|
Finances / Finanzen » uk.finance » Buildings insurance query
| Buildings insurance query [message #390613] |
Sa, 27 Mai 2006 12:14 |
|
I recently arranged buildings insurance through a particular insurer. The
building I'm in is a house which has been converted into two flats, A & B.
I own flat A, someone else owns flat B, but I also own the freehold of the
building as a whole, hence the buildings insurance being my responsibility
(arranging it at least - payment is shared).
Originally I was quoted about £40 a month, similar to what the previous
owners had arranged with the same company. However on the printed quotation
they sent me was the line "Is the home ever occupied, or will it be
occupied, by anyone other than you and/or your family? -- No". Given the
presence of the flat B's occupants, the answer should have been "Yes" (All
other details being correct).
When I phoned up to fix this, I was told that this one simple alteration
would change the type of the insurance from "Derived Sum Insured" to "Actual
Sum Insured" (still not entirely sure what these are), doubling the monthly
premium in the process to over £80. The original policy was what's termed
"block insurance", but apparently that now turns out to be unsuitable too.
Does this sound right? When I originally arranged the policy I explained
the type of property and who owned what and who lived where in a fair amount
of detail, so I'm surprised that what I was quoted back then (and what the
previous people were paying) should be so different to what I'm now being
asked to pay.
I'll be trying other companies of course, but am I right in thinking firms
that cover buildings of this type are in a minority?
Cheers,
Will.
|
|
|
| Re: Buildings insurance query [message #390625 ] |
Sa, 27 Mai 2006 21:28 |
|
"Will" <virgin.net [at] will.mitchell(reverse to despam)> wrote in message
news:xEVdg.4288$sX1.1994 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>I recently arranged buildings insurance through a particular insurer. The
> building I'm in is a house which has been converted into two flats, A & B.
> I own flat A, someone else owns flat B, but I also own the freehold of the
> building as a whole, hence the buildings insurance being my responsibility
> (arranging it at least - payment is shared).
>
> Originally I was quoted about £40 a month, similar to what the previous
> owners had arranged with the same company. However on the printed
> quotation
> they sent me was the line "Is the home ever occupied, or will it be
> occupied, by anyone other than you and/or your family? -- No". Given the
> presence of the flat B's occupants, the answer should have been "Yes"
> (All
> other details being correct).
>
> When I phoned up to fix this, I was told that this one simple alteration
> would change the type of the insurance from "Derived Sum Insured" to
> "Actual
> Sum Insured" (still not entirely sure what these are), doubling the
> monthly
> premium in the process to over £80. The original policy was what's termed
> "block insurance", but apparently that now turns out to be unsuitable too.
>
> Does this sound right? When I originally arranged the policy I explained
> the type of property and who owned what and who lived where in a fair
> amount
> of detail, so I'm surprised that what I was quoted back then (and what the
> previous people were paying) should be so different to what I'm now being
> asked to pay.
>
> I'll be trying other companies of course, but am I right in thinking firms
> that cover buildings of this type are in a minority?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Will.
>
>
>
> I wish you luck in finding a cheaper quote but consider yourself lucky
> that you did spot this now and not when you had to make a claim.
They would have not paid out. Difficult to say whether previous owner
deliberately misled the insurance company or not to save money.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Buildings insurance query [message #390741 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 00:56 |
|
"Eric Jones" <ejones999 [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:PuudnYNJuYzvNeXZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d [at] bt.com...
>
> "Will" <virgin.net [at] will.mitchell(reverse to despam)> wrote in message
> news:xEVdg.4288$sX1.1994 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>I recently arranged buildings insurance through a particular insurer. The
>> building I'm in is a house which has been converted into two flats, A &
>> B.
>> I own flat A, someone else owns flat B, but I also own the freehold of
>> the
>> building as a whole, hence the buildings insurance being my
>> responsibility
>> (arranging it at least - payment is shared).
