Withdrew with substantial external work unfinished, leaving us caught between contractor and insurer
Do not accept Betacove from Marley Risk Consultants as a 'cash offer' managed entirely by Marley's - you will have no ability to hold to account, and receive no approrpiate information.
Withdrew with substantial external work unfinished, leaving us caught between contractor and insurer
I would not recommend Betacove. Our experience of its insurance-funded repairs has involved prolonged disruption, unresolved questions about responsibility, and now withdrawal while substantial external work remains unfinished.
Large areas of cladding have been removed, downpipes and roof-edge details remain incomplete - the house is not protected against further water ingress. Our balcony was dismantled, Juliet balcony glass removed, and our skylight remains unsecured.
They undertook the work without Building Control permission (despite me frequently asking about formal approvals), leaving us with a threat of action and have failed to provide me with the information with which to make the retrospective application.
We asked for urgent assessment, protection, and a properly coordinated handover. These concerns were reported immediately after the withdrawal was announced.
The arrangements were not presented to us as independently employing our own builder. Marley Insurance approved the proposed works and costs, instructed Betacove to proceed (over a local Master Builder quoting less than half the cost), and arranged direct payment.
On 30 June, Betacove’s operations manager expressly referred to ‘[his] contract being with Marley’.
Marley subsequently described the repairs as a ‘cash settlement’. Then, after Betacove withdrew, Marley told us that because we had not signed a contract with Betacove, ‘there can be no breach of conditions’.
That does not answer the obvious question: what obligations did Betacove undertake under the contract it had itself said was with Marley? I am the homeowner whose property Betacove worked on. The absence of a contract signed by me does not justify the unfinished work, the withdrawal arrangements, or who is taking responsibility for completing the repairs.
On 15 September, Betacove said it wanted to continue working with us and Marley to complete the works. I left a joint site meeting on 25 September understanding that practical actions and dates had been agreed - we all shook hands on next steps. Five days later, Marley told us Betacove was withdrawing immediately. 'Conduct' (unspecified) and concerns about facial-recognition (our Amazon Ring cameras) have been cited. I have requested the specific conduct allegations and evidence. Neither company asked us what the Ring system actually captured or whether anyone had been recognised, or discussed practical arrangements with us before withdrawal.
We have continued to offer access for inspection, protection, and completion.
On 9 October, Marley confirmed that nobody would be sent to continue work and no written protection plan would be provided.
My criticism concerns the unfinished external repairs, the unresolved protection concerns, and the difficulty of obtaining a clear account of who is responsible. I would not choose Betacove for further work on our home.