Cash payout on home insurance claim

dalesrider

whizzkid001 wrote: »

I presume once agreed the claim is to be settled by a cash payment, the money is yours and if you moved before doing it the money remains yours. Any thoughts?

Surly the payout is to fix the damage caused by the flooding. Then if you don't use it for that purpose they could claim it back.
Some may even think it a fraudlent claim...

whizzkid001

Quentin wrote: »

You aren't "entitled" to "interest" for the reasons they have given.

What you should have been asking for was compensation for the three years you had to live in the property awaiting the insurer being forced into doing what they should have done at the start.

No, you misunderstand. Compensation that you refer to was dealt with and duly paid after the first, original complaint. The interest element I am now claiming is a completely separate payment that is payable to a complainant for being deprived of their cash settlement. It is 8% simple interest on the settlement figure, paid from the date it should have been paid to the date it was finally paid.

hugoshavez wrote: »

Did you move house or not? Were the repairs done, or have you just left the house to rot?

No, we did not move house, it was a purely hypothetical scenario. Yes, the repairs were indeed done.

So, to recap - I have had an initial adjudication for my claim for an interest payment rejected. Not for any other unrelated reason other than his bizarre views that:

1) I was not deprived of this sum. He says that if the cash settlement had been made at the time of loss, 3 years previous, I would have had the repairs completed and therefore the money would not have been accruing interest ie I've not suffered financial loss

My answer to that, as I began by saying, is how can he simply assume that - we may well have elected not to have had repairs done for a year or so if we had been paid the sum at the very beginning. Or we may well have moved before doing any repairs. In either scenario, the money once paid is ours to do with as and when we choose and meantime it would have been banked earning interest. Who is he then to deem that we would necessarily have paid it all out right at the beginning?

2) he suggests that only if we had initially forked out ourselves for the repairs would this interest be paid.

I say that is completely wrong - how many people - especially in a high-value claim - would necessarily have the means to pay out for their repairs before their insurer paid up? Few I imagine. Besides which, the link on the ombudsman site (in fact in several places) says absolutely nothing about this, it states simply that where a complainant has been deprived of an insurance payout, he shall receive 8% simple interest on the whole sum, paid from the date of the original claim to the date the settlement is finally paid.

whizzkid001

dalesrider wrote: »

Surly the payout is to fix the damage caused by the flooding. Then if you don't use it for that purpose they could claim it back.
Some may even think it a fraudlent claim...

Hardly - an insurance claim will either be settled by the insurers own repairers, by the use of vouchers or by cash. There is no followup as to what you do with the cash, if you spend it on something else well, all it would mean is that you wouldn't be able to claim for the same thing in future. Why would it be fraudulent - they have already assessed that the damage is substantial and real and settled the claim on a cash basis. Whether you ultimately do the repairs is down to you, it's certainly not fraudulent.

But in any event, you missed the point - I did have the repairs done. I am simply now trying to claim an interest payment for the 3 year delay in receiving the payout.

hugoshavez

whizzkid001 wrote: »

So, to recap - I have had an initial adjudication for my claim for an interest payment rejected. Not for any other unrelated reason other than his bizarre views that:

1) I was not deprived of this sum. He says that if the cash settlement had been made at the time of loss, 3 years previous, I would have had the repairs completed and therefore the money would not have been accruing interest ie I've not suffered financial loss

My answer to that, as I began by saying, is how can he simply assume that - we may well have elected not to have had repairs done for a year or so if we had been paid the sum at the very beginning.

But you did have the repairs done?!

Who paid for them to be done?

whizzkid001

hugoshavez wrote: »

But you did have the repairs done?!

Who paid for them to be done?

Yes, I had the repairs done but only when we eventually received the settlement after winning our case with the ombudsman - 3 years after the event!

rs65

whizzkid001 wrote: »

1) I was not deprived of this sum. He says that if the cash settlement had been made at the time of loss, 3 years previous, I would have had the repairs completed and therefore the money would not have been accruing interest ie I've not suffered financial loss

My answer to that, as I began by saying, is how can he simply assume that - we may well have elected not to have had repairs done for a year or so if we had been paid the sum at the very beginning. Or we may well have moved before doing any repairs. In either scenario, the money once paid is ours to do with as and when we choose and meantime it would have been banked earning interest. Who is he then to deem that we would necessarily have paid it all out right at the beginning? If you had elected not to have the repairs done for a year then you would have gained interest - the insurers do not pay out claims so that you can gain financially

2) he suggests that only if we had initially forked out ourselves for the repairs would this interest be paid.

I say that is completely wrong - how many people - especially in a high-value claim - would necessarily have the means to pay out for their repairs before their insurer paid up? Irrelevant, you haven't suffered financially as you didn't pay for the repairs and therefor didn't lose out on interest on your own cash

As has been said, your complaint should have been suffering the lack of repairs until the payout.

whizzkid001

rs65 wrote:

1) I was not deprived of this sum. He says that if the cash settlement had been made at the time of loss, 3 years previous, I would have had the repairs completed and therefore the money would not have been accruing interest ie I've not suffered financial loss

My answer to that, as I began by saying, is how can he simply assume that - we may well have elected not to have had repairs done for a year or so if we had been paid the sum at the very beginning. Or we may well have moved before doing any repairs. In either scenario, the money once paid is ours to do with as and when we choose and meantime it would have been banked earning interest. Who is he then to deem that we would necessarily have paid it all out right at the beginning? If you had elected not to have the repairs done for a year then you would have gained interest - the insurers do not pay out claims so that you can gain financially I don't think you follow - if I had been paid in cash at the beginning, 3 years ago, then I am perfectly entitled to bank the cash until I elect to have the repairs done, whether it be after a few weeks, months whatever. In the meantime yes, it earns interest but by this point the money is mine. What do you mean I am gaining financially and insurers do not pay out so that you can gain financially?? By that point, the claim is already long settled and closed, the interest is mine to make if I so wish and therefore I have been deprived of this.

2) he suggests that only if we had initially forked out ourselves for the repairs would this interest be paid.

I say that is completely wrong - how many people - especially in a high-value claim - would necessarily have the means to pay out for their repairs before their insurer paid up? Irrelevant, you haven't suffered financially as you didn't pay for the repairs and therefor didn't lose out on interest on your own cash. How is this irrelevent - there is absolutely no prerequisite that to qualify for interest you need to have paid out first for the repairs from your own money. I certainly have lost out on interest from my cash because quite simply, it ought to have been paid 3 years ago
As has been said, your complaint should have been suffering the lack of repairs until the payout. No - that was dealt with in the original ombudsman complaint. This is a separate claim for a separate type of payment that was not covered in the original complaint.

Responses as above

hugoshavez

rs65 wrote: »

As has been said, your complaint should have been suffering the lack of repairs until the payout.

For which you have received compensation!

Another case closed.

rs65

whizzkid001 wrote: »

Just need to find some sound argument/s against their reasoning for saying I'm not entitled to interest.

Sorry but everyone here seems to agree with the FOS that no interest is due but you won't accept that.

I cannot think of any argument against their reasoning but can think of reasons why they are correct, as per my earlier post.

hugoshavez

How about this?

Ask for them for 1 year's interest on the payout. Suggest you would have banked the settlement for a year while you were arranging the repairs.

In the meantime, to show you're serious, send the insurance company a cheque for 1/3 of the compensation you received for the delay in settlement. Of course, the delay was immaterial because the money would only have been in the bank anyway!

Then I think they'll see it from your side.:beer: