.

The image of a so called SUBSIDENCE ENGINEER  with zero structural  engineering formal qualifications used by some capped/ fixed spend loss adjusters like Infront Innovations Group to investigate subsidence damage to a house!

Introduction 

A house is one of the most valuable assets that most people in the UK own.

Yet when the house suffers subsidence or storm damage the big international insurance companies like, Royal Sun Alliance Plc aka MORE>THAN(RSA) appoints a so called  ” independent loss adjuster”

The truth is hidden from you the customer because the insurance company and the likes of Infront Innovation Group would have  agreed a capped/fixed price for your claim in advance of any damage occurring  anywhere in the UK!

The capped spend gives the insurer certainty of spend of its annual  claims liability   on each subsidence or storm claim before disaster strikes your house. However it leaves the customer out of pocket on genuine repair damage costs!

Is that fair or honest I ask you?

That is exactly what  RSA did to us.

The insurance company  tells you or gives the impression that the “capped/fixed spend loss adjuster is independent of them and will assess the damage to your house fairly and honestly.

The  reality is that you are duped and are just a cash cow. Your insurer and the so called loss adjuster are  both in cahoots behind your back  to “recklessly minimize” your claim by labelling genuine damage as “wear and tear”.

This deception  is done to  their financial gain and to your  your financial detriment.

It is all legal at the moment because the public are not aware of the collusion to minimize claims by the large insurance companies like RSA in cahoots with Infront Innovations Group (aka Subsidence Management Services CMS)  and  other American Companies that use capped/fixed indemnity spend models to settle insurance claims.

Please Mr Trump  take back your mob/gangster  fake loss adjusters back to America.

In other words your Insurance  Company sells your claim to the ilk of   Infront Innovations Group; as RSA did in my case;  for  a fixed price that is less than the average subsidence claim in the UK!

That is a fact  according to one of the insurance price comparison sites and the testimony of an experience Insurance assessor with more than 40 years in the industry. His letter to the BBC consumer program is attached towards the end of my blog.

The average claim  figure of subsidence  in 2011/2012 when damage by subsidence  happened to our house  was less than £10,000 and the capped indemnity spend /fixed fee paid to Infront Innovations Group is  believed to be in the region of £6,000-£7,000.

However the  indemnity of repair costs  to put our house back where it was before the subsidence damage occurred  was more than £45,000!

That is  a colossal  difference of more than £35,000 being denied by the two colluding big companies!Namely RSA and Infront Innovations Group. If that is not fraud then please tell me what it is. Lets not forget that ;

EXAGGERATION = FRAUD – KEY COURT OF APPEAL CASE

The Court of Appeal has said that exaggerating injuries for financial gain is fraud. This is a very important decision that suggests that the fundamentally dishonest threshold will be very much lower than most people thought. This is of key relevance in relation to the whole claim being dismissed under Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and to defeat Qualified One Way Costs Shifting protection.

In Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc [2015] EWCA Civ 327

the Court of Appeal overturned a first instance decision that a claimant should repay a large part of a personal injury award from an earlier settled action.

SURELY THE CONVERSE IS TRUE. MINIMIZATION OF A CLAIM BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY=FRAUD. Otherwise it will be double standards. One rule for the big insurance companies, like Royal Sun Alliance Plc aka MORE>THAN  and another for their small customers like me.

However, as far as Infront Innovations Group; which  also masquerade’s as  Subsidence Management Services(CMS) was concerned;  the damage to our house was capped at the figure agreed between RSA and itself of less than £10,000 believed to be in the region of £6000-7,000 at the time(2011/12 !

When we complained and eventually sued RSA for minimizing our claim by not investigating the front and  back of the house adequately , its lawyers DWF LLP of Scott Place, 2 Hardman Street Manchester, M3 3 AA, had the gull to plead that its client RSA was entitled to rely on Infront Innovations Group as follows;

“The Defendant instructed an independent third party, namely the Innovation Group, to assess the Claimant’s  insurance claim in order to determine whether the damage to the property had occurred as a consequence of the operation of the insured peril  7 of Part III of the policy.”

That was the biggest load of bollocks.

This is  because DWF LLP, as  an officer   of the court as a firm of solicitors was under a duty to tell the truth.

DWF LLP  knew fully well that Infront Innovations Group was not independent  of RSA. They had the official capped indemnity agreement right infront of them! (Please excuse the pan).

