Issues with insurance appointed builder / trades

I have ongoing repairs from a claim due to storm damage, ingress of water through minor damage to roof tiles. So far the process has been eye opening.


The first issue is my roof tiles are discontinued so I have a patch of 40 grey tiles against a black roof. I wasn’t advised of this at all, I discovered it when I walked down the side of my house the day after they attended.


Insurance company offered to paint the tiles but it would still be a mismatch. I have asked for them to be moved to where solar will be installed over them. Is this a fair and reasonable outcome?


Second issue is most of the ceilings in the house were marked "paint ceiling and cornice" after treating the water stains. Its completely obvious to me that the painter has touched up the stains with visual evidence everywhere of insect activity, old marks & scratches etc where it hasn’t been painted. There is also spray drips throughout the rooms.


The builder sent the painter back, after I pointed everything out he hurried off saying “that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been painted” & "i will pass on your concerns". Builder will attend next week to inspect; Insurance company has advised not to sign off If I’m not happy.


The electrician attended twice with no notice, installed a seriously crooked heat/ exhaust fan in a bathroom and installed built in downlights with warm colour when all my lighting is cool.


Considering the builder quoted so high for the work v what I know I could have had my own trades do it for, im seriously annoyed I didn’t take the payout and project manage myself. The justification was If I wasn’t happy, I thought I would have recourse through the insurance company.


The whole process has been comical.

 

I'm sorry to learn about your woes.

There very much seems to be multiple breaches of Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

Section 18 of ACL "prohibits a person, in trade or commerce, from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct ... creates a broad, economy-wide norm of conduct."

Section 20 of ACL prohibits unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law, from time to time. This means that actions relating to unconscionable conduct, which is a concept that has developed in the common law and the principles of equity, may be commenced under ACL and the remedies provided by ACL may be applied to a breach of this provision.

Section 29 of ACL prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or service.

Section 54 provides that goods must be of a certain quality, fit for the purpose, free from defects, safe and durable.

Sections 60 and 61 of ACL deal with services, which must be executed with due care and skill, reasonably fit for the purpose, and of a nature, quality and condition such that they can be expected to achieve a result that the consumer makes known to the supplier.

The above are from my ACL summary and apply to this situation.

Section 18 - there was a reasonable expectation that the tiles would match. If a tenant damages a wall and it needs to be painted then the new paint should match the other walls. The new tiles should match the existing ones. Section 20 also applies. In a similar theme, section 29 has been breached.

The tiles and painting breach section 54. The tiles, painting and sparky quality are unsatisfactory. It would be useful to see if black tiles are available. It may be that black tiles can be sourced but that the tiler was lazy and did not make much effort.

Sections 60 and 61 apply. There was no due care and the jobs were not fit for purpose. Even if you did not advise the tradies exctly what you wanted there is most certainly a reasonable standard that needs to be met. Suppose I'm having a brick wall made. I do not state that I want the footing 900 mm deep or that the bricks must be straight. This is implicit.

Under the ACL, consumers can seek a refund, replacement or repairs if a supplier fails to satisfy its obligations in relation to consumer guarantees. That is, there are remedies at law open to you.

The following steps are suggested.
1 Document everything, who did what when.

2 Collate existing pictures and give them meaningful names.

3 Take pictures of everything so there can be one set showing the job as it is now.

4 Advise the insurer that the job has not been done satisfactorily and seek other tradies to do the job. Cite ACL. Ask the insurer when they can have other tradies attend.

5 If the insurer agrees then all will hopefully be well. If not then start the legal process citing the insurer and tradies as respondents. Send the insurer a draft of the brief. Once they know that you are serious they may agree to suitable remedies rather than the hassle of court and an adverse finding.

 

Thanks for that detailed response, I have documented everything via photographs and emails opening a complaint with each specific job to the insurance company as well as forwarding this on to the builder.


The more I look the worse it gets, the ceiling is damaged badly around some downlights from the remove and install, there is overspray all over our dining table, and roller marks where they hit the wall and didn’t bother to wipe it off.

Oh... And there is still visable water stains lol.

 

Tiles are like clothes. The colours and styles change continually. Roofers can move some so the issue is behind the house and colour matching will also help. Its barely noticeable aftre X months and some weathering. I went to Boral rooftiles and purchased tiles in my profile that are grey and colour matched and painted these as spares. There are also tile specialists who sell discountued tiles...For a hefty margin. They buy them up. And bricks etc. Are they being lazy ? Source them and insist on them sourcing at least the correct profile tile.

I Insurers engage tradies for a low price and rushing results. I had them redo ours twice. Gyprock damage + repaint. After the first fix it looked worse. So they got new trades to start all over. Assessor process made it wose. They just use a camera on a phone and didnt look at the real work. He came out and saw the issues immediately.

Ummm you dont sue insurers. You must go through a complaints process and a tribunal. Its more practical to have the assessor come to site and do their job properly. They wont want the complaints. They dont care what it costs to shut you up.

 

Claims are almost never an easy process. If this ever happens to you again, I would suggest getting the contact number for the loss adjustor/assessor. They are the ones generally detailing the information for the insurer, and who would know the most about the situation.

 

If there is no match then other options should be explored. These may include putting the new tiles where the solar panels will be or finding a black tiles that is similar. Some insurance policies cite such aspects.

I am not familiar with Queensland legislation, which is where the property seems to be, and cannot comment on how complaints of this nature are manged there. Exhaust all other options before filing with a court or tribunal. Point 5 of my post above details this.

 

Insurance is a business, they don't seem to care that all of this adds extra cost to our premiums because it keeps them in a job !

I would advise the insurer of the issues and see what they have to say
Don't sign anything until you are satisfied (or just want to get rid of them).

Very much so !
Mum had a garage fire on 5/1/24, this damaged the garage area along with wiring/plumbing/drainage and smoke damage throughout the house, 1 day for a plumber, a few hours for a sparky and a cleaner for a day would have had the place livable again then re plaster the garage and 4 days to re paint interior (two proffesional painters) yet after 3 weeks in a hotel and renting alternative accommodation in the last 4 months all that has been done is an assessor has been to site

It may seem comical until you go thru it all, then you realize how little your premiums could be if everyone wasn't rorting the system like a cash cow

 

Watch out for insurers. They have policies that game the insured. eg They always insist on steam cleaning carpets aftre smoke / fire / flood. Only after you compain it smells like a bacon shop they then replace it. Smoke can get into anything - Inside walls, curtains, furnture etc And until its finished you really dont notice it. Hence their rules but more hassle.

 

Funny, my mother was recently told that her carpets weren't included/covered !
Carpets in her policy are contents
Blinds are covered because they are screwed on, but carpets are like rugs ???
She didn't have contents cover
I guess after 50 years of insurance without incident she decided she didn't need contents cover..........

 

A lot depends on the definition of "contents" in the insurance policy. A strata title property has the potential for the strata property insurer arranged by the OC to say that some fixed items are not covered and for the contents insurer to say the same thing. It would assist if there was a mandatory legislative definition of what is and is not covered with contents and building insurance. An option to expand those definitions should be available.

Anything that is part of the building could be in the building cover. Anything that is removable on a daily basis is contents. There's a slight grey area at my PPOR. Some shelves are 1.8-2.4 metres tall and are fixed to the walls to stop then shelves falling over. Are they part of the building or are they contents?

 

It used to be 'if you turned the house upside down and shook it whatever fell out was contents' (or what you take when relocating)
But these days it's all in the fine print that no one reads (until their claim is denied)