I am responding to the letter "Loss adjuster regulations" (27 March, Insurance Times).
Again and again Malcolm Harvey erroneously contends that loss adjusters, who had previously acted for insurers, are qualified to act now for claimants.
I have to point out that these loss adjusters were qualified only to act for insurers. They have to work within a firm of loss adjusters for five years, learning how to adjust claims - not to prepare detailed claims - and studying insurance law to the favour of insurers, with all the interpretations of policy conditions, warranties and clauses. They then take the Cila examinations which, if they pass, they become qualified as an adjuster - and nothing else.
I have had over half a century's experience in the detailed preparation of claims and negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion for such claimants. I have never encountered an adjuster with these skills.
The core of loss assessing is the ability to be able to prepare a full, detailed claim and pursue negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion for, and on behalf of, the claimant.
It is axiomatic that is very easy to destroy a claim, but very much harder to successfully prepare a detailed claim.
For Hardy's edification, perchance he has forgotten, I would like to quote the definition of "qualified" as per the Collins Concise Dictionary: "Having abilities, qualities, etc, necessary to perform a particular job or task."
It, therefore, follows that if you do not have the aforementioned, you are unqualified.
The established loss assessor is qualified by experience.
Henry M Harris
Harris Claims Group
Send letters to Insurance Times, 30 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YJ or
email firstname.lastname@example.org or fax 0207618 3499