That false assertion by DWF LLP in the mind of ordinary fair minded people is  not only collusion “to recklessly  minimize our claim” by RSA and Infront Innovation Group; but also a calculated attempt  to mislead the court  by DWF LLP; an officer of the court!

DWF LLP could be excused of knowingly misleading the court if they plead as I do suspect that  they would if challenged in court that they  had not asked or looked at the  capped/fixed Indemnity agreement between RSA and Infront Innovations Group !

.Even then DWF LLP  would be guilty of professional negligence in my opinion as a lay person.

RECKLESS MINIMIZATION OF A CLAIM 

No insurance company has ever been sued for reckless minimization of a claim before in the United Kingdom.

Why?

This is  because it is a very serious accusation and very difficult to prove without spending a lot of time money plus  financial loss due to  exorbitant legal costs  and personal  health risks.

So what does “reckless minimization of a claim”  mean in a civil suit? Why is it difficult to prove? 

I will straight away say that I am not a lawyer. I am a lay person that has been abused by RSA and Infront Innovations Group.

I am relying on my understanding of the 2013 Defamation Act for protection.

That Act  introduced a defence of”truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest.”

I do honestly believe that it is in the public interest to tell the public  what RSA and Infront Innovations Group have  inflicted on me and my family in the last five years.

In Angus V Clifford;{1891} 2 Ch 499   Coram :Bowen LJ said;

“The court considered what would be required to be  shown for proof of fraud where recklessness  is relied on. Not caring, in that context,  did not mean not taking care, it meant indifference to the truth, the moral obliquity of which consists in willful disregard of the importance of truth,  and unless you  keep it clear that is the true meaning of the term, you are constantly in danger of confusing the evidence from which the inference of dishonesty in the mind is to be drawn; Evidence which in a great many cases of gross want of caution-with the inference of fraud, or dishonesty itself, which has to be drawn after you have weighed all the evidence.”

The above test of recklessness in minimizing an insurance claim   is a high bar to overcome in normal circumstances.

RSA knows that it is a high bar. That is why it has  threatened me with costs if ever I sued it for reckless minimization of my claim although every reasonable fair minded person that reads my story agrees with me that RSA and Infront Innovations group  dishonestly tried to cheat me and my wife out of more than £30,000. .

So what evidence have I got to prove my very serious allegation against RSA and Infront Innovations Group? 

1. First and foremost;  An insurance contract is unique in the sense that both  parties to the contract are expected to act in the most utmost good faith in the business transaction. Lord Mansfield in Carter v Boehm (1766)97 ER 1162, 1164 ; 

2. “Insurance is a contract based upon speculation. The special facts, upon which the contingent chance is to be computed, lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only; the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon the confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in his knowledge, to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risk as if it did not exist. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.

