buildings insurance

[Sigrid]

We are buying a house which, as it turns out, has problems that mean it can only be insured with the current insurer. Before signing on the dotted line we are interested to know whether there are others whose policies are similarly ‘locked in’ and what their experiences with that have been.

Any thoughts, suggestions, or advice appreciatively received.

 

[thiambal]

I am sure you have checked this out already but just in case...

I would have thought that the current insurers contract is with the owners rather than over the property. They may be obliged to continue cover under the current contract with the current owner - but will they be obliged to offer you cover - and if so at what cost?

I may be wrong - but worth checking out if you have not already done so.

 

[Sigrid]

When we first tried to transfer the insurance, the broker for vendors insurer said that was not possible and that we would have to reapply. Then we applied to our lenders insurers and they declined - all the while insisting that the way it works in cases like this is that the existing insurers will continue to insure. Some online searches seem to confirm that transfer is normal practice. But there is nothing like putting it to the test so we have asked our solicitor, as the lenders insurers suggested, to make the arrangements through the vendors solicitor.

I guess we will see who is right but even if it is possible we are not sure about it. It may be usual to transfer insurance in cases such as this but we are wondering how usual cases such as this are in the first place.

 

[geoff]

Is it flooding problems? Many properties (like mine) which are now officially deemed on a flood plain have insurance problems - often the current insurer will agree to continue cover for the existing owner and will allow a new owner to continue it (but you won't get anyone else to touch it anyway!) but the new owner does have to re-apply as it is a new contract with him/her. It also allows the insurer to increase the premium somewhat as it is now a new contract....

 

[biffvernon]

The flood risk maps produced by the Environment Agency have given rise to another scam as the insurance industry can now regard vast areas of land 'at risk' even though they have never ever been flooded (well not since Noah or the Ice Age, depending on one's favoured mythology).

 

[NT]

Yes these lockins happen. You dont tell us what the reason is, but whatever it is it means the insurers consider your property as well above average risk. Depending on the details you may find a specialist insurer will cover it, sometimes with an exclusion of the specific problem, eg flooding or subsidence.


NT

 

[middi]

A democratic society freedom of speach and all that, does not do very much to control the monopoly on the " free market" and stop the public being trapped by their "short and curlies".

 

[NT]

Free speech means the freedom to mislead people into unfreedom. But at least its of their own doing, and information can set us free.


NT

 

[Sigrid]

Hear, hear NT.

It's not flooding that's the problem, on the contrary, the thing is on top of a hill and we are talking about landslip. This slippage is a general feature of the terrain, we think, and has been going on since before the terrace was built. At the end of the terrace some of the houses removed retaining walls and have now suffered the consequences - although not catastrophically and the houses further up do not show signs of being affected by it. But there is movement in the house we are thinking of buying which according to our structural report is historic and settled - in other words, nothing recent or new. As with our other house, which three years down the line is fine and responding beautifully to loving repair, we didn't think the structural stuff on this house made *very* frightening reading. But what do we know, and the insurers certainly seem less sure so now we have our doubts as well - even if the insurance can be transferred. We wouldn't want to reduce our cover to get the sale - rather leave the house to someone who likes to live more dangerously. Before bailing out we are wondering whether others have encountered a similar situation and what they did about it.

 

[skier-hughes]

When we bought our house it had suffered some movement some years back.
The insurers had put it right, then monitored for some 10 years with no sign of a problem. They then stopped monitoring about 5 years ago.

We couldn't get anyone to insure the house for a reasonable fee, a couple would at tremendous rates, most declined as soon as movement was mentioned.

The previous owners gave us details of the insurers, who happened to be NFU, it's an old farmhouse.

They were quite happy to continue insuring the house. After all, they'd paid out a significant sum and knew the house was safe and would like to continue making money from it. (They'd already insured it for 55 years, so weren't out of pocket anyway)

As has been said though, you cannot transfer the insurance, only apply for a new policy with the current insurers.

I'm not sure why the solicitors need to be involved, added expense etc, just get the name of the insurers from the existing owners and contact them direct.

It's not really being locked in as a condition of sale etc, more that they are the only people who will insure it, similar I know

Best bit was the quote was quite reasonable and this year it went down a considerable amount.

Graham

 

[NT]

Practically it just means youre stuck with one insurere thus cant shop round for the cheapest quote

NT

 

[skier-hughes]

True NT.
Although I didn't mention in my post that I did a bit of market testing by not including teh movement and the normal range of insurers were still more expensive, bar one, than the one we had to use.