Buildings insurance post subsidence

Eleanorb_2

Hello.
I am the leaseholder of a flat in a Victorian semi and I've lived there for a year. The freeholder of the building lives in the other flat in the house. He pays /extortionate/ buildings insurance, and I have to pay half of it. It's around 1,400 per year, so £700 for me! I'm paying the same buildings insurance for my flat that a friend's mum pays for her huge 18th century house in the country!
Part of the reason why it's so expensive is that in 1997 there was some underpinning done after subsidence problems, so of course they put the premiums up. A lot of N. London Victorian houses have suffered from this. There haven't been any problems or claims since though.
According to the freeholder, the other reason it's so high is that there's a leaseholder in the building - me. I don't know why that should make any difference.
Anyway, I am friendly with the freeholder, and he's happy for me to research cheaper options (I guess he's not that optimistic or he'd do it himself). Has anyone any advice? And does anyone know if it would make any difference to insurers if my name was actually on the policy along with the freeholder's? Would the insurers somehow trust me more and charge us less if everyone in the building was officially responsible for paying?!
Many thanks for any advice.
This looks like a great site and I've already saved on my bank account and utitilities!

shudder

Its always best to stay with the same insurer if there has been previous subsidence at the property.

You can try elsewhere however you will probably have difficulty as a number of North London postcodes fall into subsidence areas. And with the recent hot summers there is also the shrinkage aspect which heightens the risk particularly if the property has had subsidence rectification in the last 10/15 years.

Any insurer you do approach may ask for an up to date survey of the building so they can access their risk properly.

Obviously taking into account the cost of a full structural survey may negate any premium saving you obtain.

Eleanorb_2

Thanks for this - but /why/ is it best to stick with the same insurers if they're so extortionate? I realise that our premiums will always be high because of the N. London subsidence area and the problem ten years ago. But given it /is/ a ten year old problem I can't believe we can't get a better deal.

raskazz

Eleanorb wrote: »

Thanks for this - but /why/ is it best to stick with the same insurers if they're so extortionate? I realise that our premiums will always be high because of the N. London subsidence area and the problem ten years ago. But given it /is/ a ten year old problem I can't believe we can't get a better deal.

The insurers who corrected the previous subsidence will have already carried out a post-underpinning survey as part of the claim. They will therefore already have complete information regarding the work which was carried out and the likelihood of any further loss.

Other insurers will not have access to this information unless you provide them with a structural surveyor's report - which costs £££s.

In the absence of a recent structural surveyor's report, other insurers will of course generally decline cover or offer mammoth premiums.