Rank: New forum user
|
Fellow H&S Professionals
Below is a dilemma which could face any one of us who have to repair works done under insured claims.
Below is wording from a letter recently received by one of my work colleagues:
The CDM side of thing is complicated one but my understanding of this is that as this is insurance related and funded by the same then regardless of the type of property the job is classed as commercial and therefore notification should it exceed 30 working days or 500 man hours. As such and because of the consequences if you do not notify this is something that should be done in your case. This would then have to involve our surveyor and their involvement to the conclusion of the job monitoring the works etc, something you want to run with.
An option to consider would be that we agree a cash settlement in final settlement of the buildings claim at the net figure of £49,236.70. This then allows you flexibility over the repairs and you then take responsibility/control for managing the works. This removes the need for our surveyors involvement through out the repairs and CDM notification as you would be funding the works.
If the option is acceptable then I just need your written agreement to it and I can then arrange for the funds to be sent from your Insurers. You are then in position to deal with the building side of things with no further involvement from myself or surveyors.
All assistance on this would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You haven't given us the entire context or told us what led up to that response from the Insurer Tim, but it is at least thought provoking.
Yes, if the Insurer commissions the work, the full weight of CDM applies, but why is this being construed as adding significant costs?
Notification can be done on-line and takes minutes.
There is no absolute need for additional appointments. I would expect insurers to have access to competent designers, surveyors etc, who could readily take on the CDM-C role. I struggle to see justification for add-on for a Principal Contractor in a domestic repair/rebuild, provided the Pre-construction Information he is provided with is itself handled sensibly and avoids any tendency to the bureaucratic side of things.
I would suggest your colleague takes care though. This offer of "flexibility" over the repairs doesn't mean they're walking away. They will still want things done to their standards, and things could get very,very messy if they come along later and aren't happy.
Are these Insurers seeking to avoid a misperceived burden, are they merely ignorant of the application of the Regs , or is this an every-day example of the "risk averse" nature of Insurers generally?
Without some additional context - can't say.
p.s. if that is a verbatim letter from your colleague's Insurers, then it is quite appallingly worded. Perhaps you paraphrased.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That "p.s." didn't come out well. I only meant to say the wording was clumsy.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
That's fine Ron, I know what you meant.
thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tim,
This simply looks me as though the insurers are looking to avoid taking on the Project Management liability and has nothing to do with CDM!
I suspect that they outsource this and the project management service provider does have a baseline fee for smaller projects as the work involved is still significant.
If I had received a letter like that, I would get a quote for the project management aspect of the work together an additional contingency fee and seek a settlement on that basis.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I recently had a similar experience when my bedroom ceiling fell down due to water leaking above.
OK not as big a problem as yours but I received three options from my insurers.
1, they would have the work done by their approved contractor,
2. I could organise my contractor to do it, I would have to get an estimate and let them approve it,
3, receive a cheque to their estimated value and do it myself.
I did get an estimate from a builder but thought it was a little short in more ways than one so I went with option one - and how glad am I that I did.
They organised everything and even when the job got bigger (as they always do) the footed the complete bill.
I also got compensation from them initially for three days inconvenience, because that was the initial estimate of the time for the job, and then further compo for the extra 5 days on top.
In future if anything like that happens to me I will always get the insurers to do everything.
You may consider that for yourself.
PS just got my insurance renewal through the post and find it is a little dearer than last year, but I did get my moneys worth.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.