Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • karljt2013
    • By karljt2013 11th Oct 17, 5:08 PM
    • 69Posts
    • 15Thanks
    karljt2013
    If I pay cash for a freehold terrace house do I legally need buildings insurance?
    • #1
    • 11th Oct 17, 5:08 PM
    If I pay cash for a freehold terrace house do I legally need buildings insurance? 11th Oct 17 at 5:08 PM
    Thanks in advance.
Page 2
    • Mossfarr
    • By Mossfarr 12th Oct 17, 1:11 PM
    • 425 Posts
    • 563 Thanks
    Mossfarr
    Have we managed to convince you that you really should have insurance??
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 1:42 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    My house hasn't been insured for about 10 years. If it was somehow destroyed, I would build a new (and much better) house on the plot.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • westv
    • By westv 12th Oct 17, 1:45 PM
    • 4,327 Posts
    • 1,889 Thanks
    westv
    My house hasn't been insured for about 10 years. If it was somehow destroyed, I would build a new (and much better) house on the plot.
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    But a tent is easy to replace.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 1:53 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    But a tent is easy to replace.
    Originally posted by westv
    Sorry to hear that you live in a tent, we live in a 3 bed detached house? We would build a 4/5 bed detached house on the plot if it came to having to build.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • Slithery
    • By Slithery 12th Oct 17, 2:12 PM
    • 257 Posts
    • 321 Thanks
    Slithery
    But surely insurance is still a good idea, as you'd have the money from the payout to put towards construction costs.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 2:16 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    But surely insurance is still a good idea, as you'd have the money from the payout to put towards construction costs.
    Originally posted by Slithery
    I don't think insurance is value, because on top of the actual risk, you are also paying for the overheads and profit of the both the underwriter and the broker. Also if you did get a policy that you allowed you to build something different, it would probably be more expensive. Although that said, we are unlikely to live here much longer, we are currently looking for another house. But we probably won't get insurance for the next house anyway.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • chappers
    • By chappers 12th Oct 17, 2:31 PM
    • 2,708 Posts
    • 1,532 Thanks
    chappers
    Of course insurance isn't value if you never make a claim as it's money down the drain. But on the other hand you say that, if your house was destroyed you wouldn't care you would just build another better one in it's place.
    Excuse my bluntness but do you have learning difficulties.
    If you have no insurance then you will have to shoulder that cost, whereas an insurance policy would pay for that. A lifetimes worth of premiums for a 3 bedroom house probably wouldn't even get your rebuild off of the architects drawing board.
    Even worse, what if some incident to do with your building caused serious injury to a member of the public. Do you have the wherewithal to cover any claim against you, a claim that could run into the high hundreds of thousands of pounds or above.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 3:05 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    Of course insurance isn't value if you never make a claim as it's money down the drain. But on the other hand you say that, if your house was destroyed you wouldn't care you would just build another better one in it's place.
    Excuse my bluntness but do you have learning difficulties.
    If you have no insurance then you will have to shoulder that cost, whereas an insurance policy would pay for that. A lifetimes worth of premiums for a 3 bedroom house probably wouldn't even get your rebuild off of the architects drawing board.
    Even worse, what if some incident to do with your building caused serious injury to a member of the public. Do you have the wherewithal to cover any claim against you, a claim that could run into the high hundreds of thousands of pounds or above.
    Originally posted by chappers
    I'm a chartered quantity surveyor, working as a university lecturer (teaching quantity surveying), and I'm also a self made mulit-millionaire. No, I'm not excusing your bluntness, if one of us has learning difficulties, it must be you, because it certainly isn't me.

    You are missing the point It isn't value because you are paying more than the actual risk, to put it in layman's terms it is like backing a 200/1 horse at 150/1, that is bad value, the value isn't anything to do with whether you claim or not, that is an unknown variable at the time of taking out insurance.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • messes
    • By messes 12th Oct 17, 7:36 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    messes
    Yes, you may be paying more than the actual risk, although the odds of a disaster damaging your house are much better than playing the lottery.

    However other less expensive events than total destruction like water damage, electrical fire are going to have a higher chance of occurance and you don't want to cover against these either?

    Still unless I was sitting on a nice pot of money, and to be honest even if I was. I'd rather take the contribution of the insurance company to rebuilding into the mansion. After all the costs are relatively minor compared to all the other outlays of running a home.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 8:41 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    Yes, you may be paying more than the actual risk, although the odds of a disaster damaging your house are much better than playing the lottery.

    However other less expensive events than total destruction like water damage, electrical fire are going to have a higher chance of occurance and you don't want to cover against these either?

    Still unless I was sitting on a nice pot of money, and to be honest even if I was. I'd rather take the contribution of the insurance company to rebuilding into the mansion. After all the costs are relatively minor compared to all the other outlays of running a home.
    Originally posted by messes
    That would be your choice, why can't I make mine? I am sitting on a 'nice pot of money', and I managed to do that because I can identify value. But it is nice to get a sensible response, instead of a troll asking me if I have learning difficulties. It isn't as if we are unaware of the risks that can occur, until recently we owned 8 London investment properties, but we sold 2 this year, so we still own 6, and I have been a landlord for over 26 years, in addition to that I am a chartered surveyor, so we know what we are doing with properties.

