Thatched house insurance and wood burners

[tobydog]

I did mention this some time ago but thought it worthy of a reminder given the time of year.

When I renewed my house insurance with NFU earlier in the year I noticed that the details of our house had been changed. It showed it as no longer being listed and no longer having a wood burner. When I called NFU to question this they said it was down to a computer error and the details would be corrected. The problem though is that when the details were corrected to show we did in fact have a woodburner, the renewal quote increased by £200. This was explained away on the basis that there had been a large increased in thatch fires associated with wood burners.

I did have a bit of a go because if I hadn't read the details again and rung up, I would have renewed the policy without realising I could be without coverage for wood burner related fires. If you are with NFU, are thatched, listed and have a wood burner, can I please suggest that you double check your insurance policy to make sure all the correct information was retained.

Going back to the cost issue, we only use our wood burner about 10 times a year on average so it now works out at £20 a fire. I could get rid of it and buy some more oil for that!! :?

 

[robgil]

Much better than a fire damaged roof and no insurance.

 

[Penners]

Going back to the cost issue, we only use our wood burner about 10 times a year on average so it now works out at £20 a fire. I could get rid of it and buy some more oil for that!!

Or, better still, you could light your woodburner more often, thereby making the insurance more worthwhile, saving you money on oil and reducing your carbon footprint.

It's a win, win, win!

 

[tobydog]

It's not the most efficient of burners and needs regular attention which can get tedious during an evening. We tend to use it at weekends where we get it going late afternoon. I thought about taking it out altogether and putting in a grate for an open fire with a canopy over. The inglenook is huge in relation to the house so it would need to be big. Maybe next year.

 

[robgil]

We have decided to leave our inglenook open as an occasional fire as well, I am trying to figure out a way to do it without using a canopy.
Keep an eye on E bay for canopy's , I got a nice big one for a few quid.

 

[tobydog]

Unfortunately our inglenook was brutalised from the neck up during the 1987 renovation. The house was very low and the top floor couldn't be fully utilised unless the chimney to the inglenook was removed from groundfloor ceiling height upwards. As such it was given a flat concrete slab with a conventional chimney built on top. This chimney has a liner but this results in us just having a 8" hole in the slab that the burners currently attaches to. Without a canopy we would never get the smoke out.

Oddly enough I recently found out from our village historian that our house height was actually raised in conjunction with having the chimney removed. It explains the new rafters and the 2ft section of wall that sits on top of the timber frame. It looks very well done but I don't want to even think about engineering and building regs!! I'll never sleep again.

 

[Penners]

It's not the most efficient of burners and needs regular attention which can get tedious during an evening. We tend to use it at weekends where we get it going late afternoon. I thought about taking it out altogether and putting in a grate for an open fire with a canopy over. The inglenook is huge in relation to the house so it would need to be big. Maybe next year.

We have decided to leave our inglenook open as an occasional fire as well, I am trying to figure out a way to do it without using a canopy

A canopy isn't an automatic requirement for having open fires in an inglenook. It's only necessary if you get smoke in the room and need to improve the draw of the fire.

Before you go to the expense of a canopy, try an open fire in the inglenook and see how it goes. Make sure you don't make your decision until the fire has been going for a while and got really hot.

 

[AMc]

I can't imagine that taking out a woodburner and using an open grate would reduce your insurance significantly if at all?
Removing the woodburner would increase the heat lost up the chimney when it's not lit unless you fit some other form of significant ventilation control - if not expect your oil consumption to go up a lot.

I sympathise with the task of lighting and maintaining the woodburner - which universally falls to me and gets on my wick if I'm not cold to start with - but given the relative cost of oil and wood I'd use it more often rather than take it out completely. FWIW practice with "my" woodburner has made it much easier to get it lit and keep it lit with minimal effort - it's taken a couple of winters to get to grips with the new one but now I can get it lit and keep it going with refueling a couple of times in an evening.

 

[Penners]

FWIW practice with "my" woodburner has made it much easier to get it lit and keep it lit with minimal effort - it's taken a couple of winters to get to grips with the new one but now I can get it lit and keep it going with refueling a couple of times in an evening.

I absolutely agree. Woodburners work best when they (a) are used regularly so the chimney is kept dry, and (b) when you've got to know their little foibles!

 

[tobydog]

Okay, you've talked me into it. I didn't need the hassle of taking it out anyway. Liked the idea of an open fire though. We do have quite a large amount of off-cuts to burn left over from the building work. The chimney is being swept this afternoon. Another condition of the insurance as it probably is for most of us. My regular sweep couldn't fit us in until the end of November which may be as a result of more insurers insisting on a least one clean per year. We had a jays nest in there last year so couldn't risk lighting it during the recent cold snap.

 

[Bayliss]

I also WAS insured with the NFU, a loyal customer for eight years until my renewal premium turned up in April. It to had risen by around 30% and I also queried it. The answer was 'lots of fires recently we need to rebuild the cash pot'. Not with my money you won't was my retort.
I am now with an alternative and competitive insurer, same cover and service for a large cash saving on NFU premium.