>>
>> Originally I was quoted about £40 a month, similar to what the previous
>> owners had arranged with the same company. However on the printed
>> quotation
>> they sent me was the line "Is the home ever occupied, or will it be
>> occupied, by anyone other than you and/or your family? -- No". Given the
>> presence of the flat B's occupants, the answer should have been "Yes"
>> (All
>> other details being correct).
>>
>> When I phoned up to fix this, I was told that this one simple alteration
>> would change the type of the insurance from "Derived Sum Insured" to
>> "Actual
>> Sum Insured" (still not entirely sure what these are), doubling the
>> monthly
>> premium in the process to over £80. The original policy was what's
>> termed
>> "block insurance", but apparently that now turns out to be unsuitable
>> too.
>>
>> Does this sound right? When I originally arranged the policy I explained
>> the type of property and who owned what and who lived where in a fair
>> amount
>> of detail, so I'm surprised that what I was quoted back then (and what
>> the
>> previous people were paying) should be so different to what I'm now being
>> asked to pay.
>>
>> I'll be trying other companies of course, but am I right in thinking
>> firms
>> that cover buildings of this type are in a minority?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Will.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish you luck in finding a cheaper quote but consider yourself lucky
>> that you did spot this now and not when you had to make a claim.
> They would have not paid out. Difficult to say whether previous owner
> deliberately misled the insurance company or not to save money.
>>
>
>
Good point, cheers.
|
|
|
| Re: Buildings insurance query [message #390763 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:14 |
|
In message <e44fg.9324$m7.6856 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, Will
<virgin.net [at] will.mitchell> writes
>"Eric Jones" <ejones999 [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:PuudnYNJuYzvNeXZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d [at] bt.com...
>> "Will" <virgin.net [at] will.mitchell(reverse to despam)> wrote in message
>> news:xEVdg.4288$sX1.1994 [at] newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>I recently arranged buildings insurance through a particular insurer. The
>>> building I'm in is a house which has been converted into two flats, A &
>>> B.
>>> I own flat A, someone else owns flat B, but I also own the freehold of
>>> the
>>> building as a whole, hence the buildings insurance being my
>>> responsibility
>>> (arranging it at least - payment is shared).
>>>
>>> Originally I was quoted about £40 a month, similar to what the previous
>>> owners had arranged with the same company. However on the printed
>>> quotation
>>> they sent me was the line "Is the home ever occupied, or will it be
>>> occupied, by anyone other than you and/or your family? -- No". Given the
>>> presence of the flat B's occupants, the answer should have been "Yes"
>>> (All
>>> other details being correct).
>>>
>>> When I phoned up to fix this, I was told that this one simple alteration
>>> would change the type of the insurance from "Derived Sum Insured" to
>>> "Actual
>>> Sum Insured" (still not entirely sure what these are), doubling the
>>> monthly
>>> premium in the process to over £80. The original policy was what's
>>> termed
>>> "block insurance", but apparently that now turns out to be unsuitable
>>> too.
>>>
>>> Does this sound right? When I originally arranged the policy I explained
>>> the type of property and who owned what and who lived where in a fair
>>> amount
>>> of detail, so I'm surprised that what I was quoted back then (and what
>>> the
>>> previous people were paying) should be so different to what I'm now being
>>> asked to pay.
>>>
>>> I'll be trying other companies of course, but am I right in thinking
>>> firms
>>> that cover buildings of this type are in a minority?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Will.
>>> I wish you luck in finding a cheaper quote but consider yourself lucky
>>> that you did spot this now and not when you had to make a claim.
>> They would have not paid out. Difficult to say whether previous owner
>> deliberately misled the insurance company or not to save money.
>Good point, cheers.
We have a building where we rent out one flat, and we organised the
insurance (a few years back, now we will just introduce!). Anyway, it
sounds fairly straightforward for anyone with half a brain who isn't in
an Indian call centre. The particular case I am thinking of we had fun
with because it is on a corner so the ground floor has a different
postcode to the first floor, as each flat opens onto a different street!
--
Timothy
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Feb 7 19:04:28 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02020 Sekunden |
