Home Value Protection Insurance - 'blight' insurance

AdrianC

johnweir123 wrote: »

It wouldn't make property less desirable.

Unless 16 million remainers decide having a non-EU property is a problem and move to Ireland so they can stay in the EU. In which case there'd be a property fire sale allowing brexiteers to offset potential losses by increasing their portfolio.

Might you be forgetting about the large number of non-British EU nationals who are leaving the UK?

Sure, they aren't all property owners (although many are), but the reduction in demand will affect the entire market, up and down. Reduction in demand for rental properties will reduce demand for BtL, as well as affecting the mindset of those thinking of moving from rental to owned property. Then there's the effect on the wider economy, on employment, on interest rates, on mortgage affordability and repossessions.



The property market is a complex thing, and it's impossible to predict at the best of times. Multiply that by the impossibility of predicting all the effects of Brexit - even two and a bit years into the process, just six months away from the crunch time, nobody has the faintest clue what the reality in a year will be. And that includes those who are meant to be implementing it...

johnweir123

I think as you've said, it's very complex. And I think that means one part changing could mean equally a big disruption or no disruption at all. The fact that a lot of our financial business is sovereign means the vital fluid which keeps the housing market running isn't going to dry up. If there is a problem it won't be the same cause as 2008.


As for legislation which might change the ethnic makeup of the workforce and consequently that part of housing demand. None of that flavor of legislation is ever retroactive. The idea of taking control of borders is not synonymous with direct damage to the economy although you could be forgiven for thinking that it is given how hard we've been lobbied as citizens in favor of believing that.

AdrianC

johnweir123 wrote: »

The fact that a lot of our financial business is sovereign

Around half of all UK financial services turnover (itself 6.5% of the UK economy) is "exported" to the EU.

As for legislation which might change the ethnic makeup of the workforce and consequently that part of housing demand. None of that flavor of legislation is ever retroactive.

It doesn't need to be. The hostile atmosphere towards EU migrants is already pushing many to leave the country, while the numbers of those arriving are falling. EU27 net migration has halved since the referendum - from the EU8 (2004 accession), net migration became negative early this year.

The idea of taking control of borders is not synonymous with direct damage to the economy

The UK always had 100% control of UK borders.

davidmcn

johnweir123 wrote: »

If I remember rightly, noisy neighbours was one of the possible reasons mentioned in the press release describing the policy. You're obliged to mention problem neighbours when selling a property and that could be a problem which appeared without warning during your ownership which materially affects the value of the property. If your neighbor decided to start keeping old cars all over their land at the front and in the back garden.

I can see that being open to abuse - make a claim, then split the cash with your neighbour and tell them they can now turn down the music and tidy away their cars...

Another possible would be a green field being replaced with a static caravan park. Totally legal, happens everywhere. What would've been a property with a premium glorious costal view which you originally paid over the odds for suddenly isn't worth a fraction of what you paid.

Any sensible buyer or surveyor would have realised that the nice big empty field with sea views is likely to be developed for something - no such thing as a guaranteed sea view if somebody else's land is between you and the water. So like I said before, I'm not sure the effect on value would be all that great - the house is presumably still in an area popular with holidaymakers, near to the coast, etc.

I've never seen any insurance along those lines being available anyway.

johnweir123

davidmcn wrote: »

I can see that being open to abuse - make a claim, then split the cash with your neighbour and tell them they can now turn down the music and tidy away their cars...

Any sensible buyer or surveyor would have realised that the nice big empty field with sea views is likely to be developed for something - no such thing as a guaranteed sea view if somebody else's land is between you and the water. So like I said before, I'm not sure the effect on value would be all that great - the house is presumably still in an area popular with holidaymakers, near to the coast, etc.

I've never seen any insurance along those lines being available anyway.

In answer to your first point, that would be fraud. You'd want to think very carefully before inviting fellow travelers to ride along on a journey of that sort.


Regards your second point, views are a planning consideration. For instance, maintaining lines of sight to St. Paul's Cathedral in London is part of planning policy. It isn't just a free for all when it comes to views and the spoiling of land. So the will of whoever controls local planning is important and usually can't be influenced one way or the other. The issue is that policy can change at the stroke of a pen and turn a paradise into a dump. When you buy a house there may not be any obvious sign of risk, the first you hear about it is in the local newspaper. "New super-school to be built on greenfield site" - too late to object, wasn't present when you bought the house a decade ago.


As mentioned several times throughout this thread... this insurance policy did exist. Links above.