3. I answered all the questions truthfully at the outset of the contract in 1982. I also reported truthfully the damage to my house in November 2011.
4. If my wife and I  knew the truth that any future claim for subsidence damage made to RSA  would be sold to Infront Innovations Group  at a pre determined capped/ fixed price;we would have never have agreed to those terms. Good faith forbids either party by concealing what he privately knows, to draw the other into a bargain from his ignorance of that fact, and his believing the contrary.
5. Further more RSA was therefore  dishonest when as stated by its  lawyer DWF LLP told me and my wife;
6. “The Defendant instructed an independent third party, namely the Innovation Group, to assess the Claimant’s  insurance claim in order to determine whether the damage to the property had occurred as a consequence of the operation of the insured peril  7 of Part III of the policy.”
7.  That was an intentional and deliberate  lie to say to us that Infront Innovation Group was independent.
8. My wife and I believed and trusted the truth of that statement. However, it later  turned out that RSA lied to us.
9. That statement was   told willfully without caring if it was true or not in order to mislead me, my wife at first; and then the  court.
10. Infront Innovations Group were not independent but were in a capped/fixed  indemnity agreement which benefited them and RSA at our expense.
11. Further more Infront Innovations Group wrote to me and my wife in their so called “engineer’s report” dated the 20th January 2012 as follows: ” Investigations have been carried out in accordance with the guidance issued by the Institution of Structural Engineers.”—-the  report was  signed Marc Elton , Engineer, Subsidence Management Services.
12. The above statement was a very fat lie told willfully to mislead me and my wife again. Mr Marc Elton was neither a qualified Structural Engineer nor did he adhere to the Institution of Structural Engineer’s code of conduct.He omitted obvious damage caused by subsidence/and or heave in a deliberate effort to minimize the ground movement damage to our house(subsidence an or heave) by labeling the damage as being due to wear and tear when it was not.
13. That behaviour was in contradiction of codes one of the Institute of Structural Engineers which states; 1.Act with integrity and fairness; 8. Avoid conflicts of interests. 2.Have regard to the public interest,as well as the interests of all those affected by their professional activities. 10.6 A member appointed directly by either an insurer or loss adjuster should act impartially and not biased to wards Insurers.
14. In other words his report was biased and  full of  baloney or bullshit. Sorry about my choice of words but I am incensed by RSA’s threats of costs if I dare accuse it or Infront Innovations Group of dishonesty.
15. That was not all, RSA and  Infront Innovation Group applied the wrong  insurance contract to our claim  on the damage to the underground  drainage to our house.
16. As a consequence of that deliberate misleading ruse my wife and I were force to complain  to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
17. Despite me pointing out that RSA was applying the wrong contract to our claim;  RSA  egged on by Infront Innovations Group refused to relent. Instead RSA and Infront Innovation Group  alleged that the damage to the underground  drainage system at the front and on the side of the house through the shed  was damaged by cars going in and out of the shed
18. That malicious allegation was made  without any shred of evidence. this was done  with the intention to avoid repairing them.
19. That was a joint willful lie in order to deprive my wife and I  of our legal contractual right without caring to check with me or my wife if the shed on the side of the house had ever been used as a shed.
20. I could go on and on to show you the depth which  RSA and Infront Innovations group will plumb to in order to minimize a claim but I will only add that in the end they were both caught out when RSA agreed to appoint a joint expert structural engineer that was  completely independent of RSA and appointed by the court
21. .When the independent joint  expert found that `Infront Innovations Group operatives (THREE SO CALLED SUBSIDENCE ENGINEERS) had labelled damage caused by ground movement(subsidence and/or heave) “WEAR AND TEAR” amounting to more than £32,000, they tried to bribe him to change his report by offering him a financial intensive by promising to  pay for any changes to the original report!
22. That shows you what I have been up  against in the last 5 years.
23. I will also add that in 2002, a combined objective test for dishonesty was established in Twinsectra Limited V Yardley and others ; HL21 March 2002. Before there can be a finding of dishonesty , it must be established that the defendant’s conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people and that he himself realised that by those standards his conduct was dishonest.”
24. When The Financial Ombudsman asked RSA and Infront Innovations Group  in a letter dated the  10th October 2013 for evidence to prove the allegation of cars damaging the under ground drainage they had none!
25. In Petromec Inv V Petrleo Brasiliero SA [2006]EWHC 1443 (Comm);[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 629, para 94 Gloster J said that fraudulent knowledge  may reside in so-called “blind knowledge” described by the judge as “knowledge that the statement may not be true and a deliberate decision to fail to inform oneself”. Accordingly if the defendant makes a representation about a fact or state of affairs of which he or she has no knowledge , this will be equivalent of fraudulent knowledge.”
26. In July 2013 when Infront Innovations Group and RSA made the false accusation about the damage to our drain my wife and I had been insured with RSA for 31 years. However, neither Infront Innovations Group nor RSA had the decency to ask me or my wife if the shed had been used as a garage in the last 31 years. Therefore according to the judgement in 24 above they were both fraudulent.
27. Now you can see why I am determined to sue RSA and Infront Innovations Group for  exemplary damages caused by their  “reckless minimization of my claim” ..
28. I need to hear from brave and honest   independent Insurance assessors whose clients  have suffered  the same minimization indemnity tyranny by their Insurance company with the backing of Infront Innovations Group as a supposedly “independent third party Insurance loss adjuster”

Aviva Insurance Ltd v Brown [2011] EWHC 362 (QB

The judge in this case has some what lowered the bar of proof for fraud in insurance cases in favour of the insurance companies!

However ,the judge in this case  appears to  have departed  from the more traditional test(Derry v Peek [1886-90]  of showing that the false representation was made (1) knowingly or (2) without belief in its truth or (3) recklessly, careless whether it is true or false. The judge, however, agreed that a person who makes an untrue statement recklessly, careless whether it is true or false, would understand that, by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, his conduct was dishonest.

