So what happened in Blackburn?

[westie101]

In the case of replace the proceedure used to be "go and buy new appliances and send us the receipts" which left it wide open.
Basically we have never had the resource to actually check in each property what needs replaced, we know that we may be repairing stuff that was not damaged by the fault but the proportion will be small.
It seems that once folk have the time to think about it and are given free reign claims tend to get rarther high.
Bear in mind that if insurance is in place this would also pay out,hence the payment for the inconvenience, not the appliances.
The repair idea is purely PR


It does seem odd but as explained earlier over the years it has ben found to be the fairest solution.

You mention "at any cost" which you introduced and that is not the case! the comment that came from was in answer to a question about timing of repairs where I was explaining that we stay on site until we finish.
The companies doing the repair are experianced enough to quickly assess if something can be fixed or not if it can it is, if not the customer has to replace it.

 

[JohnW2]

In the case of replace the proceedure used to be "go and buy new appliances and send us the receipts" which left it wide open.

Yes, that's obvioulsy 'asking for trouble'!

Basically we have never had the resource to actually check in each property what needs replaced ...

Again, I'm a bit confused. If you have time to check in each property to see what needs to be repaired, that will presumably also tell you what needs to be replaced (be it genuine or fraudulent!).

The companies doing the repair are experianced enough to quickly assess if something can be fixed or not if it can it is, if not the customer has to replace it.

I'm sure they are able to make that assessment. The illogicality seems to be that when they do that assessing, they presumably would then proceed to effect a repair (at no cost to the customer) if they deemed that possible (and cost-effective), but leave more seriously damaged items to be replaced at the customer's cost. It almost sounds like a policy to 'limit' the DNO's financial burden.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[westie101]

It almost sounds like a policy to 'limit' the DNO's financial burden

Given that we are a buisness what is wrong with that?

If insured the customer can claim from that, if not that is the risk they possibly took by nor being insured.
We will normally make an ex-gratia payment whch will more than cover any loss of no claims.

In this case we are paying more that 3 times the normal amount per customer and will probably repair well over 90% of appliances and all the boilers, Total costs will be at the higher end of a six figure sum. Who eventually pays?
There has to be a limit!

 

[JohnW2]

It almost sounds like a policy to 'limit' the DNO's financial burden

Given that we are a buisness what is wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, provided one admits that is the situation. To say "we'll repair, at our expense, if we can do so at a reasonable cost, but if the damage is so bad that replacement is necessary, the customer has to pay" would be absolutely fine. However, that's not what you said - you said that 'not replacing' was because of the fraud problem, not because of cost.

Kind Regards, John.