There have been a couple of posts recently regarding carrying out insurance jobs at the request of the customer and several have rightly warned not to unless you get authority, this is why you must always get written authority from the LA or the Insurance company.
A judgement from the Ombudsman on a recent case.
Ms H put in a claim to her insurer for accidental damage to her sofa. The sofa, which was part of a three-piece suite, was less than a year old when the damage occurred.
During a visit to her home, her brother's two small children had accidentally spilt food and drink on the sofa, as well as marking it with coloured pens.
Ms H had tried to clean up the mess as soon as she realised what had happened. However, she had been unable to remove the stains from the cushions that formed part of the sofa.
The insurer's loss adjuster inspected the sofa and said a professional cleaning company ought to be able to restore the fabric of the cushions to its original condition. He asked Ms H to obtain an estimate from a company of her choice and to then forward this to the insurer for its consideration, before proceeding any further.
Ms H duly obtained a quote and sent it to the insurer. However, without waiting for the insurer's response she arranged for the cleaning company to proceed with the work.
Soon afterwards, the insurer confirmed that it was happy with the quote and would reimburse her for the full cost of the cleaning.
By that time, however, the cleaning company had finished the job and the cushion covers had shrunk to such an extent that they were beyond use.
The cleaning company offered to pay for replacements – but Ms H was concerned that there would then be a mis-match between the fabric on her sofa and that on the two chairs that made up the suite of furniture.
She therefore contacted the insurer and said that, in the circumstances, she thought the insurer should now replace the entire suite.
The insurer was not prepared to do this. It said it had undertaken to reimburse Ms H for the cost of getting the covers cleaned – and that it would pay for that work. However, as it had not chosen the cleaning company itself, it was not responsible for 'the deficiencies in the work – or for any consequences of that deficiency'.
Ms H then referred her complaint to us.
complaint not upheld
We noted that Ms H had commissioned the cleaning company to do the work before the insurer had authorised her to do so. And even after she obtained authorisation – the insurer had only agreed to reimburse her for the cost of the cleaning.
Neither the insurer nor its loss adjuster had chosen the company that did the cleaning, so the insurer was not responsible for its error in shrinking the covers. We did not uphold the complaint.
Poor cleaning chappie no doubt had to pay for the whole suite replacement through his own insurance if he had the correct cover , although I am not sure how he managed to shrink the covers to such a degree.