Terraced House Building Ins...

FLAPJACK

Looking for some advice please.

Had a conversation regarding Building Insurance on a terraced property recently.

The person I was talking to has such a property and has said that if his neighbours either side had say a fire which damaged his property he would be able to claim on their insurance....and as such he sees no reason to buy his own buildings insurance.
Particularly as he has no mortgage on the property.

Is this correct?? I think he is confusing this insurance with car insurance.


I have looked on a few websites but this situation doesn't come up.

Just would be interested to see what the consensus is.

Cheers

Al1x

What if he had a fire?

p00hsticks

Al1x wrote: »

What if he had a fire?

Exactly. The thing to bear in mind with buildings insurance for terrace properties is that the costs involved can be higher than for an equivalent sized detached property. For example, if a terrace property suffered damage sufficent to mean that it needed to be demolished and/or rebuilt, then there would be additonal costs involved in ensuring that the surviving properties either side were shored up and internal walls made external.

I'm not an insurance expert, but it's always been my understanding that such costs would be borne by the owner / insurer of the property being demolished/rebuilt.

So with no buildings insurance, in te owrst case you stand to not only lose your home, but also have additional and expensive bills to pay.

FLAPJACK

Thats a qustion I asked too.....

He says that most of the time it will be unoccupied (although furnished as he will have relatives staying for short periods) and as he lives on the same road he will see (go in?) the property daily.

Now I am in a similar situation (thats how we started talking about the subject) except I live right nextdoor to our other property....will be knocking through in the new year.

Last/this year we without thinking insured the place and on the form mentioned that it was empty and was undergoing light refurbishment.

The insurer would not touch it, told us we needed to go to a specialist company...we did and it cost a fortune. We explained that we live nextdoor (6 inches away really party wall) to no avail.

So I bought this up with him in what he is doing with his property with regard building insurance?, I got the answer as described.

Strangely the original insurer we went too told us that they could insure the place (contents/building) if it was furnished...not empty and not unoccupied for more that 30 days at a time.

So I'm wondering too now....I know the answer really is that we wil insure our place.....but not sure what I would do in his position....I take it that if anything did happen in his place he is willing to take the gamble and pay himself....but in his mind as I say he reckons he is covered by the neighbours either side.

p00hsticks

FLAPJACK wrote: »

I take it that if anything did happen in his place he is willing to take the gamble and pay himself....but in his mind as I say he reckons he is covered by the neighbours either side.

And wht if his neighbours are thinking the same way and not taking out insurance on the assumption that they will be covered by him ?

katejo

FLAPJACK wrote: »

Looking for some advice please.

Had a conversation regarding Building Insurance on a terraced property recently.

The person I was talking to has such a property and has said that if his neighbours either side had say a fire which damaged his property he would be able to claim on their insurance....and as such he sees no reason to buy his own buildings insurance.
Particularly as he has no mortgage on the property.

Is this correct?? I think he is confusing this insurance with car insurance.


I have looked on a few websites but this situation doesn't come up.

Just would be interested to see what the consensus is.

Cheers

I saw a recent discussion on here where the plumbing had failed in an upstairs flat and had done serious damage to the downstairs flat. The occupant of the lower flat thought that the owner of the upstairs flat was responsible and should cover the cost/claim on insurance. However he/she was advised that they had to claim on their own insurance. the owner of the upper flat would only have to pay if proven negligent which was very difficult to prove (even if true).

Does your friend really want to risk losing his house?