We provide audits to assess the contractors generall approach to restoration and salvage. We assess the general claims handling process for time line and action, specifically in the realm of mitigation where delays can cause unecessary secondary damage. We assist in subrogation too.
We also provide fire scene and industrial chemical spills tracing chemicals in parts per billion to identify accelerants and or chemical presence. (See sample report and note detail of chemical analysis)
During the floods of 2007 we undertook major surveys for members of the ABI claims forum and proved without any doubt that flood claims were generally overcharged by 40% and that time lines to claim closure could be reduced by 70%.Unbelievable but true, and substantiated.
From our audits and inspections we identify shortfalls or areas where improvement from a different approach can reduce claim costs. The reports provide explanation and we offer training to improve competence and the decision making process.
Where third parties have been found to be negligent we provide evidence for possible subrogation or refund of restoration recovery costs.
Some buildings have taken 12 months to dry and this should be of great concern to insurers especially when similar adjacent properties have dried in weeks.
SAMPLE AUDIT COMMENTS
- “The contractors complied with KPIs by arriving on site within 48 hours; they installed drying equipment within 7 days”. The reality was that the equipment was insufficient or unsuitable for the task and drying took 3 months longer than was necessary.
- It took contractors 5 weeks to recognise that the type of plaster couldn’t be dried before hacking it off, “A needless waste of money and time”
- Contractors had filled a skip costing £350 with flood affected contents. On inspection of the contents it was found that 80% of the disposals were salvageable.
- The plaster, floors, doors and frames were salvageable but unfortunately were ripped out!
- “Loss adjusters took three weeks to arrive at the scene and had told the insured not to remove saturated carpet” The result was that a minor flood event caused unnecessary secondary damage to wood flooring resulting in the need for total replacement of all flooring.
- The flooded building was gutted by building contractors, yet the adjacent and similar building was dried without demolition within 10 days. The cost difference between two similar properties was £200,000 and the time line difference 12 months.
See audit report (here)