Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

[Guest]

Zurich insurance issued a "without prejudice" final decision letter in respect of a buildings insurance claim that has been on going since 1999. The letter is based on a report from their own expert. There is evidence that Zurich withheld significant documents from their expert. Had their expert have been in possession of these, he could not reasonably have reported as he did.

Is the final decision letter legally binding and if not, how would I go about challenging it?

Thank you for any help you may be able to offer.

[des8]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

As you have exhausted Zurich'scomplaints procedure you have the right to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman's Service.(http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...complaints.htm)
This is free for you, and the ombudsman's decision is binding on the insurer, but not you.
This leaves you the option of initiating court action if the decision is not in your favour.

Or you can by pass FOS and go straight to court!

[Guest]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

Thanks. The FOS found in Zurich's favour. I'm having difficulty finding a solicitor - let alone how to pay!

To recap - can their "without prejudice" final decision letter be challenged and also can I use it as evidence in a current JR case?

[Crazy council]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

Hi

did you challange them with a report from your own survayor or just challange there report. Was it Zuric or one of there sub feeder companies ( like cunningham lindsay ) that your challlanging . I did this ( 2007-2013 ). Didnt like there report, got myown from proffesional survayers, priced it and had to fight.

I also told there survayor ( CL in house one ) that i was that concerned with the discrepancys between teh reports, that i was considering rporting him to his standards regulator over the differences..

Lol, they were back at my house within 10 days, doing a new survay, that agreed with ours

Or was it to do with teh quality of the work carried out. .

[Guest]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

Hallo Long story - I instructed my own surveyor, C Rutland, who identified the cause of subsidence that Zurich had repaired without identifying the cause. My surveyor named Zurich, Cunningham Lindsay, GAB Robins, the FOS and others as being negligent. He also failed to disclose that Zurich had had the garage rebuilt and misrepresented drain reconstruction that Zurich paid for four years after they had supposedly fixed by piling the very minimal subsidence that had pulled the garage away from the main house. The rebuilt garage retained the back wall and therefore the separation crack. The roof was twisted to fit the out of square brickwork and leaks badly. Piling damaged drains in another area, causing water to leak into downstairs bedrooms. My surveyor's report, whilst far from ideal, covered the main issues. I suspect his omissions re the rebuilt garage and drain damage were to avoid naming as negligent a builder who Zurich appointed four years after the piling and who failed to identify the drain damage that my surveyor found.

After I produced my surveyor's report, Zurich appointed their own expert witness, who's own report contradicted that of my surveyor. Whilst the FOS was considering my complaint, it came to light that Zurich had withheld significant evidence from their expert which manipulated his report in Zurich's favour. I complained to the FOS again but they refused to consider my second complaint, saying it was the same as the first complaint. I took it to Judicial Review, but lost the first stage. I can go to court for a second stage but this has caused a massive fall out with my daughter and I am not coping very well.

I think the JR is winnable because FOS rules say that where two complaints are essentially the same, the second complaint can be investigated when there is new evidence. The new evidence is Zurich's May 2016 final decision letter that did not exist when I had complained in March 2016. Evidence from the FOS is that Zurich issued their final decision letter because of my March 2016 complaint.
The final decision letter says that Clive Rutland must be appointed to do the remedial work that Zurich are prepared to pay for. Rutland has now retired and in any case, Zurich's proposed repairs will not fix the damage their workmen caused to the garage and I don't think their propped repairs, if done, would get past any surveyor or structural engineer appointed by potential purchasers.

There is substantial evidence of fraud on the part of Zurich and others. Police won't investigate but will if the FOS tell them to. Catch 22. I am very much afraid that I won't live long enough to get this situation sorted out.

[Crazy council]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

Hi

Survayers have regulators and there better at dealing with discrepancys between reports.

I do understand your position, and i think that the following is correct ( it was with the options we looked at years ago ).

If Zurcik ( CL + contractor ) did the subcidence repair, they garuntee the stability of the work for 10 or 20 years, and if its not stable or repaired proberly, it wopuld be CL youi would persue. Firstly, to the regulators withteh differences in the reports, and identify that the one apponted by zurik was not given all the info.

This ussualy triggers them to decide on a resonable report between them.

Proving why the repair failed, and that its related to the origional work my be hard.

Just so you know how these systems work. When you made the orrigional claim, Zuric appoint CL, they look at the property and make an initial guess at the total costs of work and administration ( there cuts ) * this is not a figure you gew to see usualy.

Zuric transfairs this ammount to CL, and basicaly CL are dealing with everything there, under the umbreller of zuric, but all dissisions are by CL. In cases like yours, were they have to come back after the work, CL pay for that,

[Guest]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

This comment makes as much sense as a High Court judge's decision that a complaint made in July 2016 to the FOS about Zurich's May 2016 final decision letter is the same as a complaint made in March 2016 - TEN weeks before the final decision letter was issued. 😕

[Crazy council]

Re: Final decision in a buildings insurance claim - query

Sorry it sounded confusing

I had to deal with a situation with zuric/CL between 2007-2013 ( it can take a long time )

At the same time, my neigbour, had also made a claim agains my insurance due to the damage comming from the land at the side of me, but affecting them.

I challenged the shedule of works ( or a builder i had employed did ), and argued out till they hit our estimate ( was 30k difference ). When you do that, you take responcabiliy for any furture problems with the repairs

My neigbour let zuric?Cl appoint builders and do the work. Had them back on a number of occasions to remidy there sloppy works, then said the actual work plan was incorrect to fix the proiblem properly, basicaly, zuric paid him off further to take responcability.

So, what i was trying to explain, is that the origional works, done by whoever CL appointed, is garunteed by them to be suitable, and last for 10/20 years. and gave you a compleation certificate

If thats the case, you would take actions against the company that did the works ( CL directly ), use what your survayor found to push.

Hope that explains it a bit better.