EQC bill Page 1 / 2

nz_nicola, Sep 4, 10:36pm
My mother just received the bill for the house they bought after being retreated, it's $800.00
How can this be, the house they bought was in an area that no one was allowed access to for over two years after the Feb quake, ( in Sumner) EQC say its to do with all the claims made on it, but no one was even living in it or allowed on the property for two years. And as soon as it turned green it was put on the market and sold, it had very little damage.
They rang EQC who said they'd take $60.00 off


jonners2013, Sep 4, 11:18pm
i assume it's the excess for the claims made. is that what you're referring to?

kathy9, Sep 4, 11:31pm
I'm guessing the previous owners made a claim(or claims) and this is the excess payment for those claims.
Did your mother buy as an "as is" property? Maybe contact her lawyer?

nz_nicola, Sep 4, 11:55pm
Yes it's claims made, but considering no one was living in it to make claims on any supposed new damage after subsequent earth quakes it was a shock, they thought it would be between $400./$600 no one lived in it from 22nd of Feb, and considering the minor damage it seems odd!
Katy yes I think they need to talk to their lawyer, but then that'll probably cost them almost the extra $200. ???

lankylass, Sep 4, 11:57pm
Tell your mother to ask for copies of all the Scopes of Works done on the property, presumably for more than one claim. EQC say a houseowner has to pay 1% of the total claims, so one must assume that $80,000 of repair work was done on the property.
Your mother should also ask whether the claims included contents because surely she shouldn't have to pay 1% of the money paid out to replace any contents that were destroyed?

martin11, Sep 4, 11:59pm
Previous owner ripping the system the EQC off and taking the payment without saying anything .
Thought with buying a place you should check for EQC claims and the agent selling the place should have told her about them .

mm12345, Sep 5, 12:11am
I'm a bit curious as to how that could happen.
Any claim made and paid by EQC was an arrangement/contract between the previous owner and EQC, and any excess which hadn't been deducted is the previous owner's problem to sort out. Land claim or other dwelling damage claim "cash settled" - would have had an excess deducted at time of payment.
$800 seems like the excess for an $80,000 Fletcher EQR job, which is rather more than "minor" IMO.
I wouldn't go to a lawyer just yet - they can "eat up" $800 rather quickly of things are messy. Things often seem to get very messy with EQC - because they're a pack of bungling useless incompetent fools who keep appalling records in most cases.
I think I'd throw it back to EQC, and ask for them to disclose the full details of the claim so you can see how the $800 excess was calculated. Otherwise, it's just like a pro-forma invoice scam - they could make up anything they liked. My guess is that they'll come back at you citing "privacy" for the claimant as reason to not disclose those details. In which case throw it straight back at them saying thanks for confirming that as the claim was an arrangement/contract between EQC and that previous owner, then so is the outstanding excess.
If they reject that, then next step may be the lawyer who did the conveyancing when she purchased the house, just to check whether there wasn't some clause somewhere allowing the vendor to pass on the excess.

jonners2013, Sep 5, 12:42am
isn't there a minimum excess of something like $200? if so, the $800 could be for multiple small claims perhaps?

nz_nicola, Sep 5, 12:43am
Thanks everyone I will pass your comments on, :) it's hard when their 80 to understand it all and I think something is not right, there's no way this house had $80.000. Of damage, just some minor cracks in walls that needed plastering/painting and minor cracks in the stucco outside, and the tile floor,

greenfruit1, Sep 5, 12:50am
http://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/Property%20Lawyer%2015-3%20Page%209%20EQC%20article.pdf
try this PDF link from The Property Lawyer, the quarterly journal of the Property Law Section of the New Zealand Law Society]. it explains who is responsible for excesses.

nz_nicola, Sep 5, 12:53am
Yes and how can that be right when they only fixed the house once, my insurance paid for my accomodation for ten weeks and a new driveway, they charged me $200.00 my excess, they came round here three times,
Doesn't seem right to me

mm12345, Sep 5, 1:42am
Note for future for NZ homeowners - don't lodge multiple claims if there are aftershocks (likely) following any major quake unless it's blindingly obvious that significant extra damage has occurred and the original damage has been scoped.
The EQC "cap" is going to be raised to $200k (&GST), if they were to "apportion" claims the way they did in Chch under that scenario, then hardly anyone would be "over cap" unless a town got leveled from a single large quake.
The liability/exposure private insurers have for future quakes in NZ has (or soon will be) been greatly reduced, yet premiums have gone through the roof. No surprise that the highest paid executive in NZ is from IAG. If she's been in negotiation with Gerry, she's done rather well - reducing future risk exposure to her company on the back of vastly increased premium income.

astrophe, Sep 5, 1:45am
Dont the bills go to the owner at the time, not the current owner?

