Memorandum submitted by the British Damage
Management Association (BDMA) (FL 116)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the certifying authority for recovery and
restoration technicians the BDMA is especially aware of a number
of critical factors that impact on the effectiveness of recovery
procedures carried out in the immediate aftermath of flooding.
As far back as 2000 the BDMA highlighted the
importance of devoting resources to supporting a robust recovery
strategy in conjunction with the investment in flood defence.
It argued that even the most sophisticated defence initiatives
could not ensure the absence of flood incidents and a refusal
to address the response infrastructure was dangerously naïve.
It referred to this naivety as "The Canute Syndrome".
The BDMA's concerns have since proved well founded
with Boscastle, Carlisle and this year's major floods demonstrating
that such incidents are not always related to predictable or manageable
encroachment of coastal or river capacity.
The BDMA believes there are some key issues
that are critical to efficient and cost effective recovery after
major flooding incidents. These relate to a general lack of understanding
of the essential technical/specialist procedures that should be
commenced as a matter of urgency in the immediate aftermath of
an incident, the need to ensure this front line response is carried
out by professionally qualified personnel experienced in this
specialist area, and communication to flood victims of what the
recovery and restoration of their property is likely to entail,
in other words the management of expectations.
These issues are outlined in detail in this
submission.
It is also essential that all those involved
acknowledge the importance of identifying a method of categorising
what constitutes a major flood incident and recognise that such
incidents cannot be recovered under the same protocols as those
followed where damage is less widespread and extreme. The need
to agree a strategy for responding differently to major events
at the commencement of the recovery phase is therefore paramount.
While many lessons have been learned from previous
incidents of extreme flooding, there is much that could be done
to improve the experience of flood victims, reduce the timeline
to reinstatement and achieve cost effective solutions in these
circumstances.
The following issues, highlighted by the experiences
of the BDMA and its members in the field during the severe floods
of June and July 2007, relate to the recovery phase and are submitted
for consideration by the committee:
1. EDUCATION
a. There is a general misconception that
work required to recover properties after flooding is of a general
building nature. In fact it is essential that specific procedures
are carried out by properly qualified damage management technicians
as a first response in order to stabilise the property, mitigate
secondary damage and assess recovery options. It is only when
a property has been professionally dried out, decontaminated,
stabilised and sanitised that building restoration work can commence.
b. This is understood in principle by the
majority of insurers but the infrastructure which enables this
type of response is not designed to support the type of major
incidents we have seen this summer.
c. Flooding at this level will always leave
resources stretched but it is essential protocols are developed
which identify a point at which the incident is classified as
"major" and there is agreement that in these circumstances
a different set of response procedures then automatically come
into force.
2. CAPACITY
a. At present the major insurers normally
roll out flood recovery work to a pre-defined list of contractors
with whom they have a prior/ongoing agreement. This will generally
include a commitment by the contractor to nationwide coverage,
an agreed pricing structure and a guaranteed minimum response
time.
b. In normal circumstances this, no doubt,
works well for both the insurer and the nominated contractor.
However, the restrictions of this practice are exposed when major
flooding incidents occur.
c. Due to the nature of the majority of
these agreements, it is only the larger organisations which can
meet the requirements such as national coverage, etc. Consequently,
in recent years, many of the smaller specialist damage management
companies and individuals, with a wealth of experience and expertise
in this sector, have gone out of business and are no longer available.
d. The remaining smaller practitioners,
who are required to operate independently, will struggle to access
insurance led work. The anomalies of this situation are highlighted
in a major flood incident or "surge" occurrence.
e. The recent demands on all involved in
the recovery of flooded properties have unsurprisingly overwhelmed
the system and, in such extreme circumstances, it is unreasonable
to expect turnaround to be completed within a normal timeframe.
However, while some flood victims have had to wait for lengthy
periods before commencement of recovery and restoration of their
property, qualified experts have been available but unable to
access work on insured properties.
f. This is not only illogical and unacceptable
to all concerned, but entirely avoidable if there was agreement
to operate a different system in major incident situations.
g. It is also true to say that the fixed
price agreements set up with nominated damage management contractors
can become impractical in a surge situation and maybe these too
could have some room for adjustment at times when flooding has
been classified as a major incident.
3. COMMUNICATION
a. There is no doubt management of recovery
following major flood incidents is continually improving. However,
in our experience and that of our members, many flood victims,
who may be waiting longer than would normally be expected, are
left bewildered and unsure of what lies ahead due to a lack of
communication. This adds greatly to the stress already being experienced
in this type of situation.
b. In order to address this issue with regard
to our own industry the BDMA has published a series of documents
to support flood victims at various stages of the recovery process.
i. A Self Help Sheet sets out some of the
things victims can do themselves without prejudicing their insurance
claim. It also includes advice on keeping safe and healthy in
the vicinity of water damaged properties. At the height of this
summer's incidents this document was published on all the major
news channel websites and digital text pages and a BDMA representative
answered questions on local radio stations across the flood hit
areas.
ii. A leaflet entitled Understanding Basic
Flood Recovery Procedures identifies procedures damage management
technicians may need to carry out to stabilise and dry out affected
properties. It also explains the objectives of these procedures
and how they are measured.
iii. The Record of Flood Recovery Activity
allows flood victims to keep track of work carried out and see
what remains to be done. The document also includes space to note
details and contact information relating to the contractor/s involved.
c. Since the end of June over 40,000 copies
of these documents have been freely distributed to victims in
the flood affected areas via local authorities, Environment Agency
offices, emergency planning officers, the Red Cross, BDMA members
and other agencies. A number of MPs have also requested stocks
for their surgeries. The documents remain available to order in
bulk or download via the BDMA website at www.bdma.org.uk.
d. In addition to facilitating a better
understanding of their situation, these documents empower flood
victims by giving them some level of control and ownership of
their recovery, which is critical at a time of severe stress.
e. Feedback to date indicates that this
initiative has had an enormous impact and has proved to be a valuable
tool in supporting flood victims at this vulnerable stage.
4. "COWBOY
CONTRACTORS"
a. The documents outlined above offer the
additional benefit of acting as a deterrent to unscrupulous contractors.
For those who are uninsured, often the most vulnerable, being
in a position to outline what they expect from a contractor they
are appointing allows them to be more discriminating in their
choice. Anyone without experience or understanding of what is
required is unlikely to be willing to sign up to the contractor
record, for example, giving the property owner a valid reason
to go elsewhere.
5. CONCLUSION
& RECOMMENDATIONS
a. The importance of utilising professionally
qualified technicians as front line responders in the immediate
aftermath of flooding cannot be overemphasised. After the 2000
floods over £80 million of flood recovery and restoration
work had to be re-done due to unsatisfactory procedures. Latent
mould growth is just one of the problems that can arise many months
after work has been completed and property handed back to the
owner, posing additional risks to health. Yet we still see instances
where essential processes are cut short or bypassed in order to
move things forward more quickly. This is not cost effective,
efficient or timely in the long term and customer satisfaction
gained initially through quick fix solutions is soon lost when
further disruption ensues.
b. As the BDMA pointed out several years
ago, investment in supporting a robust and professional recovery
strategy should go hand in hand with development of flood defences.
As we have seen, flooding will continue to occur and we must be
prepared to deal with it effectively.
BDMA
September 2007
| 
