We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How to insure property I won't be moving into straight away?
Options

poorlittlefish
Posts: 346 Forumite


I'm due to complete on a house purchase in the next couple of weeks but as it's located on the other side of the country I need to secure employment there before I can consider leaving my job and completely upping sticks. Most of my furniture and belongings will be going to the new house as I'll be staying with a relative until I can move there permanently, but I'll be going to the house for at least one long weekend a month.
My current home insurance says the property can be left unoccupied for up to 45 days, so I thought that, as I'll be staying at the new place at least once a month, I would be able to get it transferred over because it won't ever be left unoccupied for longer than that. The insurance company, though, said they'd spoken to the underwriters who said they can't insure it because the house won't be my main residence.
That's the background, which leads onto a couple of questions:
a) Does them telling me this count as me having been "refused insurance" and have to be declared if I obtain quotes from comparison sites etc?
b) Where does this leave me in terms of being able to get insurance? What do other people do when they've bought a property and need to insure it but can't move in straight away? I am being honest by saying the house won't be left unoccupied for 45 days in a row, particularly when the insurance company doesn't put a limit on how often this can happen, but no, it won't be my main home until I find work.
Many thanks.
My current home insurance says the property can be left unoccupied for up to 45 days, so I thought that, as I'll be staying at the new place at least once a month, I would be able to get it transferred over because it won't ever be left unoccupied for longer than that. The insurance company, though, said they'd spoken to the underwriters who said they can't insure it because the house won't be my main residence.
That's the background, which leads onto a couple of questions:
a) Does them telling me this count as me having been "refused insurance" and have to be declared if I obtain quotes from comparison sites etc?
b) Where does this leave me in terms of being able to get insurance? What do other people do when they've bought a property and need to insure it but can't move in straight away? I am being honest by saying the house won't be left unoccupied for 45 days in a row, particularly when the insurance company doesn't put a limit on how often this can happen, but no, it won't be my main home until I find work.
Many thanks.
0
Comments
-
I've just been through the same thing. You need unoccupied buildings insurance. There's a few that specialise so try a search on google.
It's not cheap though unfortunately, mine is currently £65 a month.
Edit: I've always wondered about the 'refused insurance' question. One of my friends had car insurance refused recently because of non-standard alloys on his vehicle. Surely this wouldn't count as being 'refused' insurance though as almost no-one will insure you ever again if you declare this. Can anyone clarify this as i'd be interested to know as well?0 -
In both cases, isn't it more accurate to say that it was the house/car that insurance was refused on rather than the person? It seems extraordinarily unfair to have to declare a "refusal" if you've asked for a quote from one insurance company who happen not to provide cover, say, to property near water, when others do.
I found that Home Protect can insure my new place for £24 per month - more than twice the "normal" price but worth it for peace of mind.0 -
I think you realistically need to insure this as unoccupied, but specify how much you expect to be there. Most home insurance is rated on the property being your main residence, and the '45 days' you refer to is likely to be based on residents being on holiday, away at weekends etc. rather than the property being unoccupied the majority of the time.
Unoccupied buildings insurance is much more expensive, but unfortunately the risk is far greater so this is to be expected. Definitely go ahead and get yourself the right level of cover required, and keep your insurers informed of any changes in circumstance regarding the property. Might be best speaking to a local broker to place this for you, as there could be some finer details to make apparent with your proposed occupancy.
Also:
I think what you are referring to is declined insurance, rather than an insurer not providing a quote. What insurers are getting at with this question is 'have you ever provided false information or made a fraudulent claim?' (or a host of other things, I'm sure we can think up!), but not simply being 'refused' a quote. Unfortunately we all use different terms for this, but essentially as long as you haven't had insurance cancelled or declined you can answer no.
Hope this helps - other board members, please correct add/change anything as required0 -
Yes, that's what I meant so I'm glad to hear I wouldn't be dihonest ny answering "no" to that question - thanks.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards