Home with Subsidence History - Building Insurance

eastendanto

Been in my house now 20 odd years and when I first moved in the front off the house had been underpinned. Ever since I've been held hostage to my current Buildings Insurance provider for exorbitant annual rates for Buildings cover. In truth if a house is underpinned it's actually less likely to suffer from subsidence as it is has substantially stronger foundations etc.... Anyway every couple of years I trawl all the usual suspects along with some brokers to see if they can get the cost down but either get rejected outright or quoted more than I'm actually paying now. A couple of years back I had a buildings survey carried out to help my case but did not do the trick, still tied to my current exorbitant Insurer. Wonder if anyone has any ideas on this subject or had success in finding an insurer with reasonable prices for a building that has previously suffered partial subsidence?

Cheers

T

desthemoaner

Must admit, I find this a bizarre aspect of the insurance industry's attitude to subsidence. You had the problem fixed but as soon as you mention the fact, they won't touch you? !!!!!!?


One option (which worked for me) is to obtain a structural survey report that gives your building a clean bill of health so that you can tell insurance companies, when seeking quotes, that there is no longer an issue. Some will still run a mile when you mention it; some will be sensible but may still want to see the report. In my experience, UIA proved to be sensible, Churchill and Lloyds TSB too, but obviously that could depend on your individual circumstances.

So the bad news is that you need to spend several hundred quid on a survey in order to save a lot less on your insurance. However, if you can get a good initial quote from an insurer who accepts the risk on the basis of your survey, you may in fact get most of that money back if you stay with them for a few years and manage to negotiate a good annual premium.

However..edit... I see that you've already obtained a survey but it hasn't helped. Check with UIA in particular: they were very reasonable about the issue of movement when I called them.

Good luck!

vaio

There is one insurer that only asks about subsidence claims in the past 15 years

Trawl through old subsidence insurance threads and I'm sure you'll find the company concerned

rs65

desthemoaner wrote: »

Must admit, I find this a bizarre aspect of the insurance industry's attitude to subsidence. You had the problem fixed but as soon as you mention the fact, they won't touch you? !!!!!!?

I was looking at a problem last week where the house had underpinning work done 13 years ago and has developed a new problem. Fixing a problem isn't a guarantee that it will never have a problem again.

dacouch

rs65 wrote: »

I was looking at a problem last week where the house had underpinning work done 13 years ago and has developed a new problem. Fixing a problem isn't a guarantee that it will never have a problem again.

Especially if only part of the house is underpinned as you then end up with one side of the house stronger than the other that can cause subsidence problems at a later date

desthemoaner

rs65 wrote: »

I was looking at a problem last week where the house had underpinning work done 13 years ago and has developed a new problem. Fixing a problem isn't a guarantee that it will never have a problem again.

Perhaps in such cases, then, insurers could provide a buildings policy which excludes subsidence insurance but covers all other risks. Either that, or impose a much higher subsidence excess where a property has been underpinned.

dacouch

desthemoaner wrote: »

Perhaps in such cases, then, insurers could provide a buildings policy which excludes subsidence insurance but covers all other risks. Either that, or impose a much higher subsidence excess where a property has been underpinned.

Which would make the property unmortgageable

rs65

desthemoaner wrote: »

Perhaps in such cases, then, insurers could provide a buildings policy which excludes subsidence insurance but covers all other risks. Either that, or impose a much higher subsidence excess where a property has been underpinned.

Regardless of what insurers offer, subsidence can be one of the highest severity claims one can face.

Excluding such a risk on what is likely to be anyone's most valuable asset would be foolhardy in my opinion.

*Scarlett

Insurers will normally ask about subsidence within the last 10 years, 25 years or ever.

If you can find one that is not concerned about a subsidence claim 20 years ago the you should be able to get a "normal" quote.

You may have to do a bit of searching online.

Or maybe try

http://www.homeprotect.co.uk/property-condition/subsidence-insurance

http://www.adrianflux.co.uk/subsidence/

desthemoaner

dacouch wrote: »

Which would make the property unmortgageable

As would making it uninsurable.

desthemoaner

rs65 wrote: »

Regardless of what insurers offer, subsidence can be one of the highest severity claims one can face.

Excluding such a risk on what is likely to be anyone's most valuable asset would be foolhardy in my opinion.[/QUOT

I don't think the risk can be excluded: that remark should have had a smiley next to it.
However, I DO believe its feasible to provide subsidence insurance on a house which has been underpinned by imposing a higher excess.