Chimney survey/camera

[88v8]

We insure with RSA via a broker.
As part of the renewal, RSA are insisting that all thatched properties have a chimney survey, which as I understand it means someone poking a CCTV camera up the flue.
Have now been contacted by the surveyor, Thatch Fire Prevention.
http://www.thatchfireprevention.co.uk/

RSA say that in the course of the survey, they are not allowed to flog us any products or services, but there is of course nothing to prevent them making a report to RSA which suggests that this n that is essential to prevent the whole caboodle going up in smoke. Perhaps I'm just being cynical.
And if we want to see the whole survey report as opposed to the headlines, we have to pay for it.

Not that I'm expecting anything as both flues are lined with wrapped liners.

Anyone any experience?

Ivor

 

[xanthe]

Have you tried the thatched owners group forum? They'll probably have lots of experts on this.

http://www.thatched-group.com/

We went with Lark Insurance via the Listed Property Owners Club and they were brilliant (and a lot cheaper that many others) and just 'got' lots of the issues around old properties. We're not thatched, so no experience of that, but the APs have just bought one so I imagine I shall get some in the near future!

 

[mims&pip]

No experience of this if it's a new hoop one has to jump through, Ivor, but our last house was thatched and we were with Playle Russell who specialise in thatched properties/listed buildings. When calling around for quotes, we found them to be extremely competitive.

When our policy was up for renewal in Spring 2014 there was no mention of the requirement for chimney surveys, in fact they seemed extremely laid back about the whole thing.....not that this is necessarily a good thing, obviously :roll: Maybe it is a relatively new requirement though and our buyers might be faced with the same issue.....

Sounds as though your flues are up to scratch :wink:

Mims x

 

[Flyfisher]

I wonder if this is part of a general trend of insurance companies becoming a bit more pro-active about their risk when insuring period properties?

We recently moved insurers from Lark to NFU for our non-thatched G2* house (no complaints about Lark at all, it was purely a price issue). The local NFU office sent out someone to discuss our requirements and have a brief look around the house and he explained that if we insured with them they would probably require a 'risk assessment' survey, which they could arrange at no cost to us. Fair enough. This is the first time we'd ever had the experience of the insurance company actually visiting to discuss a policy and it was really helpful to be able to discuss things face to face and get immediate answers rather than guessing over how best to fill in all the forms (in fact the NFU chap filled in all the forms for us).

So we insured with NFU and when the policy documents arrived, sure enough a condition of the policy was to allow them to undertake the said 'risk assessment' within 3 months. If we didn't agree to this then they had the option to cancel the policy. It also stated that the assessment report would contain 'requirements', that we would have to implement in order to maintain cover, and 'recommendations' that we would not have to implement but would be, er, recommended.

All slightly ominous, I suppose, and there was much curiosity and pondering about what the assessment might reveal. A couple of months later, the NFU insurance assessor arrived for the assessment. All very pleasant and clearly au fait with period properties. The end result was: 'requirements' - none, 'recommendations' - consider the purchase of a fire extinguisher, preferably CO2.


On a slightly different though related insurance topic that we've discussed here before, I also had a very interesting discussion about rebuild costs and the risks of under-insurance affecting claims payout. The agent who visited was adamant that they would always payout a claim up to the FULL value of the sum insured, regardless of the ACTUAL values involved - i.e. any under-insurance would be at our risk and that NFU would not compound that risk by reducing the sum insured in case of a large/total claim. I pressed the chap quite hard on this point and although he was adamant about it he said he would verify it again when he returned to his office to double-check with colleagues - which he did. I also had a separate discussion with someone else within NFU who confirmed the same thing.

One more thing; when we last had our chimneys swept, the (HETAS-registered) sweep issued a certificate of cleaning, which I had not previously seen before. Apparently, insurance companies will often ask for such certificates in cases of any claims for chimney-related fires . . . or so the sweep said. More red-tape and over-regulation? . . . . you decide, though I believe there is a general 'duty of care' by home owners to minimise risks and such a certificate would indicate that reasonable care had been taken.

 

[88v8]

Forgot to update this thread...
The chap ran his camera up both flues from the inside, and peered through the soot doors at the liner insulation, clean bill of health.
Less positively, our chimney height does not attain the desideratum of 6' above the thatch, and we have been asked to approach our CO for permission to extend.
I had already intended to add a pot to one stack, where there is none, and a taller pot to t'other stack. Trouble is, both will require scaffolding, and there is also the matter of adding a bit of stove pipe to extend the flue liner.
All a bit of a faff to 'fix' something that has worked OK for 40+ years.
Hehyo.

Ivor

 

[malcolm]

It's odd isn't it. I like the way that official leglislation doesn't tend to apply retrospectively unless you do something really stupid. Annoying if insurers are getting into imposing retrospective requirements.

I can see the point of insurers wanting to reduce their risk, but if they know the risk why can't they offer a choice in premiums like they do with window locks? That would allow any work to be carried out in your own time to reduce premiums in line with risks. I can see how a taller pot might reduce risk, but not why a shorter pot would suddenly have become uninsurable.

I suspect they don't really know the risks at all. I found it difficult to find anyone who will cover my place mostly due to distance from a river, some timber framing, and being a bit old, but it has a much longer track record of not burning down or flooding than just about any other house in the area which would surely make it a really low risk.

 

[Owain]

One more thing; when we last had our chimneys swept, the (HETAS-registered) sweep issued a certificate of cleaning, which I had not previously seen before. Apparently, insurance companies will often ask for such certificates in cases of any claims for chimney-related fires . . . or so the sweep said.

Fairly common requirement for catering premises to get the extractor fan ducts cleaned every so often.

Remember to upload the certificate somewhere safe online or keep a copy somewhere other than the insured premises, in case the worst happens.

 

[Flyfisher]

Fair point about keeping the certificate in a safe place (which applies to many things really) but as I recall the certificate pad had multiple copies for the customer, the chimney sweep and one for HETAS. So, if the system works, HETAS should be able to produce the appropriate records . . . as well as the installation certificate for the stove itself.

I tend to be cynical about such 'systems' but my recent experience with building control sign- off was that the electrical installation certificates were picked up automatically from some database or other such that the BCO had already ticked that requirement off before I offered to show him my paper copy.