Even using the test in Aviva V Brown RSA and Infront Innovation Group were dishonest.

RSA and Infront Innovation group among the several lies that they told me and my wife they both knew that that the following statement was false and that my wife and I were likely to rely on it.

“The Defendant instructed an independent third party, namely the Innovation Group, to assess the Claimant’s  insurance claim in order to determine whether the damage to the property had occurred as a consequence of the operation of the insured peril  7 of Part III of the policy.”

They both knew that Infront Innovations Group was not independent but that both of them were in collusion.

This is  because both had agreed to  the straight jacket “capped/fixed indemnity spend in for the benefit of their  own bottom lines  at our financial detriment.

WHO AMONG THE INDEPENDENT HONEST  LOSS ASSESSORS HAS STUCK THEIR NECK OUT TO SUPPORT MY ACCUSATION OF WIDE SPREAD COLLUSION BETWEEN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE ILK OF INFRONT INNOVATIONS TO MINIMIZE CLAIMS?   

Below I reproduce a letter written by Mr Geoff Williams a professional loss assessor for more than forty years which he wrote to one of  the BBC’s  consumer programs  in 2015.I have redacted names mentioned in the letter because those people have not agreed for their names to be published. Mr Geoff Williams testimony mirrors my horrendous experience at the hands of  RSA and Infront Innovations Group.

Hi —-

Referring to my telephone conversation earlier with your colleague—-, I was hoping that you might ring me so that I could introduce myself and explain that the person called ——- to whom you recently sent an e-mail concerning the above subject is the partner of one of my colleagues who at this stage would wish to remain anonymous for reasons associated with cases which he is currently involved in.

I also sent in an enquiry form from your website but obviously mine does not appear to have been of interest.

However I hope that you will find the considerable information given below of interest.

There is a major problem in the UK insurance world revolving around how subsidence claims are currently being mishandled by some UK insurers and their appointed representatives.

Subsidence in insurance terms basically means downward movement of the ground beneath the foundations of a building. There are variations in policy wordings but that is the basic premise.

When subsidence was first covered by insurers in the early 70’s it was fairly standard procedure to underpin foundations which had moved downwards. That operation basically means extending the base of the foundations downwards to ground which is thought to be sound and unlikely to move further.

However on occasions this was done in a situation where the underlying ground was clay and where the problem had been caused by tree roots removing moisture from the ground resulting in clay shrinkage. The offending tree(s) were sometimes removed also and what unfortunately happened then was that the clay recovered and expanded forcing the building back upwards. This is called heave.

The situation therefore correctly developed into a situation whereby underpinning became more restricted. Decisions had to be made as to whether the ground was likely to recover before underpinning was sanctioned. In the aforementioned example, trees would be removed and movement monitored before repairs would be carried out. Ways of strengthening  brickwork by the installation of metal bars between brickwork courses and the attachment of metal mesh to lesser damaged brickwork panels were developed.

Insurers and their loss adjusters/structural engineers dealt with matters properly. Full investigation was carried out and in most cases correct decisions were probably made because they would then issue a certificate of structural soundness which could be produced in the event of the houseowner wishing to sell the property and thus having to disclose that the property had been the subject of previous subsidence.

One gets to the point therefore that insurers were doing their best to deal with such matters properly using qualified loss adjusters and structural engineers – they were at that time treating their customers fairly as required by the FSA at that time, now renamed The Financial Conduct Authority .

Unfortunately a situation then develops whereby certain companies referring to themselves as “validation companies” start to become prevalent. I attach an article written by myself several years ago which highlights the problem – these companies deal only with damage which can be seen as opposed to including hidden damage, often more serious both in terms of immediately necessary rectification work and more importantly damage such as in the case of water ingress which will potentially create a more serious problem such as wood rot etc

Transfer this concept to subsidence claims. In the main water damage as detailed in the article is unlikely to ultimately result in such serious structural damage to a building as to make it unsaleable but that is not the case where subsidence damage is concerned. The most expensive purchase most people ever make is their house and policyholders really need claims concerning structural integrity of their property to be dealt with properly by insurers. Indeed I wonder whether UK building societies who have a major financial interest in UK house stock know what is going on.

So…………..what is going on?

There is a company called the Innovations Group who claim to deal with the majority of subsidence claims on behalf of insurers.

They seem to have total control of the claims handling process. If you complain to your insurer they just pass the complaint back to Innovations to deal with. Why?

