EQC - are they always this useless?!

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

Geektastic

13751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 143340 11-Apr-2014 10:44

I filed a claim last year following the Seddon quake.

EQC sent a couple of men round to inspect and assess, which they did and accepted the claim.

Now 5 months later and no sign of any money at all to undertake repairs. I would estimate we are talking $2500-$5000 max.

I rang them this morning and was told that the claim had to go through 'settlement review' (which for such small sums in a relatively simple claim ought to take no more than 15 minutes!) and when I pressed for a time was told it would "probably happen this year but no promises"!!

I said I thought that was ridiculous and asked them to note on the file that I would be holding them liable for any further damage caused by their negligent failure to settle the claim in a timely manner.

Is this sort of incompetence usual?!

1 | 2 | 3

14596 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1023322 11-Apr-2014 10:59

My sister in law in Christchurch is still fighting EQC, their Insurance company has quoted $253,000 to repair their home, EQC have set their price at $54,000 hence the fight.

EQC = Every Quote Crap

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

There is no planet B

SteveON

1917 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023323 11-Apr-2014 11:00

Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

Fred99

9020 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023326 11-Apr-2014 11:05

I could write a book about EQC incompetence and my experiences with them...

Their call centre staff routinely lie - so don't believe what they say.
You can "hold them liable" for future damage - but good luck:
1) From my experience they will try to use the clause about not being responsible for "consequential damage" to avoid paying out for ie water damage. They even put this in writing to me.
2) As they are governed by Act of Parliament, you can't sue them through the disputes tribunal or district court. The only way to get them is via the High Court. The only help you might be able to get is through the Office of the Ombudsman.

Geektastic

13751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023328 11-Apr-2014 11:07

SteveON: Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

But the point is that the claim is so small it should be paid without so much review. It's an insignificant sum the responsibility for approval of which should be delegated a long way down the pile. For example, they could require insurers to settle claims below $10,000 immediately once accepted and then require the insurers to claim back from them on an annual basis. Much better for customers as more claims are likely to be small in a normal year than large.

When they combine this with a protocol that allows them to refuse to cover your actual costs in getting repairs done if you choose to do it first say because water is coming in, it just looks like ACC - good on paper but c**p in reality.

Fred99

9020 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023329 11-Apr-2014 11:11

KiwiNZ: My sister in law in Christchurch is still fighting EQC, their Insurance company has quoted $253,000 to repair their home, EQC have set their price at $54,000 hence the fight.

EQC = Every Quote Crap

This could have been us.

Insurance costing $250k.
EQC estimate $69k - which was absolutely never believable.

No dispute about what was or wasn't EQ damage - just sheer incompetence by EQC.

BTR

1522 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023340 11-Apr-2014 11:33

All I can say is good luck. Christchurch residents have been fighting EQC since the earthquakes, to be honest you are probably better off just repairing the damage yourself.

mattwnz

15332 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023414 11-Apr-2014 12:52

One person supports this post

Well under the CGA for services,

Service providers guarantee their services will be: Completed within a reasonable time.

Maybe they are not covered by the CGA under legislation, although they are essentially a service where you pay premiums to them.

Fred99

9020 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023429 11-Apr-2014 13:37

One person supports this post

They're not covered by the CGA - EQC is governed by the EQC Act. There is a clause in the (weasel-worded) Act requiring them to act within "reasonable time - or within 12 months. A problem is that "resolution - within reasonable time" isn't defined in terms of meaning full settlement - like most of the Act, it's subject to interpretation. If you want to fight that, then it's the High Court.

I did win my dispute with them in the end. I even have a two-page detailed letter of apology from them - which I intend to frame and hang in the hallway of my house (when I finally get it fixed).

networkn

21749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023430 11-Apr-2014 13:40

Geektastic:
SteveON: Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

But the point is that the claim is so small it should be paid without so much review. It's an insignificant sum the responsibility for approval of which should be delegated a long way down the pile. For example, they could require insurers to settle claims below $10,000 immediately once accepted and then require the insurers to claim back from them on an annual basis. Much better for customers as more claims are likely to be small in a normal year than large.

When they combine this with a protocol that allows them to refuse to cover your actual costs in getting repairs done if you choose to do it first say because water is coming in, it just looks like ACC - good on paper but c**p in reality.

So claims should be handled by size rather than the order in which they are received. Personally I think that would be terrible. There are hundreds if not thousands of people worse off than you. Why don't you just get it repaired if it's a major problem for you, and wait for payment to reimburse you?

networkn

21749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023431 11-Apr-2014 13:42

Geektastic:
SteveON: Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

But the point is that the claim is so small it should be paid without so much review. It's an insignificant sum the responsibility for approval of which should be delegated a long way down the pile. For example, they could require insurers to settle claims below $10,000 immediately once accepted and then require the insurers to claim back from them on an annual basis. Much better for customers as more claims are likely to be small in a normal year than large.

When they combine this with a protocol that allows them to refuse to cover your actual costs in getting repairs done if you choose to do it first say because water is coming in, it just looks like ACC - good on paper but c**p in reality.

I also think your assertion that ACC is cr*p is nonsense, thousands of people use ACC without issue every week. Like all large organizations they are unlikely to get it right every time. I don't think appreciate the scale of things.