    By the way, in my particular circumstances there wouldn't actually be any cost in the case of the 'worse case scenario'. I own a much smaller house than the building plot could normally justify, in fact, it was a marginal decision not to demolish and rebuild. I just don't need the money, otherwise I would have done so, and if we actually wanted to stay in Dorking, we would have.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • chappers
    • By chappers 12th Oct 17, 8:41 PM
    • 2,708 Posts
    • 1,532 Thanks
    chappers
    , to put it in layman's terms it is like backing a 200/1 horse at 150/1, that is bad value, the value isn't anything to do with whether you claim or not, that is an unknown variable at the time of taking out insurance.
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    No it's not, there aren't variable risks, you either have an insurable event or you don't. it's not about value in the premiums or lack of them. its about value in the costs of rectifying the issue.
    as soon as an insurable event has happened all of the value between not paying a premium and paying one is lost, if the insurable event costs more than the premiums to repair.
    You haven't accrued money by assessing value, you have accrued money by assessing risk in this case.
    Most people are less able to take that risk on.

    As for the loss of your house not costing you anything because you would build something better and make more money from it. that is total rubbish, you could still do that except the outlay to yourself would be less.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 12th Oct 17, 9:23 PM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    No it's not, there aren't variable risks, you either have an insurable event or you don't. it's not about value in the premiums or lack of them. its about value in the costs of rectifying the issue.
    as soon as an insurable event has happened all of the value between not paying a premium and paying one is lost, if the insurable event costs more than the premiums to repair.
    You haven't accrued money by assessing value, you have accrued money by assessing risk in this case.
    Most people are less able to take that risk on.
    As for the loss of your house not costing you anything because you would build something better and make more money from it. that is total rubbish, you could still do that except the outlay to yourself would be less.
    Originally posted by chappers
    You simply don't understand do you, assessing risk, is assessing value! It is either value or not at the point of taking out (paying) the insurance (and assessing the risks), if you have enough money and are comfortable taking on the risk, then it is not value to pay for more than that risk, especially if there are exceptional circumstances about what the outcome would be). But I accept that although mathematically it is not strictly 'value', if you are not in a financial position to weather that cost, or if your attitude to risk means that you would be too uncomfortable taking that risk on, then I accept someone might perceive that it was value to pay more than the mere risk, because it makes them feel safe. But neither of those circumstances apply to us.

    I have already explained why we haven't demolished and rebuilt, because we really can't be bothered. The point I am making here is that rather than lose (what would be to most, but not us) our main asset (our home), which would be devastating to most, all it would mean to us, is inconvenience, we would have to go with plan b, i.e rebuild it.

    EDIT: Where do you get the justification for asking me if I have learning difficulties? I can accept that you have a different point of view, but why do you have to be such a pratt about it?
    Last edited by chucknorris; 12-10-2017 at 9:37 PM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • chappers
    • By chappers 12th Oct 17, 10:28 PM
    • 2,708 Posts
    • 1,532 Thanks
    chappers
    EDIT: Where do you get the justification for asking me if I have learning difficulties? I can accept that you have a different point of view, but why do you have to be such a pratt about it?
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    I apologise it was stupid, I didn't for a second believe that you did.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 13th Oct 17, 8:02 AM
    • 30,000 Posts
    • 17,929 Thanks
    getmore4less
    My house hasn't been insured for about 10 years. If it was somehow destroyed, I would build a new (and much better) house on the plot.
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 13th Oct 17, 8:10 AM
    • 5,934 Posts
    • 5,691 Thanks
    davidmcn
    What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    Then you'd have the same problem that you would if you had insurance.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 13th Oct 17, 8:12 AM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    Although possible, that isn't very likely, we are at the end of a cul-de-sac and it is a private road (so not really much in the public eye), and also the house has previously had planning permission for an extension to the front.

    All this is rather academic though, because we are actively looking to move, we know where we want to buy, and we are (im)patiently waiting for the right house to come onto the market. Because the new house:

    - will be in a different location

    - will be significantly more expensive

    - we will spend considerable time in Spain during the winter months

    - there will not be the smaller house on a large plot begging to be extended
    scenario

    - we will soon be changing (in fact, we have started already) our approach to our finances, and moving from investing for more, to a more protective approach to what we already have (I will be 60 in a few months), as we start to spend rather than accumulate.

    That will change our risk of having no insurance, so we are very likely to take out insurance cover on the new house.
    Last edited by chucknorris; 13-10-2017 at 8:26 AM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • westv
    • By westv 13th Oct 17, 8:45 AM
    • 4,327 Posts
    • 1,889 Thanks
    westv
    Ultimately, unless you're a multi millionaire, you'd be incredibly stupid not to insure your most valuable asset.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 13th Oct 17, 10:05 AM
    • 9,221 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    Ultimately, unless you're a multi millionaire, you'd be incredibly stupid not to insure your most valuable asset.
    Originally posted by westv
    Despite being a multi millionaire, we will still probably be insuring our next home, for the reasons that I stated above. Our current home isn't our most valuable asset, we have two other properties that are more valuable, but given the additional risk of investment property, they are insured. I'm not totally against insurance, it can be a useful product, particularly for people with pets who don't have a lot of money, and couldn't afford to pay for an expensive operation for their pet.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,629Posts Today

6,885Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin