Declare or not to declare subsidence that occured over 25 yrs ago?

Lady_K

I live in an old mining town and like most of this area my house has subsidence from old mines that were closed in around 1979. Claims were made for the damage by the previous occupant in around 1979 and 1984 and they excepted a final payment so no one else could ever claim. I moved into the house in 1989.

I have been declaring the old subsidence for house buildings and contents insurance but I have been told today that after 25 years you don't have to declare it, is this the case?

Because of the old subsidence using sites like confused.com has not been suitable because if you put subsidence down they will either not cover you at all or the cost is absolutely massive so I have had to go to a local broker up till now.

What happens though if I use one of the online insurance quote sites as I am sure they ask the question 'does the property have subsidence or has previously had subsidence' even if I am not obliged to declare old subsidence by putting no wouldnt it be classed as voiding the cover?

dunstonh

I have been told today that after 25 years you don't have to declare it, is this the case?

I think it depends on how the question is asked on the application. "Have you ever...." means just that. Or "in the last 10 years, have you......" means in the last 10 years.

I wouldnt go second guessing what you may or may not have to declare. You should answer just as the question asks.

antrobus

I always thought that insurance contracts were subject to the principle of 'uberrima fides', aka 'utmost good faith', where the insured is obliged to inform the insurer of any relevant fact. As a result, if you know that a property was subject to a subsidence claim in the past, and that a past history of subsidence would likely effect the premium quoted by an insurer (and is thus very material and relevant), then you are obliged to inform them of that fact irrespective of what question they ask you.

huckster

Lady_K wrote: »

Claims were made for the damage by the previous occupant in around 1979 and 1984 and they excepted a final payment so no one else could ever claim. I moved into the house in 1989. I have been declaring the old subsidence for house buildings and contents insurance but I have been told today that after 25 years you don't have to declare it, is this the case?

The claim would have been via the National Coal Board at the time who had responsibility for dealing with the first claim for any subsidence.

I think the 25 year rule is an urban myth which has spread, as some Insurers might look at providing cover once 25 years have passed without any further subsidence damage.

You will have to declare and will need to speak to companies/brokers. If you arrange cover online and don't mention it, if there was any problem with subsidence, I doubt Insurers would deal with any claim. A loss assessor would make enquiries and would find out about the previous subsidence issues.

dacouch

A good trick with these properties that were subject to National Coal Board subsidence claims is to speak to a local broker to you or a broker in an area of ex coal mining.

In these areas there were numerous properties affected by mining subsidence, there were probably a few in your road alone, they will have experience of handling them and will know which Insurers will be sympathetic to taking them on. I've seen quite a few taken on without any loading or terms, obviously depending on the exact circumstance of the individual property.

Avoid Swintons though

dunstonh

antrobus wrote: »

I always thought that insurance contracts were subject to the principle of 'uberrima fides', aka 'utmost good faith', where the insured is obliged to inform the insurer of any relevant fact. As a result, if you know that a property was subject to a subsidence claim in the past, and that a past history of subsidence would likely effect the premium quoted by an insurer (and is thus very material and relevant), then you are obliged to inform them of that fact irrespective of what question they ask you.

Whilst I agree with you on the principle, nowadays you find with complaints that the FOS looks at the wording and assumes the consumer is low knowledge. If you answer the question as it is worded then the FOS will usually side with you on the basis that you couldnt possibly know what the insurer wanted as an answer if they didnt ask that in the question.

There are examples of this sort of thing in the FOS publications.

studio_two

Lady_K wrote: »

I live in an old mining town and like most of this area my house has subsidence from old mines that were closed in around 1979. Claims were made for the damage by the previous occupant in around 1979 and 1984 and they excepted a final payment so no one else could ever claim. I moved into the house in 1989.

Any idea what remedial work was done?

As a youngster, I remember my parents receiving a "one-off ex gracia" payment for "subsidence" around that time. It seemed like everyone in the area was applying, yet I never remember anything more than a lick of paint being applied here and there.

I'm sceptical as to whether or not there was ever a problem. In hindsight, it would have been better had these payments never been made.

adamc260

The insurer I work for asks the question

'Have you EVER sustained loss or damage by subsidence, flood, heave or landslip'

I guess it depends on who you insure with, not sure if there is ever a cut off point (could be wrong though)

dacouch

adamc260 wrote: »

The insurer I work for asks the question

'Have you EVER sustained loss or damage by subsidence, flood, heave or landslip'

I guess it depends on who you insure with, not sure if there is ever a cut off point (could be wrong though)

If that's the only question they ask about subsidence, flood, heave and landslip then they must have ended up with a lot of people with subsidence, heave, flood and landslip on their books.

adamc260

dacouch wrote: »

If that's the only question they ask about subsidence, flood, heave and landslip then they must have ended up with a lot of people with subsidence, heave, flood and landslip on their books.

Low risk insurer, they probably rejected a lot of people with subsidence, heave, landslip and probably flood too

dacouch

adamc260 wrote: »

Low risk insurer, they probably rejected a lot of people with subsidence, heave, landslip and probably flood too

If that's the only question they asked, you could legitimately insure with them if you had bought a house that had suffered from flood, subsidence, heave or landslip