Probably because Innovations operate to a business model  known as Capped Indemnity Spend model.

My understanding is that under this way of working whenever they are instructed to deal with a claim for an insurer the insurer pays to Innovations  a payment currently thought to be about £7000.

They then have total control of the claim and if they could first of all repudiate the claim as not being subsidence damage (bearing in mind that the average policyholder does not understand what subsidence is and therefore trusts their insurers) they will do that and I believe that they were at one time entitled to retain the £7000.

That may have recently been changed on the basis of changes to the agreements which Innovations have with insurers resulting in the process working only where it is accepted that subsidence damage exists and then they are allowed to keep what they don’t spend.

They therefore spend as little as possible but monitor properties, not always correctly, for a period before doing the least amount of repairs necessary and thus pocketing the maximum difference between £7000 and the amount they pay to contractors whom they instruct on behalf of insurers.

At one time they apparently used to repudiate claims on the basis that the damage was not due to subsidence and pocket the fee (at that time possibly about £4/4500) despite the fact that the evidence indicated possible subsidence damage and that the situation should at least be monitored –  probably in the knowledge that in a couple of years time the damage would become worse and they could then charge another £4/4500 or whatever they had agreed as an increased “spend” in the meantime.

My understanding is that maybe the insurers realised what was happening and that a different agreement may have been reached about repudiated claims.

I come to that conclusion because during the early stages of a subsidence insurance claim they usually now indicate that they are happy that the claim is due to subsidence so that the argument now becomes one of how much repairs will cost.

In my opinion they do monitor damage to see if it is progressive but they do not necessarily monitor what they should be monitoring.

An example is a case I have recently taken on where only one area of damage was monitored when at least three areas should have been monitored.

They then advise that the damage is not progressive when they have monitored only one area. The damage in that area may not have been progressive but what about the other areas? They patch them up and hope that they become/remain stable.

One of their favourite tricks is to advise a policyholder that the insurer is responsible only to consider damage which has occurred during the period that the insurer has been on cover. That is simply not true but the normal average policyholder does not know any differently.

Many years ago the Association of British Insurers realised that there was a problem in that subsidence damage was a progressive problem which might manifest itself over a period of time during which a policyholder might change insurers.

They got most UK insurers to subscribe to an agreement a copy of which is attached from which you will glean that the insurer covering a property for more than two months when damage is discovered is obliged to deal with the claim if there has been continuous insurance and then possibly seek a contribution from previous insurers.

Quite simply this agreement is ignored by Innovations who tell policyholders that they can deal only with damage which has occurred during the currency of the policy when under the terms of the agreement the current insurers should be dealing with the claim –  which brings us to another conundrum – is it the insurers who are ignoring the agreement or is it Innovations on behalf of the insurers who choose to ignore it?

I recently met a representative of Innovations on a case where the contractors instructed by them  had discovered that damage was more severe than had initially been apparent .

That representative stated that it was not unusual that when for example plaster work was removed that additional work had to be agreed.

I commented that it was not a surprise because they were in the habit of just allowing for what could be seen and not anticipating what the outward signs would indicate. The Innovations representative responded “well that’s what the insurers expect us to do”.

It is therefore a question of whether such organisations as Innovations have sold their services to insurers on the basis of reduced claims spend or whether they are in fact doing what insurers have instructed them to – I suspect the former.

The typical way in which such claims have been dealt with for the last few years by what we believe to be unscrupulous insurers and their representatives  is as follows:

1)      Repudiate the claim even though it may clearly be possibly subsidence related

2)      Reluctantly agree to monitor a property often inadequately

3)      If it has to be accepted that subsidence damage has occurred, carry out the minimum repairs in the hope that the problem will not recur/the policyholder will move house

4)      If the opinions of the people who exist merely to save the insurers money is not accepted they will refuse to agree to pay for the policyholder to instruct their own structural engineer even when  the latter proves that they are wrong

I have become aware very recently that apparently Innovations’s turnover has reduced considerably because, in the words of one of their employees “INSURERS ARE NOW  ATTEMPTING TO REPUDIATE CLAIMS BY TELEPHONE WHEN  A POLICYHOLDER INITIALLY RINGS THEM TO REPORT A PROBLEM INSTEAD OF GETTING US TO GO OUT  AND DO IT FOR THEM”. Repudiating claims without investigation is not treating customers fairly.