Either it's for a property they owned during the quakes, or it should be addressed to their seller.

We are still expecting our bill for the house we owned then, and our sellers have received two notices of theirs here (I assume it's that, it gets RTS each time). We do not expect the couple who bought our house to receive any bill.

This sounds dodgy.

david_270, Sep 5, 1:59am
It all sounds very dodgy, and mm12345 gives good advice.
It might be mixed up in one of the many EQC stuff-ups?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8574725/Overpaid-claims-of-100m-by-EQC-revealed
or one of the Fletcher "overcharges".
If you know someone with the leaked EQR spreadsheet get them to look at the address to see whats there.

dogbond, Sep 5, 2:02am
My question would be, did the previous owners get a cash settlement, and keep the money, doing no work? Our cash settlement had the excess already taken off. I thought the recent bills sent out were for excess on repairs done by Fletchers etc, not cash settlements. To me, buying a house 'as is where is' means that no work had been done.
Surely, your parents lawyer, when handling the sales process would have have demanded a copy that work had been done, or a copy that a cash settlement was already paid out to the sellers?

sharonann1, Sep 5, 5:01am
We got our account today for excess. They are saying it cost $41,000, acct was for $400. My question is how do we know that their amounts are correct.

elect70, Sep 5, 5:31am
& her lawyer is the 1 who is supposed to investigate any claims on the property ( assuming she used 1 )

nz_nicola, Sep 5, 5:38am
They bought the house, before it was fixed after getting an engineers report done on it, as I said no one lived in it from the 22nd of Feb, so how did they come up with four claims, my mother expected as I said the bill from EQC to be between $400. To $600 considering the minor damage, there cant have been more damage after the 22nd of Feb, it may have gotten a little worse but no new damage,
Thank you David I will check that out

jonners2013, Sep 5, 5:40am
Best bet is to just ring EQC and ask them to explain it. No point going off on a tangent if it's not necessary.

nz_nicola, Sep 5, 5:40am
Yes it's sicking isn't it, no other business could expect payment without an itemised account of work done,
It feels like we're being lied to!

nz_nicola, Sep 5, 5:41am
If you read above you'd see they did and EQC said they'd deduct $60.00

rob312, Sep 5, 8:24pm
Residential Advisory Service (RAS) - were set up to help people deal with EQC. They provide lawyers free of charge for a set number of hours to anyone having these sorts of issues. They are great and free.

jonners2013, Sep 5, 8:28pm
yes i did read above thanks. but that sounds like EQC are just knocking a bit off to keep them happy. it doesn't actually explain what the $800 bill is. that's why i'd go back and ask them - otherwise you're just guessing.

bigrichie, Sep 6, 12:12am
if you read the above link it looks likely that because your parents bought the property before the repairs were done then they will have had the benefit of the claims therefore the liability for the excesses are theirs. They can ask EQC to provide details of the excesses and what claims they attach to. There could have been a claim for the Sept quake, Feb 22, the June quakes and the 23 Dec quake and that would make 4 = $800. Ask EQC for the detail. If you check the agreement for sale and purchase, which they should have a copy of, it will say whether the claims have been assigned to them, and I suspect they will have been, and that will give the active claim numbers for when the property was purchased. If they dont have the agreement simply phone their solicitor and ask for a copy - it will be on file.Assignment of eqc claims will be listed in the special terms of the contract nearer the back.

bigrichie, Sep 6, 12:13am
"above link" as in the one posted that gives you the rules for who pays that is.

Share this thread

Buy me a coffee :)Buy me a coffee :)