Rank: Super forum user 
|
Random question. As part of the insurance agreement we get our LEV, LOLER, compressed systems etc checked by a company of their choosing. We have no issue with this, it works well for both us and the insurance company. The inspection company is very competitive on price and does a good job. However we renew our quote annually, and yet our LEV is done every 14 months (as per the guidelines.) This year we won't get an LEV inspection because our last inspection was less than a month ago. The next inspection will be due one month after we renew next year. The renewal quote however is the same as always. Is this industry standard? Do they build this into the costs? Probably rhetorical, but it is Friday and it was playing on my mind. What experience do my fellow professionals have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Insurance should be a separate cost from inspection even if conducted by the same firm. How did you determine the provider is cost effective if their price is within your renewal?
If the cost isn't itemised I would challenge them to justify
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Insurance should be a separate cost from inspection even if conducted by the same firm. How did you determine the provider is cost effective if their price is within your renewal?
If the cost isn't itemised I would challenge them to justify
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The insurance and the inspections are two separate quotes/companies. It is just our insurance broker has arranged the inspections with a company that the insurance company accepts as competent. We don't quibble the cost as in the past t has been competitive. It is only this year I was looking at the schedule, checking they had all the relevant plant covered. It was then that it occured to me that this year he LEV wasn't due. I would imagine the Directors would be loathe to seek a different quote, they do like familiarity. So it was more of a rhetorical question, is this standard practise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would just change the schedule to 12 months, that simplifies things even if an extra cost every few years
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is a purpose in the way the regulations were written to advance the testing (frequency not equal to 12 months) so that over time the examinations occur throughout the calendar year and experience different weather conditions You could shorten the test schedule but then it is two charges during a financial year
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
JohnW on 02/08/2019(UTC), JohnW on 02/08/2019(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is a purpose in the way the regulations were written to advance the testing (frequency not equal to 12 months) so that over time the examinations occur throughout the calendar year and experience different weather conditions You could shorten the test schedule but then it is two charges during a financial year
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
JohnW on 02/08/2019(UTC), JohnW on 02/08/2019(UTC)
|
|
|
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.