11,500.

 

My Loss Adjuster is so appalled at the actions of BVS they are considering taking the case to the FCA. Apparently, they have other cases where BVS have caused claimants considerable distress. Let's hope this bunch of clowns get their just desserts!

The FCA need to deal with this, as it against the FCA handbook rules that Esure must go by.

We suffered water leak in ground floor toilet it had been going on for some time, we thought it was exterior brickwork problem [treated] ,untill early morning visit to toilet found me standing on a wet floor ,pipework was concealed behind paneling and tiles, water had gone across floor under floor covering damage going through to rooms either side ,bvs appointed by legal and general made a visit used various devices for dimensions and damp ,he came up with a building repair cost far below what i expected, i refused as i had no quotes at that time ,later that day i received e mail giving me 14days to accept offer .

how do i now proceed

thread is 3 yrs old

better to start a new thread

you wont get seen here

dx