Subsidence and content insurance in East Dulwich

[indiej25]

Hello all,

My property has been underpinned as a result of subsidence, I have rang around loads of insurers and although I already have building insurance they won't cover me for contents due to the fact the front of my building has been underpinned.

What companies to do you know that will provide contents insurance for this problem?

Thanks in advance!

Indie

[Penguin68]

This is, of course, completely mad - if the building has already been underpinned then the insurance risk has been addressed - and the 'contents' risk is anyway very limited - possibly to damage to carpets, curtains etc. should there be water incursion (but why would there be?). Underpinning does not increase either fire or loss through theft risk (during the actual works, when the house might have been vulnerable and not secure, is another matter).

Insurance companies are scum - and stupid scum to boot.

I suggest that you either try to purchase cover via an agent, who might be able to talk more sensibly to insurers, or try the NFU - they seem to have a good reputation and don't just cover farmers.

[jimbo1964]

I'm insured through Nat West. I've heard NFU are good too.

[benmorg]

indiej25 Wrote:

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

> Hello all,

>

> My property has been underpinned as a result of

> subsidence, I have rang around loads of insurers

> and although I already have building insurance

> they won't cover me for contents due to the fact

> the front of my building has been underpinned.

>

> What companies to do you know that will provide

> contents insurance for this problem?

>

> Thanks in advance!

>

> Indie

That's bizarre. What has contents insurance go to do with subsidence? Are you sure they aren't confusing contents and buildings insurance?

[peterstorm1985]

benmorg Wrote:

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

> indiej25 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Hello all,

> >

> > My property has been underpinned as a result of

> > subsidence, I have rang around loads of

> insurers

> > and although I already have building insurance

> > they won't cover me for contents due to the

> fact

> > the front of my building has been underpinned.

> >

> > What companies to do you know that will provide

> > contents insurance for this problem?

> >

> > Thanks in advance!

> >

> > Indie

>

> That's bizarre. What has contents insurance go to

> do with subsidence? Are you sure they aren't

> confusing contents and buildings insurance?

I'm sure Indie isn't getting confused; it's just the problem of standardised scripts/screens in call centres. We have separate buildings and contents insurance (for a very different reason) and I'm often exasperated by having to discuss the type of roof on my house when I'm trying to get contents insurance only.

Try Hiscox

[Shankley]

The insurer providing The buildings insurance will be able to insure the contents too

[intexasatthe moment]

Another vote for NFU here.

[indiej25]

Thanks everyone,

Will check out all your suggestions. Managed to find some banks who would do it and AVIVA seem to have a good deal at the moment.

The building insurance covers the whole building, I only need it for my flat so I fear it would become terribly complicated.

[edtuke]

Indie,

Our house has been underpinned too and Halifax Home Insurance are perfectly happy to insure us for building and contents. It's a bit more expensive of course, despite the significantly lower risk of further subsidence, but that's just the way it goes. I don't suppose insurance companies will ever get it.

Good luck!

[Cam123]

Hi, i'm having a similar issue myself and have come across this article which I think offers advice for getting post-pinning insurance that is also not maddeningly expensive -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/08/subsidence-home-insurance-quotes-soaring

Out of interest, is anyone aware of any subsidence on Idmiston Rd ?

[goosey-goosey]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Our neighbours have had to claim on their buildings insurance as a result of subsidence. This has also affected us (via a party wall) but much less than the poor folk next door, so we may not *need* to make a claim ourselves. We've declared these material facts to our insurer and they are refusing to renew our cover. Inevitably, we're also finding it almost impossible to get cover at a decent price with any other insurer.

Here's the interesting bit... Our current cover ends in about two weeks, so we're wondering whether to make a claim now, before the cover runs out, just to feel more... err... "protected" than we do right now. After all, if we do nothing, all that's happened is that our insurer has become aware of some facts but they presumably won't take any action and they'll then drop us like a stone in two weeks' time and run away very fast. But if we lodge a claim with them now, while we still can, aren't they obliged to take active steps to resolve any worsening damage and, hopefully, to continue to insure us, at least until any damage caused by the subsidence is fixed?

My question... Would it make sense to establish a claim now? Any ideas?

(We feel like we're living in insurance-leper limbo-land :'(.)

[peterstorm1985]

You may find it useful to read the attached link.

Domestic subsidence agreement

Assuming that you do manage to get insurance elsewhere, then it might be best not to 'establish' a claim unless there is actually something to claim for now. If you do, it could blight your house for years. If there's no evidence of active movement at present, they'll stick tell-tales everywhere and just check them every six months or so. If you ever want to sell that could cause a problem.

If you don't manage to get insurance elsewhere then putting in a claim now will protect you from that problem, but your existing insurer will only keep liability for that bit - it won't help if your house burns down. Sorry to be so jolly but you need new insurance whatever it costs.

[SteveUK1978]

Goosey - very interested in your experience (and that of your neighbours). We moved in earlier in the year and the old owners quite literally had papered over the cracks so only when we redecorated did we discover some quite obvious cracking.

We have been monitoring them for some time now and for the most part they are stable although the odd new one appears every now and then...or they may not be new, we just never saw them before.

