Rip out and rip off: what else have we learned from Carlisle?
July 1st 2005

The answer to the above question, according to Andy Habbershaw of Water Out UK and Action Dry Emergency Services, is quite a lot and most of it reflects badly on the disaster restoration industry. Here he highlights the problems and shows how they can be solved When the flooding in Carlisle caused damage to thousands of properties, response organisations were mobilised by insurers and adjusters and emergency clean up and drying out operations began works very quickly. Houses (and many businesses) were stripped back to their structural shells as entire kitchens were stripped out, plaster was hacked off the walls and floorboards and even joists below were ripped out. Everyone was working flat out and soon mounds of debris and contents were piled high in the street and in skips. Soon after, a mish mash of cleaning and drying equipment was employed by professionals in order to satisfy demand. The National Response organisations and others had done a job to be proud of! The poor old insurers and victims however were learning the reality of the low levels of expertise rife in the damage response industry and today, some five months after the event, a huge number of properties have still not been certified dry. A fine tribute to both the expertise of the Damage Management Industry and the fine talk we have seen of late by the Industry’s Association.

As expected, professional standards, methodology and end results have been found to be seriously lacking leaving a lot to be desired.

Widespread dissatisfaction over the entire process is evident.

Independent audits confirmed that properties were ripped out when there was absolutely no need, that cleaning programmes were often inadequate and poorly carried out and that in many cases inappropriate drying programmes were set up with anything the drying contractor could lay their hands on.

It appears from observations and audits that many contractors involved have been putting their own interests first and that expertise or due diligence has played little part. It’s been a gravy train for many of these contractors who openly gloat at the charges they have been able to make by ripping out and putting in any old machine.

This scenario looks to go on and on as the big players in the marketplace strengthen their grip on the disaster response market. In short it appears to boil down to increased market share and volume for them, leading to increasing pressure on their employees or franchisees who generally provide uniformly average to poor expertise levels. There also appears to be a distinct Walls and historic furniture can be saved if treated correctly lack of ability to undertake a well thought out, effective, professional programme that adequately and cost effectively deals with the scenario they are faced with at a cost which not only makes them a fair profit, but one which would look after the insurers and the victims interests as well.

So, as seen in Carlisle, with poor expertise and equipment levels there one answer for the average responder .... RIP OUT, give a cosmetic clean and cobble in fans and heaters not designed for the job.

Time for change then? A group of professionals have come together to produce a document that will provide guidelines and standards for the flood restoration industry. The new BSI PAS 64 document is now on sale, ‘Professional Water damage mitigation and initial restoration of domestic dwellings’ is a start. But, this document is not the be all and end all and corners will still be cut. Recommendations and goals will be ignored and it certainly can’t take into account poor decision making, lack of diligence and lack of resources.

Is there an answer? Of course there is, but answers will not be listened too or acted on if it means an alteration of the status quo. New equipment, more appropriate UK relevant training involving less training geared for the US market. More thought in equipment development, its use and deployment. Along with independent auditing carried out by experts, without a hidden agenda representing insurers and adjusters, would be far more practical to improving overall efficiency and reputation, thus leading to works becoming far more profitable and value for money. This rams home the point that a professional damage responder may cost more at the initial stage, but in the long term has more to offer and and can reduce overall claim potential than others who have access to just a wet vacuum and dehumidifier.

More articles from ActionDry Co Ltd: