Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know: is 'underpinning' a specific area of insurance trouble - by which I mean, not comparable to, say, having had a subsidence claim but it only resulting in (relatively) minor repairs?



Are are you ripe for the picking if there's any mention of subsidence whatsoever?

I think underpinning is particularly problematic, as it indicates that the movement has been significant.


I would be interested to hear from anyone who has managed to get insurance on a previously underpinned house, and an indication of how extortionate the premium tends to be.

We has a subsidence claim 10yrs ago. Only superficial repair work needed and no underpinning. Now we have contents insurance which does not cover subsidence damage. Policy with Zurich. I have never tried to change the buildings insurance (NatWest) and am sure we pay an extortionate amount because of the subsidence and two other claims we have made (burst pipe and legal claim).
We purchased a house in the area last year which was underpinned. Eventually managed to get insurance through http://www.hardtoinsure.co.uk/. The annual fee isnt too bad, probably 250-300 more than normal house insurance and covers against any new subsidence, but not the old underpinning work.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I think underpinning is particularly problematic,

> as it indicates that the movement has been

> significant.


One of the reasons premiums can remain high is that underpinning isn't necessarily a cure for subsidence. If subsidence is caused by landslip rather than heave, for example, underpinning won't make any difference. Landslip subsidence is a problems on the land under Dawson's heights and led to the demolition of much of Dunstan's Road. Some details here:


http://www.dulwichsociety.com/newsletters/43-spring-2006/213-dawsons-hill-before-daswons-heights


It's one of the reasons that buildings insurance premiums for SE22 are far higher than the national average.

having been underpinned then massively overcharged for years by our insurance company because no-one else would touch us, I discovered that things have changed and lots of companies will. I'm now with Aviva - they insisted on a surveyors report, which cost about ?400 but we then saved over ?1000 on this year alone- and they threw in free contents cover too

Lynne

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

    • Well worth a read   https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-men-who-raised-the-flags/
    • If it was limited to a couple of days a year, so we all knew, that would be fine. In the last few years (and it is a recent thing) you get random fireworks going off any time after dusk for half the year. It does more than cause problems for pets and wildlife- it can mean lasting damage and massive expense and hassle for pet owners. All because some get a buzz out of loud bangs.
    • Ohh dear.  Fireworks can be great fun.  Where I used to live the kids would have firework wars/games.  Watching them was more enjoyable than watching  TV. (Which you could hardly hear due to the pops and bangs).  It's not like anyone/anything could stop them. I would still prefer organised public displays that are affordable.   And I agree that fireworks cause problems for wild life, pets and people.   It seems to be one of those things that just happens so we have to put up with it.  But it is still not as problematic here as in other areas in London - that's for sure.
    • I made sure to set off a few today just to rile you guys up 😇😂 Always looking for something to criticise 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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