DarthKermit

5071 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

# 1023432 11-Apr-2014 13:42

I didn't bother trying to claim with EQC after the Wellington Anniversary quake 2014. We have a bunch of micro cracks in the stucco walls of our house. I repaired it myself.

Whatifthespacekeyhadneverbeeninvented?

Jase2985

9099 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023446 11-Apr-2014 14:20

My Parents home had about 30k of damage from the September quake, they were just about to start renovations before the quake, so before they started EQC sent someone round to access, then they started on their renovation. during the renovation they fixed all the issues that were picked up during the assessment.

they paid to have it all fixed on the premiss that they would be paid back for the work. the tradies quoted the work to fix the earthquake damaged bits and it lined up with what EQC quoted.

It took ECQ over a year to pay them their money, even though the work was done. They have no idea why. it seems stupid, one less person on their books.

They sent them a letter saying they would be paid within 30 working days, they got paid on day 32 or 33.

it really cant be that hard to settle a painless claim like that. There must be some serious holes in the whole process

networkn

21749 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023448 11-Apr-2014 14:21

Jase2985: My Parents home had about 30k of damage from the September quake, they were just about to start renovations before the quake, so before they started EQC sent someone round to access, then they started on their renovation. during the renovation they fixed all the issues that were picked up during the assessment.

they paid to have it all fixed on the premiss that they would be paid back for the work. the tradies quoted the work to fix the earthquake damaged bits and it lined up with what EQC quoted.

It took ECQ over a year to pay them their money, even though the work was done. They have no idea why. it seems stupid, one less person on their books.

They sent them a letter saying they would be paid within 30 working days, they got paid on day 32 or 33.

it really cant be that hard to settle a painless claim like that. There must be some serious holes in the whole process

Or, you are one of thousands of claimants, who all feel the same way!

Fred99

9020 posts

Uber Geek

# 1023449 11-Apr-2014 14:25

One person supports this post

networkn:
Geektastic:
SteveON: Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

But the point is that the claim is so small it should be paid without so much review. It's an insignificant sum the responsibility for approval of which should be delegated a long way down the pile. For example, they could require insurers to settle claims below $10,000 immediately once accepted and then require the insurers to claim back from them on an annual basis. Much better for customers as more claims are likely to be small in a normal year than large.

When they combine this with a protocol that allows them to refuse to cover your actual costs in getting repairs done if you choose to do it first say because water is coming in, it just looks like ACC - good on paper but c**p in reality.

So claims should be handled by size rather than the order in which they are received. Personally I think that would be terrible. There are hundreds if not thousands of people worse off than you. Why don't you just get it repaired if it's a major problem for you, and wait for payment to reimburse you?

IMO EQC should never have been involved in assessment / claims processes directly. Prior to the Chch quakes they were just an office with a few staff shuffling paper, and were not capable of upping resources to handle the number of claims faced. They wasted $300 million of taxpayer/EQC stakeholder money, as those assessments were toilet paper - produced by people with no expertise or credibility.
But there's also a problem if EQC handed assessment of all claims to private insurers, as there's no incentive for those insurers to minimise claim values. EQC needs to be (and will be) "revised" soon. Hopefully that will change the relationship between EQC, private Insurers and property owners in a positive way.
The negative will be that (IMO) low excess for EQ damage is unsustainable. Already the private insurers have changed excess for "out of (EQC) scope" damage to driveways etc, to $5-!0,000 (this quietly while they also changed from "full replacement" to "sum insured"). There's been a massive amount of work going on in Chch fixing minor damage to gib board by EQC, and replacing cracks in concrete driveways by private insurers, limiting resources available for more important repairs.

Geektastic

13751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1023450 11-Apr-2014 14:29

networkn:
Geektastic:
SteveON: Priorities ... Not sure if you noticed but there was a few major earthquakes over the last few years. It will happen but you're just not important enough I'm afraid.

But the point is that the claim is so small it should be paid without so much review. It's an insignificant sum the responsibility for approval of which should be delegated a long way down the pile. For example, they could require insurers to settle claims below $10,000 immediately once accepted and then require the insurers to claim back from them on an annual basis. Much better for customers as more claims are likely to be small in a normal year than large.

When they combine this with a protocol that allows them to refuse to cover your actual costs in getting repairs done if you choose to do it first say because water is coming in, it just looks like ACC - good on paper but c**p in reality.

I also think your assertion that ACC is cr*p is nonsense, thousands of people use ACC without issue every week. Like all large organizations they are unlikely to get it right every time. I don't think appreciate the scale of things.

Think what you like. As someone who has now waited nearly 10 weeks for payment from the ACC, I think they are worse than c**p. Very fast to send me levy invoices and threaten legal action if you don't pay in seconds, appallingly bad at giving out the other way. Perhaps better if you are a PAYE drone rather than self employed, I don't know.

Businesses should deal with things in a timely manner. Personally I couldn't care a jot that some people have bigger claims than I do or when they filed them. The simple fact is, ACC could easily find a simple way to deal with small claims very quickly, reducing their backlog and improving their performance.

It is fundamentally obvious that a $300,000 claim requires a lot of work when compared to a $5000 claim.

They have already agreed to pay my claim - they are not arguing over that and have already been and done the assessment. All they need to do now is press buttons and print the cheque. No need for that to take 5 months. That is inefficiency and incompetence.

1 | 2 | 3