Short term unoccupied insurance - advice?

sueizzie

(I put this in the thread about unoccupied insurance but am copying it in a new thread as I thought it may get more responses, hope this is okay.)

I would appreciate any advice on this.

I am selling an unoccupied house and the sale is due to complete in the next few weeks.

My current buildings insurance runs out before we can complete. This was the insurance that I took out a year ago when the house was occupied - the company agreed to cover the unoccupied property without additional charge. However they will not offer a renewal as they don't deal with unoccupied properties.

I am now being quoted £200-£300 for 3, 6, and 12 month periods by the specialist companies. I am also getting conflicting advice whether I can insure for less than 12 months with less than minimum security requirements (which is the case with this house)

I am reluctant to end up paying £300 for maybe 2 weeks' insurance, with no way of knowing exactly how much refund I would get on an annual payment.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Quentin

If you have exchanged contracts then the purchaser is responsible for insuring his property.

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

If you have exchanged contracts then the purchaser is responsible for insuring his property.

This is exceptionally dangerous advice and you should ignore. The danger with these forums is that there are many armchair experts who actually know very little.

The purchaser has an interest to insure the house because he has exchanged contracts, and he should be insured because, technically, if the house burnt down between exchange and completion, he would still be required to complete.

However, if the purchaser doesnt go through with the sale and pay the balance, and the house is damaged, it's you who will have the primary interest and will need to repair the damage, therefore, you must/should ensure that you continue cover until completion.

DM

Dangermac

sueizzie wrote: »

(I put this in the thread about unoccupied insurance but am copying it in a new thread as I thought it may get more responses, hope this is okay.)

I would appreciate any advice on this.

I am selling an unoccupied house and the sale is due to complete in the next few weeks.

My current buildings insurance runs out before we can complete. This was the insurance that I took out a year ago when the house was occupied - the company agreed to cover the unoccupied property without additional charge. However they will not offer a renewal as they don't deal with unoccupied properties.

I am now being quoted £200-£300 for 3, 6, and 12 month periods by the specialist companies. I am also getting conflicting advice whether I can insure for less than 12 months with less than minimum security requirements (which is the case with this house)

I am reluctant to end up paying £300 for maybe 2 weeks' insurance, with no way of knowing exactly how much refund I would get on an annual payment.

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Unless you can get an insurer to do you a favour, it's likely that your best option will be the specialist unoccupied property market. Yes, it will be expensive. Just the nature of the risk really.

You can choose not to insure, but that could be a costly saving if something were to happen. How's your luck?

DM

sueizzie

Dangermac wrote: »

How's your luck?

DM

My luck's rubbish so not insuring is not an option!

Thanks for all the advice. I'm now thinking I may be able to complete within the 14 day cool off period (as someone in the other thread pointed out) which may solve my problems...

Quentin

Dangermac wrote: »

This is exceptionally dangerous advice and you should ignore. The danger with these forums is that there are many armchair experts who actually know very little.......

Hey "clever" man.

The OP asked for "any advice on this".

Why make such inflammatory comments instead of just adding your advice? (You have "form" for this - see your totally unneccessary and unpleasant reference to another member - there is no need for it:

Dangermac wrote:

I appreciate that you are possibly not very intelligent

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60257603#Comment_60257603

You spout your unnecessary and unpleasant opinion on me being ignorant, when in fact the advice is totally correct.

Here is a reference from the Cheltenham and Gloucester on insuring a property after exchange (their advice seems almost word for word similar) :

http://www.cheltglos.co.uk/guides/first-time-buyer-guide/completing.html

Once you have exchanged contracts, you (the buyer) are responsible for the property’s buildings insurance.

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

Hey "clever" man.

The OP asked for "any advice on this".

Why make such inflammatory comments instead of just adding your advice? (You have "form" for this - see your totally unneccessary and unpleasant reference to another member - there is no need for it:



https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/60257603#Comment_60257603

You spout your unnecessary and unpleasant opinion on me being ignorant, when in fact the advice is totally correct.

Here is a reference from the Cheltenham and Gloucester on insuring a property after exchange (their advice seems almost word for word similar) :

http://www.cheltglos.co.uk/guides/first-time-buyer-guide/completing.html

You are wrong, and continue to give dodgy advice, which is extremely dangerous.

You speak with authority, but if the OP listened to you, and something happened to their house, they would have a problem.

The buyer is, indeed, responsible for having buildings insurance upon exchange, however, that doesnt mean that the seller should cancel theirs with gay abandon. The seller continues to have a financial interest and therefore an insurable interest, until the sale is completed. If the seller were to cancel cover upon exchange, they would be exposed.

Feel free to trawl up previous posts. I always say it as I see it, but ultimately my responses are pretty sound, unlike some posters.

DM

Senior_Paper_Monitor

I spend a good chunk of my life arranging (and researching) this stuff - Dangermac is correct.

The Cheltenham and Gloucester advice is clearly aimed solely at the purchaser and is correct in that light (and that light only).

Any advice to a vendor to cease cover prior to a completion would be extremely unwise - and if the property being sold is mortgaged a clear and direct breach of the terms of the mortgage (the responsibility to ensure is clearly with the borrower and cannot be transferred)

Quentin

Dangermac wrote: »

You are wrong, and continue to give dodgy advice, which is extremely dangerous......

The buyer is, indeed, responsible for having buildings insurance upon exchange, however, that doesnt mean that the seller should cancel theirs with gay abandon. The seller continues to have a financial interest and therefore an insurable interest, until the sale is completed. If the seller were to cancel cover upon exchange, they would be exposed.

Where is the dangerous advice I have given?

Where have I advised the OP to cancel?

I see you don't retract your rude suggestion. You say you post "as you see it", but were you to speak to people face to face the way you bravely post here you'd soon get a smack in the face.

People don't take kindly to being called ignorant/not very intelligent by a self assessed "very sound" keyboard warrior.

Maybe we'll meet up in the pub one day, and see who is brave then!

Quentin

Senior_Paper_Monitor wrote: »

.....Any advice to a vendor to cease cover prior to a completion would be extremely unwise

Where have I (or anyone else) given such advice?

Dangermac

Quentin wrote: »

Where have I (or anyone else) given such advice?

You post #2 seems to give the impression that you are advising that it is unnecessary for the OP to insure following exchange.

If that isnt what you were saying, I am at a loss to understand why you then attempted to back this up in a subsequent with a link to a web site.

In summary, both parties have a distinct and seperate financial interest to insure, between exchange and completion. Either party would be taking a risk not to insure.

DM