Listed Buildings Insurance - Claim update

[Nemesis]

The DCMS may await the outcome before considering any similar cases.

It's a complex matter of course. There is no time limit within which an application needs to be considered.

However, if you have anything you can add I am sure we will all be pleased to extend our knowledge base.

 

[Flyfisher]

But you didn't answer my question . . .

 

[skier-hughes]

But if it only may be in the pipeline they could be waiting for years and years for nothing, if it was in the pipeline, or a date had been set then you can see the point in waiting for the outcome, but awaiting the outcome of something that only may be happening is like waiting for the England football team to win an important tournament, it just aint going to happen.

There, that's extended your knowledge a bit.

 

[Nemesis]

That's right. As I said, you are now answering the conservation questions on this forum. You clearly know so much we all sit at your feet and await the pearls.

I think I would apprecaite your in-depth treatise, as it's such a complex matter.

Graham - the ways of government departments are interesting to contemplate, believe me. No, you haven't extended my knowledge really, not in this instance.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think I would apprecaite your in-depth treatise, as it's such a complex matter.

No, my point about owners having no control over the listing/de-listing process is not a complex matter, it's a simple fact.

Why do you insist on trying to revel in complexity instead of cutting to the chase and answering a simple question?

 

[skier-hughes]

Sorry I forgot I know nothing and you know it all, you've told me this before about the machinations of the Government, silly of me.

I know nothing of the way in which the law works or how it intermingles with the Governement and it's departments.

Remind me again of your qualifications to make such a statement, I seem to have forgotten those as well.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh, it's just something I'm rather involved with.

And you are too then I suppose?

Co-incidentally, this was in BD today:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3100729&c=1&encCode=00000000013f7d74

But I am sure you appreciate the JR and the precedent possibly set by that. Or possibly not.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Pford75]

:?

I was trying to make a relatively simple and (I hope) helpful point to everyone on here regarding buildings insurance and how my experience on this claim has changed my view somewhat.

It's a shame that this thread has been hijacked to make personal attacks and try to score points following a disagreement on another thread.

Anyway, I urge again for all owners of a Listed building to look again at their buildings cover and assess if your really believe that it is adequate

 

[Nemesis]

It is indeed - but the personal attacks and point scoring have been going on for quite some time, although I doubt you will point the finger at the real problem maker(s).

I also hope, harking back a while, that the rude messages you were receiving at home, read by your children, have ceased. You seemed to think it was someone from this forum and I wondered if you ever got any further in tracking this down?

However, the attitude of your insurers regarding delisting is an interesting point, and one which I shall follow up.

Incidentally, if an insurer did insist that an application be made it would be worth a reminder that in general listed buildings sell for a premium and that it could affect the value of a building if it was delisted instead of repaired appropriately. Homeowners may not wish to see their homes devalued.

Of course there are occasions where the damage is so great that there is little of historic interest remaining, or as the most recent advice states

'a material change of circumstances such as a fire that has affected the special interest of the building'

and delisting is the only realistic solution, but I would suggest that any insurance company which tries to browbeat a homeowner into accepting this as a solution in cases where the damage is not major and is repairable is not acting responsibly or honestly.

It is also not the case that simply because an application is made a building will be delisted. There are procedures which have to been gone through, consultations to be made, and the process is not rapid.

If anyone does find themselves being pressurised into 'agreeing' to an application for delisting then a call to the CO would be useful.

 

[Flyfisher]

I would suggest that any insurance company which tries to browbeat a homeowner into accepting this as a solution in cases where the damage is not major and is repairable is not acting responsibly or honestly.

From a period property perspective that's an understandable view, but the insurance company is likely to be a public company that has a legal duty to minimise its claims payouts (fiduciary duty of care to shareholders) and if de-listing could help with this then it's almost duty-bound to pursue the option.

Also, given that anybody can apply for de-listing without the owner's consent, the insurance co need not try to browbeat the owner into accepting anything; they could just go ahead on their own terms.

I'm not defending this, just stating the wider issues.

If anyone does find themselves being pressurised into 'agreeing' to an application for delisting then a call to the CO would be useful.

But the owner has no power to agree to either listing or de-listing; it's not their decision to make. They can, of course, make representations, for or against (and I agree that getting the CO involved might be helpful), but the fact that they are the owner seems to give them no particular rights in this matter.

 

[Nemesis]

No, the owner does not have the ultimate say. The Secretary of State does. If the insurance company wishes to follow it through, it needs of course to make representations on what grounds it feels the building has lost its historic interest, and representations can be made against the application. The appropriate amenity societies and English Heritage will also be consulted, and probably wider expert opinion. I would suggest that there would have to be a substantial amount of damage which is deemed not repairable for delisting to be considered. The nature and rarity of the structure concerned may also be taken into consideration.

It isn't a simple matter, and I will make enquiries regarding how widespread this is where insurance companies are making applications.

Any homeowner who feels that the building was insured as a listed building, and that repair should be contemplated on a like for like basis, should also argue that with the insurers in my view.

 

[Flyfisher]

Any homeowner who feels that the building was insured as a listed building, and that repair should be contemplated on a like for like basis, should also argue that with the insurers in my view.

