I have been dealing with NRMA regarding a claim for over three years now. Overview: we had a small mould issue in our house, NRMA moved us out and then did nothing for 4 months and in that time the house was completely filled with mould. NRMA accepted the building claim, NRMA had a hygienist test the house, which was deemed non-habitable. The hygienist recommended remediation, including removing all contaminated material.
NRMA approved the contents claim and approved a contractor to dispose of our contents. After everything we owned was taken to the tip NRMA declined the contents claim! The ensuing bunfight was awful. I still shake thinking about it.
Following the hygienist's recommendations NRMA stripped out the house and left external walls, internal framework, floorboards, and roof, but also left contaminated material in situ, such as plasterboard, insulation, exposed timbers and electrics (all covered in mould).
We alerted NRMA of the remaining contaminated items in the house, sending them pictures and following up with many emails. NRMA would remove some of the contaminated material and move other contaminated material to a different room.
The house would be cleaned again and retested by the hygienist, but it would fail repeatedly. This process has been repeated nine times ovefr the last 2 years, each time we would advise NRMA of the contaminated materials are still in the house. To date, there are still contaminated materials in the house, some in situ and others that have just played musical chairs and moved from one room to another.
NRMA split the house into 'habitable' and 'non-habitable' areas, with all movable contaminated items moved into the non-habitable areas. We questioned that the policy was for the whole house, not part habitable and non-habitable parts of the house. To date, we had no answer from NRMA on this.
During a visit to the house one time, we spoke with the cleaner who had been instructed by the NRMA and the hygienist to paint specific parts of the timber wall framing with white paint (to contain mould spores). We questioned NRMA why not all the timber, and why specific places in the habitable areas of the house only. After 18 months still no response to date.
Non-habitable areas of the house were sealed up with plastic sheeting, vent holes covered up and walls built. We questioned why and what they were for. After 18 months still no response to date.
NRMA obtained a hygiene certificate for the house, we dispute the certificate that the house is clean, as there was (and still is) mould growing on timbers, frame work, walls etc that have been cleaned many times, or were they cleaned?
With a questionable hygiene pass and a scope of works that missing 77 items, including a toilet and shower in an ensuite. We took our complaint to AFCA and have asked for the house to be written off because after three years of mismanagement, written confirmation from NRMA that they will not warrant any repairs to the house and that NRMA has failed to properly remediate the house it is evident they have failed.
Through our complaint process with AFCA we have obtained over 300 pages of NRMA's internal case notes on our claim. These internal notes demonstrate highly questionable processes and approaches taken by NRMA in managing our claim.
The notes include discussion points between the hygienist and NRMA that the only way to obtain a hygienist certificate is to create temporary plastic barriers over parts of the house instead of remediating them as they had agreed to, to paint timber framework and only test areas that have been painted, to cover up vent holes to stop airflow. NRMA has written into their internal notes that this is the only way the house will get a pass and then it's not their become our problem but ours.
I believe that this type of corporate behavior is morally bankrupt, devoid of ethics or duty of care to the customer. This process has finically crippled us and destroyed our lives. There is so much more that they have failed in this claim that has caused loss and harm.
Surely NRMA has breached some type of consumer and contract law by failing to manage our claim effectively and engineering an outcome that will cripple the homeowner?
It is no different from a mechanic fixing a car and knowing that as soon as it's out of the driveway, it will break down, but because it broke down outside of the garage, it's not their problem.
Am I wrong in thinking this approach to managing a claim is ethically and morally wrong?
Am I wrong in thinking that my insurance covers habitable and non-habitable areas of my home?
NRMA approved the contents claim and approved a contractor to dispose of our contents. After everything we owned was taken to the tip NRMA declined the contents claim! The ensuing bunfight was awful. I still shake thinking about it.
Following the hygienist's recommendations NRMA stripped out the house and left external walls, internal framework, floorboards, and roof, but also left contaminated material in situ, such as plasterboard, insulation, exposed timbers and electrics (all covered in mould).
We alerted NRMA of the remaining contaminated items in the house, sending them pictures and following up with many emails. NRMA would remove some of the contaminated material and move other contaminated material to a different room.
The house would be cleaned again and retested by the hygienist, but it would fail repeatedly. This process has been repeated nine times ovefr the last 2 years, each time we would advise NRMA of the contaminated materials are still in the house. To date, there are still contaminated materials in the house, some in situ and others that have just played musical chairs and moved from one room to another.
NRMA split the house into 'habitable' and 'non-habitable' areas, with all movable contaminated items moved into the non-habitable areas. We questioned that the policy was for the whole house, not part habitable and non-habitable parts of the house. To date, we had no answer from NRMA on this.
During a visit to the house one time, we spoke with the cleaner who had been instructed by the NRMA and the hygienist to paint specific parts of the timber wall framing with white paint (to contain mould spores). We questioned NRMA why not all the timber, and why specific places in the habitable areas of the house only. After 18 months still no response to date.
Non-habitable areas of the house were sealed up with plastic sheeting, vent holes covered up and walls built. We questioned why and what they were for. After 18 months still no response to date.
NRMA obtained a hygiene certificate for the house, we dispute the certificate that the house is clean, as there was (and still is) mould growing on timbers, frame work, walls etc that have been cleaned many times, or were they cleaned?
With a questionable hygiene pass and a scope of works that missing 77 items, including a toilet and shower in an ensuite. We took our complaint to AFCA and have asked for the house to be written off because after three years of mismanagement, written confirmation from NRMA that they will not warrant any repairs to the house and that NRMA has failed to properly remediate the house it is evident they have failed.
Through our complaint process with AFCA we have obtained over 300 pages of NRMA's internal case notes on our claim. These internal notes demonstrate highly questionable processes and approaches taken by NRMA in managing our claim.
The notes include discussion points between the hygienist and NRMA that the only way to obtain a hygienist certificate is to create temporary plastic barriers over parts of the house instead of remediating them as they had agreed to, to paint timber framework and only test areas that have been painted, to cover up vent holes to stop airflow. NRMA has written into their internal notes that this is the only way the house will get a pass and then it's not their become our problem but ours.
I believe that this type of corporate behavior is morally bankrupt, devoid of ethics or duty of care to the customer. This process has finically crippled us and destroyed our lives. There is so much more that they have failed in this claim that has caused loss and harm.
Surely NRMA has breached some type of consumer and contract law by failing to manage our claim effectively and engineering an outcome that will cripple the homeowner?
It is no different from a mechanic fixing a car and knowing that as soon as it's out of the driveway, it will break down, but because it broke down outside of the garage, it's not their problem.
Am I wrong in thinking this approach to managing a claim is ethically and morally wrong?
Am I wrong in thinking that my insurance covers habitable and non-habitable areas of my home?
