Public Liability Insurance Claim - Carpets

Equaliser123

arcon5 wrote: »

Yes, that's right. Not a better position than she had before.

Op puts a value of £40/year on the carpet, therefore has £480 value left in the carpet & used £320 of value already - their actions will leave op having used £300 or value and have £500 value remaining - so even with the current offer op is better off.

I'm betting op could negotiate a contribution closer to £600, so even more of a win.

I don't buy the fact that there is a straight line depreciation.

arcon5

Equaliser123 wrote: »

I don't buy the fact that there is a straight line depreciation.

Agreed. Just keeping things simple ... in which case op would be significantly better off under this offer.

I also don't buy the fact a carpet could last 20 years tbh. Unless it was in a spare room perhaps.

Either way do, I do think the offer made is fair, and when pushed for more could well work to ops benefit in the long-run, despite forking out a small amount at this point in time.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Postscript. We did finally settle this matter. We sourced the carpet ourselves when the insurer's supplier would not supply the same colour. We pointed out that the whole bedroom had things that matched so to change from one colour to another would cause us further expense. As it happened the impossible to supply colour was available from the original supplier.

I'd make a comment on the fixation with betterment. Our perspective was this. We have a fully functional carpet, in a bedroom with little wear. There is little perceptible difference between the old and new carpet, there was no obvious fading on the old carpet, (you could not see where the bed had stood with the bed removed from the room), nor was the pile excessively flattened on the walkway.

Our point was that before the decorators arrived we had a carpet in as new condition and X pounds in our bank account. After the decorators had been we had a crispy carpet and X pounds in our bank account (less the cost of the decorating). We did nothing ourselves to cause this problem, and the decorators made the claim as to being fully insured. After the carpet was replaced we had a carpet in as new condition and X pounds in our bank account (less the cost of the decorating). Really, we should not even have been involved.

The intent is not to get a better carpet or exact revenge, it was simply that we should not be out of pocket for a fault that was not ours. Imagine if you were hard up and had no spare cash at all. Are you saying that if someone damaged your property, you should be forced to take out a loan to get your property put back into at least the condition it was in originally. We don't want better, but as it is impractical to supply the same, then I'm afraid that is the insurer's problem, not the claimant.

That is a different situation from your own household insurance where you have a clear contractual agreement as to whether you are insuring new for old or replacement value. In that case, you have the choice of taking a risk for a lower premium or paying a higher premium and having the full replacement value.

Seems to me that people are letting themselves fall into a trap by accepting betterment as an excuse for being forced to make a contribution to correcting something that was no fault of their own.

Final point, we were out of pocket in time and travelling - finding the carpet, dealing with the insurers including two visits by their tied in carpet supplier where they could not supply a suitable replacement, dealing with the fitting, finding a supplier negotiating with the suppliers to cover disposal and so on over a period of a couple of months. These are all costs which it is pointless to pursue, but means that we are actually worse off than before the damage.

ThumbRemote

spacey2012 wrote: »

As they are no shops selling second hand carpets then you would need a new one.
I would get a carpet fitter to fit a new carpet, get the invoice and send it directly to the painter.
Let him deal with his insurers.
If he fails to pay, sue him.

You really should read threads to the end before replying.

Prothet_of_Doom

As an aside, my parents bought a very hard working carpet in 1981, which was fitted in lounge dinning room, stairs, landing and porch, and when they moved house in 1989, they took it and had it fitted on landing and 2 bedrooms. When they moved house in 2001, they had it fitted in a smaller bedroom, and the remains was used in the garage under the car, and in the garden, to keep the weeds down on the veggie plot over the winter.

The ones in the spare bedroom and garage look as new, but the one in the garden is a bit crusty, but still in one peice.

My point? 20 years is an average life, but buy a carpet which is high quality and 40 years might be easily possible.

The thing that gets me is that you have a carpet of a particular quality, today, and you'd quite like the same carpet back. Their offer won't get you the same carpet. If you'd said, "Oh we bought it last year, but I've lost the receipt" would the insurance company would pay 19/20ths of the value ?