On the same day that I found that out  I was also told by a structural engineer of my acquaintance that a representative from a firm of chartered loss adjusters, Crawfords,  had told him that CRAWFORDS WERE NOW GOING OUT TO SEE DAMAGE WHICH WAS CLEARLY SUBSIDENCE RELATED BUT THEIR INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO REPUDIATE ALL CLAIMS AND SEE HOW MANY POLICYOLDERS PURSUED THEIR CLAIMS. Again not treating customer fairly.

They get away with murder  because policyholders still believe that their insurers will look after their interests which unfortunately is no longer the case.

Historically loss assessors who look after the policyholder’s interests in a claim have shied away from subsidence claims because the insurers, when these claims were generally dealt with correctly, controlled the engineering aspect and the reinstatement aspect of such claims by using preferred contractors.

Assessors were not in a position to get policyholders money to spend as they wished which was the situation as far as other types of claim (fire, theft etc) were concerned.

Insurers achieved that position by agreeing to continue to cover buildings where subsidence damage had occurred as long as their preferred contractors who provided appropriate guarantees did the work. This is understandable and this situation protected the building societies’ interests in all these buildings.

Because of this most policyholders do not get any support from professional advisers such as ourselves.

However that is not the case for every firm of assessors. We and other advisers of our acquaintance do regularly get involved in subsidence cases and we believe that the current situation needs drastic action to rectify because quite clearly insurers are not, as set down by the regulatory body The Financial Conduct Authority,  treating customers fairly.

If you have any interest in pursuing this situation I would propose arranging for us to have a joint meeting with an assessor from Billericay who has had more experience than I have in the last few years of the activities of Innovations and their instructing insurers and who has at least one client who will probably be more than willing to tell you about that client’s ongoing saga. Should you wish to speak to that assessor he is called —————-

We have a a number of cases at present and I believe that one person in Yorkshire, at least one in LIverpool and another in Blackpool are sufficiently animated to tell their stories publicly

Additionally I have recently spoken with the son of an elderly policyholder in the North East who has done a lot of work on this subject including complaints to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service as well as the police as he believes that the insurers and their representatives (Innovations) are guilty of fraud.

He has recordings of telephone conversations in which an apparently senior person at Innovations contradicts what has been written by them and indeed admits to not following recommended procedures concerning such matters.  He is more than happy to speak with you and he is generally available on ——— on weekdays.

I attach some notes on a meeting held by The Subsidence Forum which organisation is made up of various people involved in the subsidence claims arena such as structural engineers, contractors etc.

Some of the contractors actually work (sometimes reluctantly) for Innovations. The notes clearly indicate that capped indemnity spend models are not consistent with treating customers fairly. You may wish to follow up on that lead although contractors working for Innovations will not wish to put their heads above the parapet.

There is no point in your contacting the Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters ————-

One might think that the Association of British Insurers, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Scheme might have strong views about this but the truth is that these people do not understand real life at the coal face – they  are in ivory towers and not in the front line –  and as I think Mr Hunter will tell you, they close ranks in such situations – he’s already been along that route.

There is a nationwide problem of substantial magnitude here. Policyholders have for the last few years at least been getting shortchanged by insurers and their representatives and the situation is becoming worse – a policyholder rings his insurer about what is perceived to be a structural problem with the single most important and costly investment of his life and the insurers do their best to minimize the claims spend by initially trying to persuade them that they will not succeed in a subsidence claim and when that is not accepted by a policyholder then sending out representatives who exist only to save money  as opposed to instead of dealing with matters properly and not treating the policyholder fairly.

There are at least thousands of policyholders who have not been treated fairly. Building societies are lending on properties which have not been properly repaired and which should be revisited.

This could in reality be the next “PPI scandal”………………………………

I sincerely hope that you can bring this scandal to the public’s attention

Should you wish to speak with me the best number is 07545 352973

Regards

Geoff Williams ACII FCILA FUEDI-ELAE

Director

Hope and Williams Ltd

4A The Packet House

Barton Road

Worsley

Manchester

M28 2PB

Disclaimer. This blog does not constitute legal advice as I am a lay person. If you need legal advice consult a lawyer or citizen Advice Bureau or professional independent Insurance Assessors. Remember Loss adjusters appointed by the Insurance company especially ones on capped/fixed Indemnity spend are spivs not to be trusted.

Jolly Kimeze-Mpanga