Which companies should I try?

roqchiq

I'm in the process of buying a house. (1980s, 3 bed, detached)

I got a Homebuyers report which contained the following (slightly) concerning paragraph:

"The porch is in fair condition but some repairs are required for example there is evidence of movement between the porch and the main building. Repair works could be costly and estimates should be obtained before a commitment to purchase."

I spoke to the surveyor and it seems that as the porch is a later addition it has simply settled on its foundations. It seems to be a common problem. It won't affect the main house but I should let any insurance company know about it.

However as soon as I mention "evidence of movement" to insurers they don't want to know, even when I explain the situation.

Admittedly I have only spoken to 2 companies so far (Halifax and Legal & General) but I get the feeling most others will say the same.

To save me ringing rounds dozens of companies, can anybody suggest some insurers who may be interested? Or some general advice on the issue in general would help. Thank you!

mikey72

It depends how you phrase it.

Try stating it as

"the porch was added later, and it appears to have been built badly and leant away from the main house, and cracked from the wall. You could also tell them you're considering knocking it down, and re-building it at a later stage"

If they question further, and want to see the report fair enough.
Just so long as there is no evidence of movement in the main house, and it's only the porch that has moved you should be ok.

They won't entertain a claim for the porch later though, and to be honest, you wouldn't want to claim, as you'll struggle to insure again if you did.

rs65

I think you need to get a bit more info from the surveyor, or perhaps a builder.

I had a flat a few years ago which "showed historic signs of movement but no evidence of recent movement". I never had a problem with insurance.

mikey72

rs65 wrote: »

I think you need to get a bit more info from the surveyor, or perhaps a builder.

I had a flat a few years ago which "showed historic signs of movement but no evidence of recent movement". I never had a problem with insurance.

I think every house I've ever owned has said that.

I've never declared it to any insurer, as I've never even thought to associate it with subsidence.
All houses settle from new.

rs65

mikey72 wrote: »

I think every house I've ever owned has said that.

I've never declared it to any insurer, as I've never even thought to associate it with subsidence.
All houses settle from new.

That's what I mean - more info is required from surveyor or builder. The question asked by insurers is along the lines of 'has you home ever suffered from subsidence or in a subsidence area'.

If it is just settling on foundations then I don't see why it needs to be declared.

bouncydog1

You could try finding out from the existing owners who the insurers are and approach them.

However agree with everyone else - you need to find out the extent of the damage and what it is going to cost to fix. Depending on the outcome, you may then want to renegotiate what you are paying for the property to account for this.

Alternatively, if it is subsidence and you want the house, then you would have to get the existing owners to contact their insurers to claim under their policy.

*Scarlett

If it does turn out to be subsidence there are companies that will consider cover after the problem has been rectified.

Maybe try http://www.homeprotect.co.uk/home-insurance/subsidence-insurance.aspx

I agree that the first thing you should do is get a more detailed report on this if you have your heart set on the house, to establish exactly what is happening with the porch.

roqchiq

Thanks for the advice. We're currently taking a 2 pronged approach - going to get a structural engineer to look at it and suss out exactly what we're dealing with and ask an insurance broker to do some of hte leg work for us.

roqchiq

Update: got another report done, specifically looking at the porch. It said several reassuring things (to my mind), such as 'there is no evidence that the movement of the porch has affected the main body of the house' 'there does not appear to be any sign of recent movement'. It noted that the pointing was of poor quality and needed replacing but that's not a big job.

HOWEVER the one insurance company I could get to consider the report (homeprotect) focused on this sentence 'from a single inspection it is not possible to say if the movement is ongoing' and although they're willing to offer us insurance it excludes all subsidence, heave or landslip and the premium is very high. They warned us that the mortgage company might not be happy with the exclusion.

So, where do I go from here? Can anyone recommend any other insurance companies who might give us a better price? Should I flag this up with the mortgage provider or could that cause even more problems? Fell like I'm banging my head against a brick wall at the moment.

kingstreet

Use a broker.

In a similar situation, I'd put the paperwork to the GI providers we use and see what they say.

roqchiq

Have had several brokers on the case over the past few days. All premiums are coming back at roughly double the cost of standard insurance, plus there's an exclusion on subsidence.

Anyone know how mortgage companies react to these sorts of exclusions? Will they accept it or run scared?