 

[tobydog]

I think I got sucked in by the 5 year loyalty bonus which has now been completely swamped by the increases. i think there may be some small print which says something about paying the bonus back if you leave before 5 years but I need to check. When I took the insurance out over two years ago the quote for £400 was way cheaper than anyone else, with full cover and with the UK's No. 1 insurer. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Penners]

When I took the insurance out over two years ago the quote for £400 was way cheaper than anyone else

That surprises me. I've got quotes from NFU on a number of occasions, and they've always been a fair bit more expensive than several other companies.

 

[MdB]

It's not the most efficient of burners and needs regular attention which can get tedious during an evening. We tend to use it at weekends where we get it going late afternoon. I thought about taking it out altogether and putting in a grate for an open fire with a canopy over. The inglenook is huge in relation to the house so it would need to be big. Maybe next year.

We have decided to leave our inglenook open as an occasional fire as well, I am trying to figure out a way to do it without using a canopy

A canopy isn't an automatic requirement for having open fires in an inglenook. It's only necessary if you get smoke in the room and need to improve the draw of the fire.

Before you go to the expense of a canopy, try an open fire in the inglenook and see how it goes. Make sure you don't make your decision until the fire has been going for a while and got really hot.

Measure the cross sectional area of your inglenook (height x width). Measure the cross sectional area of your chimney (depth x width). Divide the first by the second. If you have a figure higher than 6.7 then you don't meet building regs and my understanding is figures above 10 don't draw well in practice. For an inglenook, it wouldn't surprise me if you have figures far higher than this and as such don't have a hope of drawing well.

 

[tobydog]

Penners - remember I'm thatched and timber framed and at the time I think my options were somewhat limited. £400 with NFU for full buildings and contents with accidental coverage on both. Seemed good to me. Add in the bonus scheme and it looked even better. To be fair, if it wasn't for the £200 increase due to the wood burner I would still be happy with the cost.

 

[Penners]

£400 with NFU for full buildings and contents with accidental coverage on both. Seemed good to me.

Blimey! That seems good to me, too!

my understanding is figures above 10 don't draw well in practice. For an inglenook, it wouldn't surprise me if you have figures far higher than this and as such don't have a hope of drawing well.

I'm sure MdB is right there, but I have to say that - in my experience - getting a fire to draw in an inglenook is an impenetrable and unpredictable black art. No matter how definitive the theory may be, you never really know whether it will draw until you try it.

 

[Bayliss]

Expanding upon my previous post in this thread, we are now insured with 'Simply Thatched', having ditched the NFU. Our new insurer insisted upon us providing them with a 'Compliance Certificate' in regards to the electrical wiring in the cottage. Blasted nuisance I thought, the NFU never bothered me about this during the whole 7/8 years we were with them. I looked back of the old NFU policy documents and sure enough there it was , the policy holder is required to provide the certificate if asked. NFU never did ask for it meaning I was possibly uninsured? in the event of an electrical fire! Looking after their customers? I was rather shocked. We had the cottage inspected and found that the lighting circuit was in a very dangerous condition and required complete replacement. Mice had chewed through no end of the cable sheaving. Thank goodness our new insurer had our best interests at heart.

 

[tobydog]

Deja vu!! Very similar to the situation with me and the woodburner. How was I supposed to know I had to tell them I had one. Half the village probably has one. As one who works in the business, please don't work on the assumption that an insurer truly has your interests at heart. :twisted:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

There seem to be some conflicting views on why thatch fires are a problem (except that they aren't - the figures suggest that fires in thatched properties are half as likely to occur, based on fires per number of properties - probably a result of owner awareness) than in unthatched ones, though obviously once you've got it lit, a thatch fire is likely to be far more damaging.

I'm repeating this secondhand from what I heard last week from another occasional poster here, so the details may not be exact, but it seems the Guild of Master Thatchers (or whatever they're called) think most thatch fires are caused by sparks, and suggest fitting spark arrestors, whereas the insurance companies think most thatch fires (nowadays) are caused by insufficiently insulated flue liners, especially in conjunction with woodburners, coupled with burning inappropriate fuels in the woodburner, and that spark arrestors can actually add to the problem by getting tarred up and dripping hot goo.

It's only a gut feeling, but I tend to agree with the insurers over this, at least outside the weeks either side of Guy Fawkes' night.

 

[skier-hughes]

I looked back of the old NFU policy documents and sure enough there it was , the policy holder is required to provide the certificate if asked. NFU never did ask for it meaning I was possibly uninsured? in the event of an electrical fire! Looking after their customers? I was rather shocked.

Why would you think you would be uninsured? It says if asked, you say you weren't asked, so you have complied with their terms, so you'd be insured.

I'm against this attitude of everyone else should be looking after me, why should an insurance company ensure you look after yor wiring, plumbing etc? I'd have thought anyone with a little bit of commonsense would think, I live in an old house, wonder if all the essential and dangerous services are ok, maybe I should ensure they are?????