EQC - are they always this useless?!

Forums › Home Workshop DIY › EQC - are they always this useless?!

1 | 2 | 3

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1023531 11-Apr-2014 16:38

KiwiNZ:
SteveON: Simply put. We are lucky to have EQC, in most countries you would be on your own. No matter how small the claim is, its not important enough. I get that its frustrating but I'd rather they sort out the family in CHCH who has no roof.

I agree, prioritising claims is important and those who are worst affected should be dealt with first.

Also agree. However it seems that EQC's initial focus (after emergency repairs) was to move the easy claims first while they considered how best to devalue the harder claims.

Our house was repaired in December 2012, it had 25-30k worth of damage (which included asbestos removal). Our house was liveable, weather tight and presentable. We challenged EQC/Fletchers EQR when they gave us 2 weeks notice of repair as to why ours was getting done so soon (when we would have happily waited a few more years), our project manager simply said: we're getting the straight forward ones done first to boost the numbers (in words to that effect). As we were over the payout threshold (with ever changing goal posts) and under the 100k cap we were managed by Fletchers EQR and sorted relatively quickly. The real sticklers are those under $15k and those over $100k. There are still plenty of people (I know more than a few) who are awaiting payouts for under $15k as EQC have changed the goal posts many times over the last 3 years.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1023533 11-Apr-2014 16:41

SteveON: Simply put. We are lucky to have EQC, in most countries you would be on your own. No matter how small the claim is, its not important enough. I get that its frustrating but I'd rather they sort out the family in CHCH who has no roof.

To a certain degree we are lucky. But at the end of the day we pay our taxes so that our society helps out those that are disadvantaged and need help. I think without EQC, insurance companies may not provide significant earthquake coverage. That is possibily one reason why state insurance was setup in the first place, which brought in competitors. But now there is a lack of competition in this area again due to recent events, and I think it is time for the government to setup a new one.

It does frustrate me though how many people appear to be making a lot of money out of the christcurch earthquakes, by charging inflated fees, which essentially taxpayers are paying for, as we are topping it up. Building in Christchurch is the most expensive in NZ now, when it should be cheaper due to economies of scale.

mattwnz

20147 posts

Uber Geek

#1023534 11-Apr-2014 16:45

YadaMe:
mattwnz:
KiwiNZ: Gisborne should have been a warning to them that their systems were not robust or up to the task, they are still working on claims from Gisborne and that event was in 2007. They should have taken the lessons from that reviewed their processes, however they are/were under resourced and woefully unprepared because of teh lack of resources.

I would hate to find out what will happen when the real big one hits, and perhaps occurs in Wellington. Especially as EQCs funds have been depleted.

The real big one? You do know that the Christchurch earthquake was the biggest earthquake recorded in an urban environment? (ground acceleration)

see http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/News-and-Events/Media-Releases/Multiple-factors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration#Notable_earthquakes

Yes but that was based on ground conditions, rather than the actual size of the quake under the ground. That was partly due to building a city on a riverbed. Not to mention that many building weren't up to EQ standards, partly due to Chch not being seen as a high risk area. But I am talking about an 8+ quake, where most building would collapse, and at some stage in the future one will hit Wellington. Some of the hutt is on river bed conditions too, so I would expect the acceleration to be a lot larger. Hopefully it won't be for a long time though.
Also that table doesn't show any of NZ's previous major EQs, where they probably didn't monitor ground acceleration back then. So it isn't really comparing it with NZs previous EQs.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1023537 11-Apr-2014 16:50

KiwiNZ:
SteveON: Simply put. We are lucky to have EQC, in most countries you would be on your own. No matter how small the claim is, its not important enough. I get that its frustrating but I'd rather they sort out the family in CHCH who has no roof.

I agree, prioritising claims is important and those who are worst affected should be dealt with first.

Well they did that in theory...
They "triaged" claims based on initial rapid assessments, then carried out "emergency repairs" either authorising the homeowner to engage their own contractor in the early stages, or by bringing in Fletcher EQR to carry out "make safe" repairs after EQC (so-called) "full" assessment.

