If I pay cash for a freehold terrace house do I legally need buildings insurance?

chucknorris

chappers wrote: »

No it's not, there aren't variable risks, you either have an insurable event or you don't. it's not about value in the premiums or lack of them. its about value in the costs of rectifying the issue.
as soon as an insurable event has happened all of the value between not paying a premium and paying one is lost, if the insurable event costs more than the premiums to repair.
You haven't accrued money by assessing value, you have accrued money by assessing risk in this case.
Most people are less able to take that risk on.
As for the loss of your house not costing you anything because you would build something better and make more money from it. that is total rubbish, you could still do that except the outlay to yourself would be less.

You simply don't understand do you, assessing risk, is assessing value! It is either value or not at the point of taking out (paying) the insurance (and assessing the risks), if you have enough money and are comfortable taking on the risk, then it is not value to pay for more than that risk, especially if there are exceptional circumstances about what the outcome would be). But I accept that although mathematically it is not strictly 'value', if you are not in a financial position to weather that cost, or if your attitude to risk means that you would be too uncomfortable taking that risk on, then I accept someone might perceive that it was value to pay more than the mere risk, because it makes them feel safe. But neither of those circumstances apply to us.

I have already explained why we haven't demolished and rebuilt, because we really can't be bothered. The point I am making here is that rather than lose (what would be to most, but not us) our main asset (our home), which would be devastating to most, all it would mean to us, is inconvenience, we would have to go with plan b, i.e rebuild it.

EDIT: Where do you get the justification for asking me if I have learning difficulties? I can accept that you have a different point of view, but why do you have to be such a pratt about it?

chappers

chucknorris wrote: »

EDIT: Where do you get the justification for asking me if I have learning difficulties? I can accept that you have a different point of view, but why do you have to be such a pratt about it?

I apologise it was stupid, I didn't for a second believe that you did.

getmore4less

chucknorris wrote: »

My house hasn't been insured for about 10 years. If it was somehow destroyed, I would build a new (and much better) house on the plot.

What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?

davidmcn

getmore4less wrote: »

What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?

Then you'd have the same problem that you would if you had insurance.

chucknorris

getmore4less wrote: »

What if the council wanted the old house reinstated?

Although possible, that isn't very likely, we are at the end of a cul-de-sac and it is a private road (so not really much in the public eye), and also the house has previously had planning permission for an extension to the front.

All this is rather academic though, because we are actively looking to move, we know where we want to buy, and we are (im)patiently waiting for the right house to come onto the market. Because the new house:

- will be in a different location

- will be significantly more expensive

- we will spend considerable time in Spain during the winter months

- there will not be the smaller house on a large plot begging to be extended
scenario

- we will soon be changing (in fact, we have started already) our approach to our finances, and moving from investing for more, to a more protective approach to what we already have (I will be 60 in a few months), as we start to spend rather than accumulate.

That will change our risk of having no insurance, so we are very likely to take out insurance cover on the new house.

westv

Ultimately, unless you're a multi millionaire, you'd be incredibly stupid not to insure your most valuable asset.

chucknorris

westv wrote: »

Ultimately, unless you're a multi millionaire, you'd be incredibly stupid not to insure your most valuable asset.

Despite being a multi millionaire, we will still probably be insuring our next home, for the reasons that I stated above. Our current home isn't our most valuable asset, we have two other properties that are more valuable, but given the additional risk of investment property, they are insured. I'm not totally against insurance, it can be a useful product, particularly for people with pets who don't have a lot of money, and couldn't afford to pay for an expensive operation for their pet.