Mis-sold Buildings Insurance from a Broker

jagger-76

Hi, I've recently been mis-sold Buildings Insurance from an Insurance Broker. My house has previously suffered from Subsidence but after several reports from Structural Surveyors and Engineers that property was given the all clear. I instructed a Broker to find me a suitable Insurer to insure the property for subsidence in future (providing all the relevant reports) which they did. I stipulated within the demands and needs statement that the property was unoccupied. I paid the annual fee and renewed after 12 months. Recently the property was in the process of a sale and as part of this process, the purchasers engineer report highlighted that there could be 'potential' subsidence in a crack in an adjoining wall which needed investigation. I informed my Insurer only to learn that I was NOT covered!!! The Insurers had added a 'unoccupied' clause which was not mentioned by the Broker. Where do I stand in trying to get compensation for being mis-sold the product in the first place from the Broker?
Can I get my money back? Can I take this further?

dacouch

What evidence do you have of you instrusting the broker you required subsidence and the property was unoccupied.

What address were the broker sending correspondence to you at eg the insured address or another address?

jagger-76

Hi, I filled in an application form which stipulated that it was unoccupied. I sent all the reports via email when stipulating I needed cover for subsidence, I also made several trips to their offices to clarify details and pay upfront!

They sent all correspondence to my current address (i.e not the address of the property insured)

Faith177

Was this clause on you policy documents?

jagger-76

yes, but the wording was very confusing as it stated that cover was 'restricted to' 2 events which didn't include subsidence yet in the statement of demands and needs it said subsidence was included along with what the excess was. At no point did the Brokers raise this with me before purchasing.

dacouch

Probably best for InsideInsurance or Magpie to answer this one

rs65

'Unoccupied clauses' are fairly standard for unoccupied properties.

What did the clause actually say?

Just because you tell a broker what you need, doesn't mean it is available from an insurer. A broker can take your details and make a recommendation - which may or may not meet your demands and needs. Do you have a document providing the recommendation and does it have a section saying why they are recommending the policy/insurer?

jagger-76

Well I started the conversation with the broker saying that aviva would offer me cover but only if the property was occupied!
Why would I purchase this policy if I wasn't covered? Yes this policy is the one they recommended via email and in person. No they didn't offer me reasons why I should buy this one over another one as this was the only insurer they came up with that would cover me. I went to a broker to save time and use their expertise! In my opinion they didn't read the document or clause properly and were too interested in the sale - and their commission !

dacouch

Which broker is it

jagger-76

Hi, I'd rather not say at the moment. It's a local firm. I've contacted the FSA and the broker are investigating internally. Just wanted to get another view and to see if this had happened to anyone else.

ihateyes

im assuming you never read your t&c's?