Which date for converted building (Insurance question)

[Spoilt Victorian Child]

When an insurer asks 'what year was the building constructed' for a property that's been converted (eg from a factory into a home), should you use the original build date, or the date of the conversion into a house?

 

[Owain]

You have to advise the insurer of both. They're both material facts.

 

[88v8]

A good question, and yes ideally both dates, but if they say they can only use one date because that's all their (poorly designed) computer system will allow, it should be the original date.
After all, the original room in our house was probably a cowshed & hayloft, and not converted into a dwelling until the early 1800s, but the building date was c1620 and it's the fundamentals of a building that age which would govern its reconstruction.

Ivor

 

[Penners]

You have to advise the insurer of both. They're both material facts.

I agree. In fact, I would ensure that the insurer is aware of the building's full history, in order to avoid the risk of some inadvertent omission becoming the basis of a claim dispute.

 

[philpjuk100]

When phoning round for an insurance quote one girl taking details said "four hundred and fifty years?,that cannot be right,people lived in caves then!".

 

[Flyfisher]

There have been times when I've wondered if a cave might not be a better option.

 

[philpjuk100]

Would a cave be listed as "non standard construction"?. The girl at saga insurance asked if it was "brick and tile" I told her it was timber framed she told me that was "non standard construction" I told her it wasn`t when it was built!.

 

[Penners]

I've frequently come across the problem of explaining timber-frame buildings to insurance "advisors" ( :roll: ). Many years ago I had one chap say to me, "What?! You're saying that the framing of the house is wood and its walls are mud and straw?! [...long pause...] Are you calling from outside the UK?"

 

[Flyfisher]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
At least such things make it fairly easy to determine if you're talking to the right sort of insurer.

 

[Spoilt Victorian Child]

Thanks. Yes, there is only one option to select.

 

[Penners]

there is only one option to select.

Then I should phone them and discuss the matter. Don't let an inadequate online questionnaire steer you into inadequate insurance.

 

[worms]

Is there not a more fundamental question of what the insurance is to cover - like-for-like repairs/rebuild versus most economic replacement of similar but modern accommodation. The former is likely to cost an awful lot more than the latter. I think most insurers would work on the basis that a modern house of a particular size costs £x per square metre to build and quote on that basis. I would assume the questions on construction are there to indicate risks and repair costs rather than reinstatement costs after catastrophic loss - unless you find a specialist insurer who understands that you don't view the house burning down as an opportunity to upgrade to a new box on the same site!

 

[Penners]

I quite agree, worms, which is why I don't believe that a period property - particularly a listed one - can be safely and comprehensively insured on the basis of a standard online questionnaire. Such policies are designed for bog-standard, modern, brick-and-tile properties whose rebuild costs can be realistically estimated according to a simple industry-standard table of time-and-materials.

 

[88v8]

And I greatly distrust the modern practice of making all arrangements over the phone. If there is contention, one has no record.
Therefore I make a point of ensuring that any salient points are recorded in writing, at least email and preferably letter, no doubt to the irritation of my insurers.
This also goes for motor insurance, particularly with my non-standard cars.

Ivor

 

[Penners]

Just a PS to Ivor's useful comment - on the phone I always ask for the name of the person I've been speaking to.