Buildings insurance while renovating empty house

[pineapple]

All the providers so far have made the insurance conditional on the property being occupied within 30 days.
So far have not been able to tie them down to a precise definition of 'occupied'.
Looking at the scale of the work I don't want to move my furniture in for at least 2 months and possibly a lot longer.
Has anyone come across this and how did you get round it?

 

[MatthewC]

I used Lark Insurance while I was renovating my house for 8 months before moving in. It was only insured for certain things like fire as I recall. NB I think they are expensive so after moving in I found a cheaper company!

Matthew

 

[skier-hughes]

Although I found Lark to be some 30% cheaper than NFU, who had previously insured the house for 55 years, but then all houses and all insurances are different

 

[Flyfisher]

Not only are insurers different but they are changeable as well. I was insured with NFU for many years but the premium suddenly increased one year (no claim) so I changed to Lark for a couple of years and they were indeed significantly cheaper. However, I've just renewed and found that NFU was cheaper, so have switched back to them.

It's very frustrating that insurers seem to like painting a picture of long term benevolent relationships while seemingly taking advantage of loyal customers. Car insurance seems to be the worst in this respect! :evil:

 

[Zebra]

I used NFU. I changed to a cheapy online company once I had moved in and the structural works were complete though.

 

[Penners]

So far have not been able to tie them down to a precise definition of 'occupied'.

I should press them on this point. It may well be that, if there's going to be someone working in the property for some hours on most days, this could be regarded as occupation for the purposes of insurance - particularly if someone will be sleeping there on and off. But do ensure that your final choice of insurer has clear picture of the use of the property during its period of renovation, otherwise you could risk refusal of a claim.

Have you had a look at this website's insurance specialists? Click the "Insurance" button at the top of the page. I've never used them, but given their association with PPUK they should be very familiar with the matter of insuring a property in the course of renovation.

 

[MatthewC]

So far have not been able to tie them down to a precise definition of 'occupied'.

And that lack of precision is not just the insurers - my council gave me LBC approval with one condition which said "before the property is first occupied", which I thought was a bit difficult as it had first been occupied over 150 years ago! I ignored it...

 

[Flyfisher]

Looking at the 'occupied' definition from another angle, all the home insurance policies I've ever had have included a condition that the house must not be unoccupied, which has usually been defined as being empty for more than 30 consecutive days. So I'd guess that 'occupied' means that it is the main, permanent abode of someone who will not be absent for long periods of time.

But I agree that this condition should be verified. If the company won't confirm things then a possible alternative is to write to them describing the precise occupation details. You will then have fulfilled your duty to disclose a material fact and the onus would be on the company to cancel cover if the occupancy arrangements were not acceptable to them.

 

[pineapple]

I need to clarify occupying. If I am there most of the day but sleeping in a static caravan down the road, does that count?

 

[JanieB]

I'm having problems insuring my house too. For 2 reasons. Firstly because I'm about to have my kitchen pulled down and rebuilt and secondly because my son is in prison. Why my son serving HMP should have anything to do with my house insurance I fail to understand but I can relate to the house not being secure for a week or two whilst the kitchen is pulled down and rebuilt.