EQC has two days to settle almost 2500 quake claims
Audio, Radio New Zealand
The Earthquake Commission has just two days to settle all of the Canterbury earthquake claims worth less than 15-thousand-dollars.
The Earthquake Commission has just two days to settle all of the Canterbury earthquake claims worth less than 15-thousand-dollars.
EQC's manager for the Canterbury home repair programme, Reid Stiven, respondes to claims of misleading estimates of damage to household foundations from the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes.
Overlapping claims and general confusion are delaying money payable to New Zealand for damage from the Canterbury earthquakes. The money involved is payable through reinsurance schemes taken out by insurance companies in this country, with firms overseas.
The Insurance Council has shot down criticism the industry may be delaying earthquake claims for financial gain.
The head of the Earthquake Commission Ian Simpson says the claims from Friday's and July's earthquakes are being handled differently from the approach taken in Christchurch.
A group of frustrated Christchurch homeowners is vowing to keep holding their insurer accountable after making limited progress with outstanding claims for earthquake damage.
In a serious privacy breach - the addresses and earthquake claim details of almost ten thousand Canterbury people have been mistakenly emailed by Earthquake Commission to the wrong person.
The man who received Earthquake Commission files detailing claims by 83,000 Christchurch people says he's appalled the slip-up has become a political football.
About 70 percent of Canterbury's residential earthquake claims have not been dealt with and submissions on the closure of Christchurch schools show some are willing to sacrifice their neighbours.
The Christchurch couple taking their insurance company to the High Court over their earthquake payout have knocked almost a quarter of a million dollars off their claim.
DAVID SHEARER to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements? TODD McCLAY to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in its share offer programme to reduce debt and free up capital for priority spending? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that he has met the requirements of the Cabinet Manual to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards in his ministerial capacity, his political capacity and his personal capacity; if so, why? Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on the latest benefit figures? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Will the recent rise in the New Zealand dollar to a post-float high on the Trade Weighted Index cause job losses among non-primary exporters and import substitution businesses? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Finance: Does he have a plan to fund the Auckland City rail link in the upcoming Budget given that public backing for the rail project is more than twice as strong as the Government's proposed new motorway north from Puhoi? Dr JIAN YANG to the Minister for Economic Development: How is the Government recognising the importance of China for New Zealand's trade, education and tourism sectors? Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What responsibility, if any, does he take for Solid Energy's precarious financial position? NICKY WAGNER to the Minister of Housing: How will the $320 million settlement of Housing New Zealand's insurance claim for earthquake damaged properties help achieve the Government's priority of rebuilding Christchurch? GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau? MIKE SABIN to the Associate Minister of Social Development: What early results can he report from the Government's efforts to deal with welfare fraud? GARETH HUGHES to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will he recommend returning the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill to the select committee so that the public can have a say on the so-called "Anadarko Amendment"; if not, why not?