EQC and Insurers have claimed that 87% of residential claims are completed or in resolution.
The real story is 650 (320 previous quarter) completed Rebuilds and 590 (380 previous quarter) completed Repairs.
That's 5% of the total 24,660 (note the number of overcap claims is growing, ie, more are being passed from EQC to insurers)
That leaves the 8,760 as completed cash settlements (note that the sum of these conveientantly equals 10,000 (8,760 + 650 + 590 = 10,000 completions) amazing!
What they don't tell us is that the majority of the 8,760 are RED ZONE cash settlements, where homeowners did not have an option for repair.
The repairs and rebuilds "in Progress" of 2,600 + 4,490 = 7,090 is a completely meaningless number, what we need is the number of rebuilds and repairs where tradespeople are currently swinging hammers - I bet it is low.
So the REAL story = Private Insurers have managed to delay repairs and rebuilds so sucessfully (only 650 Rebuilds and 590 Repairs have been completed after 3+ years) while at the same time successfully pushing homeowners into cash settlements, they aspire to repair or rebuild only 33% of overcap claims (3,840+4,490/24,660) and their PR machine is working overtime to convince people to cash settle (for less than their entitlement).
As for the projections - if they are going to get 1,500 Repairs and 960 Rebuild completed by 31 December 2013, they better hurry! (and these will be the easiest/quickest ones no doubt) - They won't, they will blame technical issues, they will produce more brochures and hold more 'seminars'
recommending cash settlement as the quickest way forward.
"Reassuring progress" - I doubt it.
It goes on now with my issues with Southern Response!
It is worth noting that many of the "in progress" claims will be ones where the insured has been presented with an unacceptably low offer, and there is a stalemate because the insurer stonewalls, and the customer doesn't want to accept it.
A big chunk of these will be Southern response ones, where they have been presented with a "rebuild amount" that is less than the real cost of rebuilding because SR deliberately excludes lots of cost elements e.g. foundations, project management, contingency, professional fees, cost escalation...
They are taking the approach that various components should be excluded because under the buy another house option, it is a "notional rebuild" not a real rebuild, so they are attempting to orchestrate a big windfall for themselves by persuading people to accept that option
They recently produced a "flexible options" brochure offering 5 or 6 different ways that customers can apply their proceeds "flexibly" to their rebuild, but the kicker is that this is again based on the "rebuild amount" which is much less than the real rebuild value
We were offered an amount which is only 65% of what a QS says should be the rebuild amount
So SR's idea of progress is the rate at which they can persuade people to accept these offers that are way below full entitlement, but they play hardball until the customer goes to Campbell Live !
Do we need a more concerted approach to addressing this issue?
Seems to me with 6600 overcap claims if 1/3rd accept these offers and they are underpriced by 1/3rd, then there could be a transfer from customers to SR of over $200m, which is massive to these poor homeowners...
Who else is in this position?