Search This Blog

Saturday, 22 December 2012

EQC has changed it’s Apportionment information yet again, and removed an important review provision

Yesterday EQC made major changes to the wording of its web page on apportionment (here). The information now available is less than what was put up on the 4th of December.

If you are new to apportionment,  information on the current page will not give you as good a picture of what apportionment is as the earlier material.

Of great importance is removal of information from the earlier version on what to do if you didn’t agree with your apportionment assessment:

What to do if you don’t agree with how damage has been apportioned

Where EQC hasn't done a physical assessment of damage after each event, we generally work out apportionment by allocating a proportion of the total damage value to each event (rather than allocating specific damage – such as broken tiles – to an event).

If you think you've been adversely affected by EQC’s apportionment of damage and you have evidence of damage on certain dates (eg, photographs), you can provide these to EQC and ask us to reconsider your apportionment.

This is missing from the latest version with no explanation as to why this has occurred. Now that it is gone, does that mean the opportunity to have your assessment reconsidered has now been wiped? How can it exist one day and then just disappear the next? Surely there is a right to have some review process, especially considering the on-going gross incompetence displayed by EQC assessors over the last two years? 

The problems arising from EQC continually changing the content of it’s FAQ pages has been drawn to the attention of staff of the Office of the Auditor General. The grounds for this action were that it is a systemic problem of great importance to the general public, and that there may be issues of probity involved as well. We will have to wait to see what, if anything, happens. Sadly the long periods of time taken by public “watch dog “ organisations like the Audit Office and the Office of the Ombudsman to ponder the issues mean great harm is done while they deliberate.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.