CCC with Civil Defense also visited the worst affected areas house by house (issuing yellow/red stickers etc). My place would have been "red stickered", but when CCC/CD called, I was there with two neighbours, a builder and a structural engineer. We all had hard hats - and showed the "experts" where the issues were. They said they'd do us a favour - as they thought "we knew what we were doing", what and where the dangers were, they didn't red sticker our houses.
But there was no clear guidance - no published rules. People didn't get reimbursed for emergency work as verbally "promised".
EQC call centre operators told massive lies.

You were told by "those in control" that not only were you not allowed to to carry out any emergency repairs yourself - as they warned that they wouldn't reimburse you for those costs - but that if you did any of this, that would jeopardise your claim and eqc cover. So you follow the system "rules" and watch your house slowly fall to pieces? Not me...

Next time (hopefully never) I'd just fix my house ASAP - and sort out the procedural issues later. We lived in appalling third world conditions for 2 years, with inadequate heating, in a home that wasn't weather-proof with half the windows smashed, all for the sake of "procedure" and "process" only a few thousand dollars to make the place reasonable livable, and for a while believing EQC's assortment of lies, denial, deceit.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek

#1023557 11-Apr-2014 17:49

I decided not to claim after January's quake because EQC told me it would be six months before they could get an assessor out. Repairs cost me just under $3,000 (although one wall and the fence have not been repaired). EQC also told me that if I got contractors in to do the repairs before assessors came out then they would not accept the claim and I wouldn't be reimbursed.
They haven't taken six months though - see their report: http://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/20140410_Eketahuna_Update-v2.pdf

To date EQC has received more than 4,800 claims – the bulk from Palmerston North. Nearly 200 claims have been resolved and more than $830,000 paid out in settlements so far.

So, they aren't prioritising Christchurch. Frankly, I don't understand what the heck they are doing.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1023563 11-Apr-2014 18:21

I sold my house because of this very reason

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1023696 11-Apr-2014 22:46

mattwnz:
YadaMe:
mattwnz:
KiwiNZ: Gisborne should have been a warning to them that their systems were not robust or up to the task, they are still working on claims from Gisborne and that event was in 2007. They should have taken the lessons from that reviewed their processes, however they are/were under resourced and woefully unprepared because of teh lack of resources.

I would hate to find out what will happen when the real big one hits, and perhaps occurs in Wellington. Especially as EQCs funds have been depleted.

The real big one? You do know that the Christchurch earthquake was the biggest earthquake recorded in an urban environment? (ground acceleration)

see http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/News-and-Events/Media-Releases/Multiple-factors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_ground_acceleration#Notable_earthquakes

Yes but that was based on ground conditions, rather than the actual size of the quake under the ground. That was partly due to building a city on a riverbed. Not to mention that many building weren't up to EQ standards, partly due to Chch not being seen as a high risk area. But I am talking about an 8+ quake, where most building would collapse, and at some stage in the future one will hit Wellington. Some of the hutt is on river bed conditions too, so I would expect the acceleration to be a lot larger. Hopefully it won't be for a long time though.
Also that table doesn't show any of NZ's previous major EQs, where they probably didn't monitor ground acceleration back then. So it isn't really comparing it with NZs previous EQs.

Most of what you typed is rubbish.

The major Christchurch earthquake was one of the most powerful based on accelerations. That is really what matters and that is what you feel!

I also think you forget that Christchurch suffered many major quakes.

Perhaps you would have a different view if you lived with many significant quakes for months.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1023847 12-Apr-2014 10:11

Good news never sells newspapers.

My house damaged less than 30k.
Fixed within 18 months, largely cosmetic other than rebuilding the brick chimneys.
Pretty much as seemless. Spent another 30k to update non damaged parts of the house.

House then sold.
Thank goodness for no capital gains tax.

I'm sure the while business would have been better if EQC hadn't been involved and it had been all private insurance companies. There have been no complaints at all about them...

A.

1 | 2 | 3