From the media release:
Mr Emson says EQC and insurers are working closely to resolve costing and apportionment issues, but in some cases a combined inspection may be the quickest way to move forward. Difference in assessments is not a reflection on the quality of work by either EQC or insurer field teams.
“There is a myriad of reasons for the variance, which reflects the complexity of the work insurers, including EQC, face when trying to assess damage across multiple events.
“Changes to EQC’s methods for allocating damage between events, Department of Building and Housing guidelines and building rates, and the continued stress on buildings through time, weather and countless aftershocks has all contributed to claims where there are differences between insurer and EQC costings.
“It is in everyone’s best interests, particularly our customers, that issues surrounding repair costings, apportionment and repair strategies are sorted out quickly.
It seems counter-intuitive to say that the difference in assessments has nothing to do with quality (or competence). Full disclosure by EQC of Scope of Works documents including costings, along with descriptions of the work to be undertaken where a repair is concerned, would be the best means of removing this doubt. The full release is here.