Did your neighbours have a major problem...i.e. was the cracking really obvious, lots of movement / expansion? Ours are not more than hair line cracks in width but they are worrying none the less.

We have debated the insurance route but as soon as it is on the radar - as you say - you run into major trouble with your premiums.

Any insights gratefully received.

S

[nunhead_man]

No problems with cracks unless you can get your fist into them says my Victorian house experienced contractor of choice :-)

This book is a good read ..........

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Has_your_house_got_cracks.html?id=lql5TR3Gj0YC&redir_esc=y

[ultraburner]

We found it hard to get insurance on our flat when we bought it as there had been a previous claim relating to subsidence, but eventually got both buildings and contents insured through Towergate.

[goosey-goosey]

I wanted to say thanks for everyone's advice on the insurance angle. If you're interested in subsidence and its impact on neighbours, insurance, etc I recommend the free book that nunhead_man mentions.

We bit the bullet and made a claim having taken legal advice from Which? (fab), the Financial Ombudsman (who regulates insurance firms - also v helpful), and the Financial Services Authority (a waste of space and capital letters). We followed this up with a deadening, half-hour slog on the phone to the insurer, which included such exchanges as:

Q: "Why did you earlier inform us about the crack but not make a claim at that time?"

A: "Err, should we have?"

Q: "Why did you say earlier that the tree was Type X but now say it's Type Y?"

A: "We relied on an official report that turned out to be wrong. Sorry for not being telepathic."

Q: "I can get someone from the complaints department to phone back tomorrow evening. Is that OK?"

A: "No. We want an underwriter to overturn (!) the decision to refuse us insurance, not a customer service rep to witter on and on, and then lose our email."

I exaggerate, but you get the idea. It was all very galling. Hopefully, the time we spent on the phone tonight will make a difference but I fear we will need to walk away from our current insurers and call on the services of a broker to fight our case. I have the name of an excellent one, if anyone needs a recommendation.

Now, watch our premiums soar!

[ed_pete]

Several threads on buildings insurance and subsidence in the past - you may find something useful here:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,28751,28868#msg-28868

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,241324,241369#msg-241369

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,168763,168981#msg-168981

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,182337,182385#msg-182385

[i*Rate]

I am in a position whereby Southwark's fifteen-year-old tree, outside, is causing the front of the house (and garden wall)to crack. It has got much worse over the last three hot summers and now the fabric of the front of building could be damaged by forthcoming winter weather. After making a claim two years ago with the insurers (Churchills via Nationwide Building) and having a report made, soil tests etc Southwark have done nothing to remove the tree. Our underwriters now tell us that Southwark make prefer to leave the tree in place (because they don't like residents seeing them cut down trees) and I will have to have house underpinned. Having told us this, they advised that Southwark will do what they want to, when they want to do and we will have to just hang on for them to decide.

Given the thought of possible underpinning and future insurance cover problems, many thanks to all for the advice given on this thread.

Regards.

[Sue]

i*rate, I believe that sometimes removing trees can actually cause more problems with a house than it solves. It's not just about residents not liking to see trees cut down.

I may be wrong but I believe cutting down a tree can cause "heave" which affects the house just as much as subsidence but in a different way.

I'm sure somebody else will know more about this than I do.

[DulwichDeviant]

DELETED

[peterstorm1985]

Ground heave is a possibility when the tree is removed suddenly at the wrong time of year.Deciduous trees in full leaf have a strong thirst so the drawdown of the local water table is significant. If they are cut down while in leaf there may be a sudden change in water levels. If cut in the dormant period the problem should not be severe. Much better to reduce the size of the tree over a couple of years, and then remove completely.

[ed_pete]

In simple terms the "heave" theory is dependant on what was there first - the tree or the building. If the building is old than the tree then removing it should, over time return the soil to its original level of dessication (other factors not withsanding) and therefore close the cracks. If the tree is older than the building then removal can cause real "heave" which will result in stresses on the buildings foundations and cracking in a different manner.

[goosey-goosey]

Guess what? They took lots of convincing, but our insurers finally changed their mind and now agree to reinsure us after initially refusing to do so (along with every other insurer we contacted, I might add).

What's more, we are now paying exactly the same premium as before we made a claim and before the subsidence was first noticed (by our neighbours). We're over the moon. Hmmm... maybe I should be a bit more sceptical; I do hope nothing's changed in their terms and conditions that they're not telling us about. I'll have to scrutinize that doc when it turns up.

Just goes to show the power of marshalling all your facts, sticking to your guns, and making vague threats about involving the Financial Ombudsman.

[Jeremy]

Thinking of putting an offer in for a house that has been underpinned. I know it sounds crazy, but it's a really good house. Typically how much extra does this add to buildings insurance? Double? More?

[Penguin68]

Ridiculously, a house where subsidence has been seen too and 'cured' costs more to insure than one that doesn't. The costs shouldn't be as much as double an equivalent non-underpinned house, but it will be more. Some insurers however won't even make an offer on a house where the problem has actually been solved. Try the NFU - relative stars amongst the dross.

Insurance companies are mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

God rot 'em.