How to run a scam guarantee agency?

-
This is theoretical of course. But If I was to set up a retrofit insulation guarantee agency which served the needs of the industry over those of the consumers then here is what I would do:


  1.  Set a budget for the year regarding how much money can be spent on settling claims - clearly we have to be seen to offer some compensation.
  2.  Add retrospective clauses to old contracts and claim that 'independent arbitration' has proved that these are valid *
  3. Respond and shut down claims as soon as possible so that response time obligations can be met and presented to any government organisation that might scrutinise us.
  4. Send unqualified inspectors around to look for evidence of condensation or maintenance on the house and blame all the problems on the owner. Inspectors must not look for any evidence of poor installation and if they do find any must not mention them in the report.
  5. When claimant complains about poor/incomplete inspection. Rather than address technical questions, declare an impasse and point them immediately to arbitration by claiming that a completely independent review is available - can't say fairer than that. By declaring an impasse there is no need to answer those tricky technical questions!
  6. Put onus on customer to pay £120 arbitration fee + £100s of pounds to get a proper survey to prove that the insulation was at fault - the hope being that most claimants will not want to throw good money after bad and abandon the claim.
  7. If it gets to arbitration then it's all confidential so any criticisms of inadequate technical inspections are not published for scrutinising organisations to see.
  8. Ensure that even if a customer is awarded damages under arbitration then all the work has to be done by a company nominated by us which could be owned by one of our directors. This is genius because even when we lose a claim, it is really a win because it's a way of transferring money from the 'not for profit' guarantee agency into a profit making company.
  9. If a concerned MP or other official gets in touch then keep peddling the line that there is a robust claims process with independent review by arbitration and the claimant is welcome to follow that path (see above)

* (despite this not being a legal ruling and a complete violation of the arbitration confidentiality).


It's absolutely genius and the beauty is that this model can be applied to any part of the construction/retrofit industry because regulation is soo piss poor!. I should patent this model....I just need to make sure there is no prior art.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The controversy over Cavity Wall Insulation 'topups'

-
Image
In this article I talk about the practice and problems of topping up insulation when voids are discovered, why it is being done and the potential violations of building regulations. I can only put forwards what I have understood from public documents and personal correspondence  So I welcome corrections or clarifications from the industry on this important issue for home owners and will happily update this post to reflect any inaccurate statements. We know that 100s of topups are done every year.   From what I can gather : If the BBA have not approved these topups then the relevant local authority building control should have been notified prior to topping up as an 'off licence' use of the product.  It is not clear that the correct procedures are being followed in all cases. Background :Voids are common A void is simply an area cavity between the walls which is missing insulation.  If a void is large enough then the insulation will not be compliant with the meter square
Read more

Lintels, weep holes and render

-
Image
I found the notion of lintels in cavity trays difficult to visualise. The reason I'm looking into lintels is that there is a damp patch that runs along the lintel over the front door. Brick houses built today will have cavity trays and weep holes inserted into the design. You will spot weep holes these as either gaps in the mortar or where the mortar is replaced with a perforated plastic insert as below. CIGA state that no water should enter the cavity is properly maintained building. If that is so then why does building control mandate a cavity tray. Typical modern cavity tray with weep holes sitting on a steel lintel. The purpose of a cavity tray is to ensure moisture that gets in the cavity when driven through the mortar joints or other means is directed back to the outside wall and out of the building. If you didn't have a cavity tray or some sort of damp proof course then moisture would collect on the flat lintel and then flow off the sides of the lintel or soa
Read more

Discrepancies between Internal and external DPC (damp proof course)

-
Image
In a cavity wall construction, one would expect that the damp proof membrane to be at the same level on both walls. It turns out this is not always the case and my house is a good example where the internal wall's DPC is more than a brick lower than the external wall DPC. I didn't even think to check this before reading the CIGA Technical note 14 . This clearly states that if the distance between DPC and ground level is within a brick (as was the case with my property at time of install) then 'numerous other factors' must be assessed before declaring the dwelling as being suitable for CWI. CIGA  Technical note 14 . One of the factors is the relative level of the inner and outer leaf DPC. This is exactly what I found in my property. Ive used a floorboard to show the position of the internal floor. The DPC is clearly a brick below the floorboard and less than brick above the block paving. External leaf DPC is 1 brick below the floor level.
Read more