When is a bedroom not a bedroom

capital0ne

You must have seen the news story, couples house burnt down and insurance refused, why?
Okay, it was advertised as 7 bedroom, 2 of those rooms in the attic did not meet building regs as bedrooms, so the agent and seller agreed to sell house valued as a 5 bedroom house.

Everyone is happy, house insured as a 5 bedroom house, all good so far.

House burns down and insurance is refused, they now say it IS a seven bedroom house,.

Who's right?

paddyandstumpy

The FOS sided with the insurer, which suggests there is far more compelling evidence than has been fairly reported.

If ever there is any ambiguity or unless it's clear cut, the FOS tends to find for the consumer.

newatc

I have 2 rooms in the attic which do not meet current building regulations for bedrooms, I have always referred to them as bedrooms for insurance purposes (people do sleep there occasionally).

Owain_Moneysaver

De jure 5 bedroom, de facto 7 bedroom.

dunstonh

You must have seen the news story, couples house burnt down and insurance refused, why?

Because the policy they had was a bedroom rated policy and Aeges only covered up to 5 bedrooms. They refused to cover anyone with more than 5 bedrooms.

The house in question had beds in place in the attic and were being treated as bedrooms. So, it technically had 7 bedrooms.

The argument is that building regs didnt allow them to be built as bedrooms but the problem is that they were in use as bedrooms. Insurance covers the number of bedrooms.

The counter-argument is that they intentionally bought an unsuitable policy and falsely disclosed the info to save money on premiums Mainly as, with 7 bedrooms, they would need more old fashioned style of policy that would have cost a fair bit more.

The FOS sided with the insurer. The media, obviously, sided with the homeowner. I suspect if Aeges would have covered the house with the correct information, it would be treated as accidental non-disclosure. However, where the provider would not offer cover from the start, it doesnt matter if its classed as accidental as the insurer would never have taken the risk.

k12479

The decision can be found here:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=164051

The case seems pretty clear from that.

dacouch

There is also likely to be a record of owner requesting quotes for 7 beds and then changing it to 5 when they did not like the considerably higher premium. This may explain why the 2 bedrooms were not declared under "other rooms"

People forget Insurers are not stupid and have access to the other quoted customers obtain using differing info

I have had customers similar to this covered correctly under a non bedroom rated policy which tend to be expensive as this type of house has a lot more contents than a bona fide 5 bed. They tell me at renewal they are going to a much cheaper insurer. When you pointed out the policy was not suitable as it has a max of 5 beds they just continue as they think they will not get caught out

ACG

When I used to sell a fair bit of insurance, we had this debate and we were basically told by the insurer "if you were to sell the house, how many bedrooms would you market it as?" that is the number you should put on the application.

I have not seen the article you are talking about, but on the face of it you would say the insurers are in the wrong. However there could be more to it than meets the eye. What is the phrase? Never let facts get in the way of a good story? I have often seen articles which I know do not show the truth the whole truth and nothing but.

FlameCloud

ACG wrote: »

When I used to sell a fair bit of insurance, we had this debate and we were basically told by the insurer "if you were to sell the house, how many bedrooms would you market it as?" that is the number you should put on the application.

I have not seen the article you are talking about, but on the face of it you would say the insurers are in the wrong. However there could be more to it than meets the eye. What is the phrase? Never let facts get in the way of a good story? I have often seen articles which I know do not show the truth the whole truth and nothing but.

House brought as a 7 bedroom house, surveyed and identified as a 7 bedroom house, advertised again for sale as 7 bedroom house. Owner had however disclosed as 5 bedroom (insurer in question does not insurer 6+ bedrooms). Fire claim, declined, FOS did not support at either level.

I'd say they were justified.

ACG

FlameCloud wrote: »

House brought as a 7 bedroom house, surveyed and identified as a 7 bedroom house, advertised again for sale as 7 bedroom house. Owner had however disclosed as 5 bedroom (insurer in question does not insurer 6+ bedrooms). Fire claim, declined, FOS did not support at either level.

I'd say they were justified.

Okay, it was advertised as 7 bedroom, 2 of those rooms in the attic did not meet building regs as bedrooms, so the agent and seller agreed to sell house valued as a 5 bedroom house.

You could be right. I was just going off this underlined sentence.

capital0ne

It looks cut and dried to me - they should have explained the attic rooms could be and had been used as bedrooms.

This is why I use a local insurance broker - they find the best deals, they do all the paperwork if you have problem. They've always beaten any online comparison sites so not using a broket is just plain dumb.