I agree, as previously posted. I think the de-listing issue is a bit of a red-herring; if item 'x' is damaged then the insurance company should replace/repair it, whether it is listed or not (unless there is some small-print get-out clause in which case all bets are off anyway )

Insurance companies trying to settle claims as cheaply as possible are a fact of life. I've had two claims where this happened, one involving property damage, and my experience is that you just have to stand your ground and be firm. If you accept the first offer you'll likely lose out. A sad state of affairs, but seemingly true.

 

[MdB]

Just thinking aloud here...

A: What would happen if a listed house completely burnt to the ground?

I would assume the house would lose its listing status as it no longer existed. The owner would receive the value of the house on the open market minus the value of the land it was on. Owner could rebuild or not depending on what they wanted to do. Amount received would unlikely cover the cost of rebuilding the house using the same materials and techniques originally used.

B: What would happen if a listed house half burnt to the ground.

House would likely keep its listing status depending on what was left. Owner would receive the cost of rebuilding the damaged half using the original materials and techniques originally used. This cost is likely to be more than that in A above.

Is the above about right or does it work completely differently to this?

 

[Flyfisher]

Scenario A;
I agree the listing status would probably be lost. However, I would want a new house built as close to possible in the original style, i.e. oak timber-framed. I fully appreciate this would be a facsimile of the original, but that's now lost forever. My point is that I would not be happy for the Ins Co to insist on a different completely different type of construction, although I appreciate that the new build would have to be completely building regs compliant so it couldn't be an exact re-build. I guess it would involve a lot of discussion!

As for valuation, that's an interesting point. I'm not sure the owner would simply receive the value of the house on the open market (minus the land) because that's not usually how 'bricks and mortar' insurance is valued - it's usually the re-building cost, which is typically less than the market value, although could be more for a period property. The really important thing is to ensure the amount insured is adequate to avoid being deemed under-insured, with all the associated problems that can bring.

Scenario B;
I agree; indeed this is likely to be the worst case (cost-wise) with many period properties, which is why the re-building cost guidelines (£/m2) for period properties is typically much higher than 'modern' builds. I guess there would be a big grey area regarding a half-destroyed listed property; if it was particularly special then de-listing would probably be refused and full repairs insisted upon, but if it was not particularly special then de-listing might be allowed. Personally, I'd still want the repairs/rebuild to be as similar as possible to the original, regardless of the listing status. Again, I'd envisage lots of discussion!

I would hope the insurance co would pay for alternative accomodation while the inevitable discussions proceed (must check my policy smallprint!)

 

[Anita]

It also pays to scrutinise the terms of your insurance policy each year. We live in a listed 1770 farmhouse and had a torrid time finding someone to insure it when we first purchased the proporty 7 years ago. This was due firstly to the fact that the property was listed, and secondly because of it's age. Insureres would not even give us a quote on those factors alone - even before they knew that the property had a structural fault (all sorted now happily).

We eventually got insured by axa - only becasue they had all of my OH's self-employed business policies. However when renewal time came round the next year, luckily I read the renewal quote right through and the policy had changed to "in the event of damage, properties dating back to before 1960 will be repaired using modern materials and methods". Obviously this was not at all acceptable to us, nor would it have been acceptable to the CO. We were extremely worried at the prospect of finding alternative insueres, given our previous expereience when basically no one would touch the house with a barge-pole!

However we came accross Bruford Valance - a small broker in Taunton and obtained specialist cover from Ecclesiastical's historic houses policy.

However, if I hadn't been prudent and spotted the changes in the policy - then in the event of needing to claim (luckily we haven't) then we would have been right in the mire!!!!!

So even though it is tiresome and boring - always read the small print!

 

[Moo]

Thanks for that, Anita.

Our small print will now be scrutinised very thoroughly indeed.

 

[Pford75]

Posted: Sat 24th Nov, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just thinking aloud here...

A: What would happen if a listed house completely burnt to the ground?

Our insurer's surveyor mentioned this other case he is working on where this is what has happened. AFAIK, in a 'total loss' situation the insurance company will pay out the total sum insured.....however, it is then your responsibility to have the site cleared and the new property built....ie. you can build something smaller/larger, cheaper/more expensive. Just as with a car, if it is stolen - it is your choice what to replace it with.

This situation is okay (assuming you have sufficient cover)....the worst situation is 'partial loss'.

All told, our insurers (Brit) have been okay(ish)...although it's just as well I kept on top of things....friends have mentioned NFU as hassle-free even when it comes to Listed Building claims, so will wait to see what our premium is and may consider switching

 

[MdB]

AFAIK, in a 'total loss' situation the insurance company will pay out the total sum insured.

Is this value, the value of the property on the open market or the rebuild cost? For a modern house, the value of the property is likely to be more than the rebuild cost. For a period property, the rebuild cost will be significantly higher.

 

[Moo]

In my simple-minded way I've always assumed that it would be the amount the building has been insured for (and for which we have been paying all those premiums). No more and no less.

 

[Flyfisher]

....friends have mentioned NFU as hassle-free even when it comes to Listed Building claims, so will wait to see what our premium is and may consider switching

That's reassuring as I'm with NFU. They were certainly very understanding about our property whereas many others wouldn't even give a quote.