Is Buildings Insurance necessary?

pineapple

I'm looking at cutting costs - either buildings insurance or contents or both! Re buildings insurance, you have to insure for total re-building costs. Is this even likely? The main point imo is fixtures and fittings, fire and flooding but beware all the caveats and things they don't cover.
When I work out what I've paid over the years I could have re-fitted the whole house. Or maybe the buildings aspect is more important than the contents - if the contents aren't worth much. Opinions?

ACG

Its unlikely but look at it from the lenders point of view.

Your house is involved ina gas explosion.
You have 15 years left on your mortgage.
Are you going to re-pay it or are you going to say sod it - make me bankrupt.

Theyre then left with a bit of land with planning permission but no house.

Chances of it happening are slim but buildings insurance isnt that expensive, its the contents that ups the premium.

kingstreet

If you have a mortgage, you MUST insure the building. There will be terms and conditions set out, such as the lender's interest being noted and no subsidence excess over £1,000. All claims over £10k also have to be reported to the lender on a lot of mortgage T&Cs.

I pay £35 a month for £300k buildings cover with full accidental damage and £40k contents cover, also with full accidental damage cover. I have a low excess on both and insure a four bed detached.

Frankly, I couldn't replace the house or the contents in the event of a total loss so it's money well spent to me.

Bedroom-rated plans can work out cheaper than the alternative where you have to risk working out the rebuild cost on your own.

pineapple

kingstreet wrote: »

If you have a mortgage, you MUST insure the building.

Yes I do realise this thank you! One of the reasons I am thinking about it is I no longer have a mortgage.
But I pay about £240 p.a for buildings plus £60 for contents.
This for a mid 2 bed terrace @rebuilding £157,000
Margin for a better deal I think!

rs65

pineapple wrote: »

One of the reasons I am thinking about it is I no longer have a mortgage.

I would say that is a very good reason to have buildings insurance. You have bought the house over, say, 25 years and if it burnt to the ground tomorrow you would only have a piece of land.

Buildings and contents are equally important - a fire or flood could destroy both. I wouldn't like to be without either.

dacouch

rs65 wrote: »

I would say that is a very good reason to have buildings insurance. You have bought the house over, say, 25 years and if it burnt to the ground tomorrow you would only have a piece of land.

Buildings and contents are equally important - a fire or flood could destroy both. I wouldn't like to be without either.

Ironically for a large fire you would end up with a shell of a house that would mean you would have to spend thousands having it demolished before you could end up with the empty piece of land

thenudeone

dacouch wrote: »

Ironically for a large fire you would end up with a shell of a house that would mean you would have to spend thousands having it demolished before you could end up with the empty piece of land

And the authorities would take enforcement action against you until you rectified it.

opinions4u

False economy.

Shop round for cheaper cover by all means. But do insure your property.

kingstreet

pineapple wrote: »

Yes I do realise this thank you! One of the reasons I am thinking about it is I no longer have a mortgage

As you didn't mention this in your opening post, I thought it was worth covering for the benefit of anyone who may later search for this subject and find it useful.

Just_Some_Guy

You are one unexpected gas leak away from losing everything. Shop around for the lowest price but insure the dang house man!

(Almost happened to me: idiot builders replacing the water main caught the gas pipe with their digger, splitting it from the gas meter and filling the house with gas. One spark from a cat's fur and it would have blown!).