Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else found brokers/insurance companies saying that living in a property with a history of subsidence or living in an area with subsidence limits policy choice and pushes up the price ?


I've been told that contents policies have, as standard ,cover for rehousing if required and that if subsidence is likely ( or has happened in the past ) that they won't offer to risky properties .


And no ,not an option to say please omit cover for rehousing .

I've been told that contents policies have, as standard, cover for rehousing


Really - that's not on my contents policy. Only for the house fabric (I insure separately). Try National Farmers Union - they can be flexible. If you have the same cover on 2 policies they don't pay out on one of them anyway. So they shouldn't penalise you.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I've been told that contents policies have, as

> standard, cover for rehousing

>

> Really - that's not on my contents policy. Only

> for the house fabric (I insure separately). Try

> National Farmers Union - they can be flexible. If

> you have the same cover on 2 policies they don't

> pay out on one of them anyway. So they shouldn't

> penalise you.



If memory serves, the NFU was not interested in insuring my house.


Can't remember if it was because of the postcode or because of a subsidence claim (except it wasn't called subsidence by the insurance company at the time, plus it was caused by faulty drains and was completely sorted) in the dim and distant past.


ETA: Oh sorry, I have just realised this is about contents insurance. Though I have a joint buildings/contents policy.

We've been treated for subsidence and after that our insurance got more and more expensive and I couldn't find anyone else. Then I saw a mention of Aviva covering subsidenced (I know there's no such word) properties and we've been with them ever since. They insisted on a survey first, but we didn't mind this as we were saving so much from our old policy
Our house has been underpinned and has had subsidence. The buildings (only) policy was found through a specialist broker and at a pretty reasonable cost too. That policy covers alternative accommodation but contents was extra. I chose Aviva for contents alone and have requested and got an exclusion for alternative accommodation cover as I don't want cover twice. The current cost for contents is about ?70 pa.

Interesting George . The brokers have phoned me back to say that they have checked with the insurers and they will now offer an exclusion on the accommodation clause .


But the cost will be ?360 ...?70 sounds very reasonable and attractive !

Maybe Aviva aren't available to brokers - I really don't know. All I can suggest is for you to give Aviva a call. If it helps, I have declined Accidental damage cover ( if I crack a basin or stain the carpet it's my problem - we're a careful lot here and I'm happy to take the chance ). My concern is fire, flood and theft. There are contents limits ranging from ?2000 for any one valuable article, ?2500 for contents in outbuildings, ?5000 for home office equipment and even up to ?250 for a tree or shrub. There are a few other specifics, but the actual sum insured is unlimited.


It might not work for you as yours is a special case, but Aviva often do good cashback on Quidco if you use the internet.

Even more interesting George - I wish you were my PA ,I'm hopeless /lazy about this kind of thing .


It had never occurred to me that one could opt out of certain items like accidental damage .The broker was suggeating I move from an existing Aviva policy to a new one .


I think I should ditch the broker . The policy was one I had through work ,where the broker used by the firm offered good rates for employees . But those rates are no longer good .


Thank you for posting George ,bit of a wake up call for me .

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
    • This link mau already have been posted but if not olease aign & share this petition - https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-closure-of-east-dulwich-post-office
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...