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

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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