Posted by David on August 1, 2007, 11:59 am, in reply to "Re: Response to Charles"

I think we shouldn’t loose sight of why we are having plumbing checks. The aim is to reduce flood insurance premiums, although the amount of this intended reduction has not been disclosed. We need to set a goal otherwise we don’t know if we succeeded. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I don’t believe that partial checks will result in an appropriate premium reduction. I think this because (1) partial checks aren’t going to provide much comfort to the insurers (2) plumbing checks don’t predict washing machine or dishwasher failures, nor do they (3) prevent floods caused by dodgy builders, accidents or DIY mishaps as Andy is chasing now. I have been trying to extract the financials of this exercise, but it has been like pulling teeth. For example, the charthouse accounts sent out in January claim an estimation of £12000 to check 80 flats. That’s £150 per flat not £50 per flat as claimed on this message board. I have asked for clarification but not received it. So how much have we paid Planet Plumbing for plumbing checks in total? The reason I ask is to try and offer another alternative for the future. If the total is in the region of £12,000 for the charthouse, that would suggest it would be around £60,000 for the whole of BW. If that were the case, shouldn’t we employ our own plumber who could then carry out the checks on a routine basis, as well as be charged out to residents at a competitive rate for corrective work or any other plumbing work? If it were financially viable, that would mean that (1) insurers could take comfort from an on-site plumber that knows the site and has immediate access. (2) Residents would have a trusted staff member to carry out the checks, so hopefully increasing the check rate (3) Residents would benefit from a cheaper hourly rate and no call out charge for any plumbing work they needed. You never know, a permanent plumber might even be profitable to the development! Difficult to tell though while the financials are so hard to get at. David

109