Buying house currently unoccupied and possibly not insured

domyorks

Hello, first time poster here..

I am in the process of buying a house (I'm currently renting) and hope to exchange in the next week or two. I have just received the seller's questionnaire from my solicitor and was a little alarmed when the question 'Does the seller insure the property?' was answered 'No'. The house is empty as the seller moved in with his partner a few months ago and then put the house up for sale.

I am planning to insure the house from exchange as required by the mortgage lender, but it seems odd to me that the house may be uninsured at the moment, given that the seller still owns it. Obviously in the event of a fire or other damage/loss before exchange I would probably just pull out of the purchase, but is this something I should question with the seller via the estate agent? Or it is basically none of my business until I actually exchange? Would anyone else be concerned in this situation?

Thanks in advance..

G_M

Why do you care?

Insurance is optional (unless you have a mortgage).

Nip round the day you Exchange to check it has not burnt down (in fact it's always wise to inspect anyway - the seller is conractually obliged to hand over the property in the condition it was at on date of Exchange, not when you last viewed it).

Of course, if it is uninsurable for some reason, that would be a concern. But you've had a survey?

domyorks

Thanks, I guess I was just a bit surprised the seller took the risk of not insuring it, but yes I suppose it doesn't really affect me until I exchange. I was thinking about doing a final viewing pre-exchange but I think I am even more likely to now, just to make sure its still in the appropriate condition.

Road_Hog

domyorks wrote: »

Thanks, I guess I was just a bit surprised the seller took the risk of not insuring it,

Cost and insurance conditions will be the reason. You kind of have three levels of insurance. Normal home insurance, then landlord insurance (more expensive) and then short term unoccupied insurance (more expensive again).

The unoccupied insurance has three levels again, something like fire & earthquakes, that plus theft & vandalism and then one that covers burst pipes etc. You really need the last one, as that is probably your greatest worry.

On top of that, you must visit the property one a week, insure that any post is collect and that the garden is kept tidy, i.e. make it look like someone is still living there. Those conditions plus the fact that it is expensive (you'll pay for three months for what you'd normally insure a property for a year) makes people take the risk. Personally I paid up, don't know how I'd live with myself if something worth hundreds of thousands of pounds got obliterated.

Lifeforms

As has been said above. The seller may not have actually been able to insure it. When I was selling my flat and moving out prior to initial first market date I had to pretty much beg my insurance company to cover it un-occupied. They would only do it for 6 months max, at a premium (not a massive one albeit, just a few quid over my normal monthly amount, and it dropped anyway as it was empty, and I dropped the contents, just had building).

I also had caveats about checking twice a week, water off till X winter month then i had to heat and keep running water to stop freezing. All windows must be shut and locked (with locks purchased for those with none) double lock on front door.
I think the fact it was in a low/no crime area, and off the road helped. I could also tell them even if I didn't check it, it would be checked pretty much twice weekly by parents who lived close by to it.
It went through to underwriters for confirmation/agreement with all those agreements and came back as a we don't normally do it, but... Maybe loyalty of 8 years insurance with them, but did have a storm damage claim under 3 years previously.

No way any other company would even start to cover that had they not agreed.

What I had found very amusing was they couldn't quote me for insurance in the new place for unknown reason.

Newly_retired

We are in the process of buying a house, but not selling this one yet.
We need to get a new boiler and some other work done on the new one , and also some work done on this one before we put it on the market a few weeks later.
So as far as insurance is concerned, am I right in thinking I need to insure the new one from date of exchange, and should that be building and contents , or building only?
Will that be cheaper than declaring it totally unoccupied? We plan to move in stages, so once the heating workmen are out we will start to move in.
The two houses are 70 miles apart.
Any helpful thoughts?