best and worst home insurance

thebullsback

Hi ,my home insurance ( Building and Contents ) is due for renewal .
Have looked on comparison sites and see many company's I'm not familiar with so I was wondering if people out there had any ones they like or dislike ????
thanks for reading .

stator

http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/reviews-ns/home-insurance/recommended-providers/

I try to avoid brokers as they have high admin fees and making changes is a nightmare. If you have a well known insurer who are a decent price stick with them.

WaxiesDargle

I'm the same thebull...Halifax want £641 for renewal...just been on go compare and the difference in prices is staggering...even Halifax for the exact same building and contents is way cheaper than the renewal

Bit of a quandary which to choose....like you, I've never heard of some of them, better get my skates on though, my renewal date is on Thursday!

WaxiesDargle

Just did my policy on line, still with the halifax but not the £641 they wanted for renewal but £253.. This is paying monthy with no interest charges

InsideInsurance

How do you define "best"?

Do you really need the hole in one cover that most of the top end HNW policies give?

If you deem best and worst to be based on levels of cover then have a look at Defaqto's star ratings but remember that like hotel star ratings not all policies with the same star ratings will be equal as that is the anomoly of ratings

Rossim1985

stator wrote: »

http://www.which.co.uk/money/insurance/reviews-ns/home-insurance/recommended-providers/

I try to avoid brokers as they have high admin fees and making changes is a nightmare. If you have a well known insurer who are a decent price stick with them.

Decent brokers (my current and previous firms included :T ) will often not charge any admin fees. If one of my clients wants to make a policy change, they phone me up on my direct dial (no call centre rubbish) or email me (again directly). I change it and send it back usually within a day or two, or a couple of hours sometimes if it's urgent.

Brokers give people expert knowledge and advice, plus access to more comprehensive insurances that are not sold directly to the public. We're not all bad you know!

FlameCloud

Rossim1985 wrote: »

Brokers give people expert knowledge and advice, plus access to more comprehensive insurances that are not sold directly to the public. We're not all bad you know!

Whilst some do, I disagree that majority of brokers have the expert knowledge required to deal with really technical aspects of policy cover. For example, very few brokers will understand the (critical) difference between the a policy definition of gross profit and an accountants definition of gross profit, leading in most cases to substantial under insurance in their clients BI. This is then compounded by failing to understand the true indemnity period required to recover from a total loss.

Even domestically, I again dont really agree that they are 'experts'. I met on site the other week a broker who likes to give it the big 'I am' to his clients yet his knowledge of policy cover is limited, beyond simply complaining when he doesnt understand. He told his client that trace and access cover was for finding lost things around the world (rather than admit he didn't know) and then went on to reassure them that a new law prevented insurers from declining a claim if it were ever to leave the insured upset in any way.

rudekid48

FlameCloud wrote: »

Whilst some do, I disagree that majority of brokers have the expert knowledge required to deal with really technical aspects of policy cover. For example, very few brokers will understand the (critical) difference between the a policy definition of gross profit and an accountants definition of gross profit, leading in most cases to substantial under insurance in their clients BI. This is then compounded by failing to understand the true indemnity period required to recover from a total loss.

Even domestically, I again dont really agree that they are 'experts'. I met on site the other week a broker who likes to give it the big 'I am' to his clients yet his knowledge of policy cover is limited, beyond simply complaining when he doesnt understand. He told his client that trace and access cover was for finding lost things around the world (rather than admit he didn't know) and then went on to reassure them that a new law prevented insurers from declining a claim if it were ever to leave the insured upset in any way.

Like any industry, there are good and bad brokers. In my line of work I deal with many brokers and insurers and there are idiots in both camps. It does seem to follow that the bigger the insurer/broker the more likely you are to run up against a bungling idiot or jobsworth, but that is true in all industries.

eddddy

Rossim1985 wrote: »

...
Brokers give people expert knowledge and advice, plus access to more comprehensive insurances that are not sold directly to the public. We're not all bad you know!

I'm sure some do, where there's enough fees to make it worth their while.

When my home insurance renewal quote was touching £2000, my local independent brokers just shrugged their shoulders and said they couldn't find anything cheaper. (They also indicated that their commission would be about £500 on the renewal.)

All they ever seemed to do was type my details into a 'quote engine' whilst I sat in front of them, and read out the quotes that came back.

So I did my own research and I went direct to an insurer (that performed better in 'most league tables' than my current insurer) and paid £400 for the year.

ETA:

(If the policy the broker was offering was more comprehensive, they never explained how, even when I said I intended to go to another insurer. And I read the all the policy documents from cover to cover and I couldn't see any significant difference.)

Rossim1985

FlameCloud wrote: »

Whilst some do, I disagree that majority of brokers have the expert knowledge required to deal with really technical aspects of policy cover. For example, very few brokers will understand the (critical) difference between the a policy definition of gross profit and an accountants definition of gross profit, leading in most cases to substantial under insurance in their clients BI. This is then compounded by failing to understand the true indemnity period required to recover from a total loss.

Even domestically, I again dont really agree that they are 'experts'. I met on site the other week a broker who likes to give it the big 'I am' to his clients yet his knowledge of policy cover is limited, beyond simply complaining when he doesnt understand. He told his client that trace and access cover was for finding lost things around the world (rather than admit he didn't know) and then went on to reassure them that a new law prevented insurers from declining a claim if it were ever to leave the insured upset in any way.

It's worth having a read of the outcome of recent court case that found in favour of the broker - Eurokey vs Giles. http://www.mills-reeve.com/eurokey/. However as you say a broker providing cover for financial losses should (I hope!) understand the differences outlined above. That being said however, brokers are by definition not accountants and it is the insured's responsibility to provide accurate sums insured.

The second paragraph above horrified me though! Trace and access cover was for finding lost things around the world?! :eek:

That is really really poor and someone who doesn't know insurance basics like that shouldn't be out seeing clients, or probably even answering the phone! I'm sure that's the exception rather than the norm. There can't be many people that are that stupid working in the industry!

Also they can't decline if they are upset? What? Are you sure you heard correctly? I can't believe anyone who actually thought that could be employed in any insurance based company!

Rossim1985

eddddy wrote: »

I'm sure some do, where there's enough fees to make it worth their while.

When my home insurance renewal quote was touching £2000, my local independent brokers just shrugged their shoulders and said they couldn't find anything cheaper. (They also indicated that their commission would be about £500 on the renewal.)

All they ever seemed to do was type my details into a 'quote engine' whilst I sat in front of them, and read out the quotes that came back.

So I did my own research and I went direct to an insurer (that performed better in 'most league tables' than my current insurer) and paid £400 for the year.

ETA:

(If the policy the broker was offering was more comprehensive, they never explained how, even when I said I intended to go to another insurer. And I read the all the policy documents from cover to cover and I couldn't see any significant difference.)

That's a shame and shows a poor attitude from the broker. Where I work we don't use any automated tools. These are generally for lower end package policies that your high street broker might use, the London Market is quite different. I actually do some of the underwriting myself within certain delegated authority limits. I quite enjoy it, and it makes my job more interesting.

For your average 3 bed semi that you see up and down the country I agree there is no point in using a broker. The exception being if you had a property with a poor claims history or were located in a high flood area where a broker will be worthwhile. Or of course if you really wanted the absolute best possible policy cover.

Brokers (certainly on the property side) are really more useful for portfolio's of properties, blocks of flats or commercial buildings.