Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3
14928 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023452 11-Apr-2014 14:31
Send private message

Fred99:
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.



NZ has never had a disaster of the scope of the Christhchurch earthquakes, of course we were not prepared for it. It was going to always be hard and to boot, it's uncharted territory. If not EQC then who? Name one company that has expanded from 10-20 people upto 300+ in a matter of weeks, and show me them doing a better job.

It's 100x more complicated than you realize I think, and after all, it's made up of humans who are prone to mistakes. 

The OP's complaint and the other made of a smaller claim further in this thread are simply not real problems compared to the issues faced by others in Christchurch and I think some understanding and compassion should be employed here. 




9914 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3018

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023454 11-Apr-2014 14:32
Send private message

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?


Because they cover themselves both ways - if you do the work they won't guarantee to pay you what it actually costs, and since you have no idea what they will pay you when they eventually do get round to it you have no way to assess the quotes you are getting in relation to the reimbursement or indeed to evaluate whether their assessment of the payment is about right or utter tosh.





 
 
 
 




9914 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3018

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023456 11-Apr-2014 14:34
Send private message

networkn:
Fred99:
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.



NZ has never had a disaster of the scope of the Christhchurch earthquakes, of course we were not prepared for it. It was going to always be hard and to boot, it's uncharted territory. If not EQC then who? Name one company that has expanded from 10-20 people upto 300+ in a matter of weeks, and show me them doing a better job.

It's 100x more complicated than you realize I think, and after all, it's made up of humans who are prone to mistakes. 

The OP's complaint and the other made of a smaller claim further in this thread are simply not real problems compared to the issues faced by others in Christchurch and I think some understanding and compassion should be employed here. 



I'm sure we are all very sorry about Christchurch. 

We just aren't willing to put our lives on hold or accept poor standards because of it, or to continue accepting it as an excuse for things.





14928 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023457 11-Apr-2014 14:36
3 people support this post
Send private message

 

I'm sure we are all very sorry about Christchurch. 

We just aren't willing to put our lives on hold or accept poor standards because of it, or to continue accepting it as an excuse for things.


Me me me! No wonder the human race is going down the toilet.

6985 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2218

Subscriber

  Reply # 1023467 11-Apr-2014 14:40
3 people support this post
Send private message

there are people with a barely livable house that leaks like a sieve and your worried about 5k worth of damage and want it sorted now? when those people live in the cold and damp and sometimes with out proper toilets etc

14928 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3819

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023469 11-Apr-2014 14:42
One person supports this post
Send private message

Jase2985: there are people with a barely livable house that leaks like a sieve and your worried about 5k worth of damage and want it sorted now? when those people live in the cold and damp and sometimes with out proper toilets etc


Don't waste your breath, he doesn't care about anyone else, they can all wait, his is more important. 

5040 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2318


  Reply # 1023476 11-Apr-2014 15:06
Send private message

networkn:
Fred99:
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.



NZ has never had a disaster of the scope of the Christhchurch earthquakes, of course we were not prepared for it. It was going to always be hard and to boot, it's uncharted territory. If not EQC then who? Name one company that has expanded from 10-20 people upto 300+ in a matter of weeks, and show me them doing a better job.

It's 100x more complicated than you realize I think, and after all, it's made up of humans who are prone to mistakes. 

The OP's complaint and the other made of a smaller claim further in this thread are simply not real problems compared to the issues faced by others in Christchurch and I think some understanding and compassion should be employed here. 



Please don't tell me that "it's 100x more complicated than I realize", and I'll do you the courtesy of not trying to read your mind or thoughts.
EQC should have been prepared to cope with an event the size of the Chch quakes.  To quote EQC from an annual report produced before the Chch quakes:

"To date, EQC’s
working assumption has been that, supported by a programme
of reinsurance, it should be big enough to meet the cost of
EQC’s maximum probable liability – a magnitude 7.5 Wellington
earthquake – and to rebuild within a reasonable time"

"Unprecendented" and "unprepared" have the appearance of being buzzwords used by our political masters to excuse themselves from accusations of incompetence, in how unprepared they truly were, and for never increasing the disaster recovery fund for decades - to keep up with increased cost of building and value of the housing stock.  Both parties (labour and national) culpable.
I can't speak for others in Chch - but speaking for myself, I haven't ever wanted "compassion", just for the government to honour the contract I had with them and had paid for, in good faith, and without the two years of misery that they managed to inflict. 

Onward
11341 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5056

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023479 11-Apr-2014 15:12
Send private message

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.




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


13322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1587


  Reply # 1023484 11-Apr-2014 15:26
Send private message

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. 

Onward
11341 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5056

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023487 11-Apr-2014 15:36
Send private message

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. 


NZ could not cope with another event like Christchurch for many years




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


13322 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1587


  Reply # 1023499 11-Apr-2014 16:00
Send private message

KiwiNZ:
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. 


NZ could not cope with another event like Christchurch for many years


We potentially could, but it would need to be all covered by the tax payer, and increasing borrowings. 
But after the Christchurch earthquakes, there has been a major shift now in insurance coverage, in that houses are only covered by agreed value cover. This means that the majority of people would probably not be paid out enough to rebuild what they previously had, unlike people in Christchurch, who were paid out the replacement value. Most people are undervaluing their properly, based on thee fact that many people haven't contested the automated replacement values that insurers have come up with. I think potentially it could lead to a major banking collapse if people who have large mortgages aren't insuring their house for it's real replacement value. Hopefully the banks are requiring people to get registered rebuilt valuations and insuring to it's full rebuilt value, although this can at least double the insurance premiums they are paying. The replacement value and demo costs can be double or even triple or the price they purchased the house for or it's RV.

Onward
11341 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5056

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023500 11-Apr-2014 16:03
Send private message

networkn:
Fred99:
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.



NZ has never had a disaster of the scope of the Christhchurch earthquakes, of course we were not prepared for it. It was going to always be hard and to boot, it's uncharted territory. If not EQC then who? Name one company that has expanded from 10-20 people upto 300+ in a matter of weeks, and show me them doing a better job.

It's 100x more complicated than you realize I think, and after all, it's made up of humans who are prone to mistakes. 

The OP's complaint and the other made of a smaller claim further in this thread are simply not real problems compared to the issues faced by others in Christchurch and I think some understanding and compassion should be employed here. 



Not entirely correct Napier was a 7.8 and killed 256 and extensively damaged the region.




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


1916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 110


  Reply # 1023502 11-Apr-2014 16:06

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.

Onward
11341 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5056

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1023507 11-Apr-2014 16:16
Send private message

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. 




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

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


105 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1023528 11-Apr-2014 16:37
Send private message

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

1 | 2 | 3
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26


UFB killer app: Speed
Posted 17-Nov-2017 17:01


The case for RSS — MacSparky
Posted 13-Nov-2017 14:35


WordPress and Indieweb: Take control of your online presence — 6:30 GridAKL Nov 30
Posted 11-Nov-2017 13:43


Chorus reveals technology upgrade for schools, students
Posted 10-Nov-2017 10:28


Vodafone says Internet of Things (IoT) crucial for digital transformation
Posted 10-Nov-2017 10:06


Police and Facebook launch AMBER Alerts system in NZ
Posted 9-Nov-2017 10:49


Amazon debuts Fire TV Stick Basic Edition in over 100 new countries
Posted 8-Nov-2017 05:34


Vodafone VoIP transition to start this month
Posted 7-Nov-2017 12:33


Spark enhances IoT network capability
Posted 7-Nov-2017 11:33



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.