When will the old Victorian houses start to fall down?

Peter_Williams

varfor wrote: »

I think about this fairly frequently. If your house falls down does your building insurance cover it? What if it's a semi-detached? Can you build something completely new on the land or would you have to rebuild the old house?

(I hope my house doesn't fall down).

Insurance wouldn't cover neglect or disrepair.
The rebuild design would depend on planning dept. But obviously current building regs would apply. Very unlikely the council would insist on the site being just cleared though.

If it's a mid-terrace, the insurers will pay for rebuild to support the adjoining houses. Even though the rebuild cost is more than the market value of a mid-terrace, you can't just leave a gap in the street.
End of terrace, that does happen though.

Detached - the new house would usually be more valuable, hence the cases of insurance fraud where old buildings are burned down by ''accident''...

Sea_Shell

Loosely connected, but whenever I see or visit old houses, some really old, you realise that you never truely 'own' them.

You're merely a temporary custodian, with a huge responsibility.

Peter_Williams

terrence45 wrote: »

Only if not maintained... I'd chance my luck with a Victorian house rather than a modern one thanks.

I think it depends on the person.
New builds are sometimes the best option if you're busy and not really into houses / DIY etc.
They do drop in value, so best to buy one that's about 10-20 years old.

Doozergirl

Peter_Williams wrote: »

Insurance wouldn't cover neglect or disrepair.
The rebuild design would depend on planning dept. But obviously current building regs would apply. Very unlikely the council would insist on the site being just cleared though.

If it's a mid-terrace, the insurers will pay for rebuild to support the adjoining houses. Even though the rebuild cost is more than the market value of a mid-terrace, you can't just leave a gap in the street.
End of terrace, that does happen though.

Detached - the new house would usually be more valuable, hence the cases of insurance fraud where old buildings are burned down by ''accident''...

There's no rhyme nor reason to how much houses cost to rebuild versus their value, so you're wrong there.

We virtually rebuilt two mid terraced house last year. The client kept one and sold the other for £3.45 million.

The value of the house is irrelevant anyway, houses are insured on their rebuild cost, not their market value. Insurers don't care what the house is worth.

Properties are burned down because something more profitable can be built in their place. Its status as a detached or not is largely irrelevant.

PasturesNew

It doesn't take much to keep them going these days; so long as people keep on top of maintenance it's always possible to toss in a steel if required. Chuck on a new roof, no problem. Those that aren't let go, or that don't have building plot potential will just keep chugging along if the areas are such that the people buying them have the spare cash to keep abreast of work.

Most that've "fallen down" are in what became cheap/shabby areas, where the owners couldn't afford to keep on top of things and nobody was interested in buying a shabby old one and giving it a makeover.

While an area's "sought after" enough and bought by people with a credit rating or disposable income they'll just keep going.

davidmcn

varfor wrote: »

I think about this fairly frequently. If your house falls down does your building insurance cover it?

Frequently enough to encourage you to read your policy? It only covers the specified risks. Which won't include "shoddily-built (or poorly-maintained) house falling down". Though you might be ok if it's "shoddily-built house blown down in storm"...

Murphybear

We have 2 castles in our little town

The “old” one is 12th Century
The “new” one is 16th Century

They don’t build things these day like they used to

dotchas

davidmcn wrote: »

Frequently enough to encourage you to read your policy? It only covers the specified risks. Which won't include "shoddily-built (or poorly-maintained) house falling down". Though you might be ok if it's "shoddily-built house blown down in storm"...

I am at a loss as to what insurance does cover. Well built, well looked after house, but unable for to claim for rendering falling on car in storm due to lack of maintenance to 5 year old rendering , how on earth do I maintain that at roof level! Go and give it a poke every week?
120 yr old solid cottage, claim rejected for bathroom ceiling coming away for the same reason and also because it was old:cool:......so why bother insuring old houses, maybe we could just get Fire and Theft Policies.

Peter_Williams

dotchas wrote: »

I am at a loss as to what insurance does cover. Well built, well looked after house, but unable for to claim for rendering falling on car in storm due to lack of maintenance to 5 year old rendering , how on earth do I maintain that at roof level! Go and give it a poke every week?
120 yr old solid cottage, claim rejected for bathroom ceiling coming away for the same reason and also because it was old:cool:......so why bother insuring old houses, maybe we could just get Fire and Theft Policies.

Your premiums cover the CEO's pay with bonus. Little else I'm afraid.

Peter_Williams

PasturesNew wrote: »

It doesn't take much to keep them going these days; so long as people keep on top of maintenance it's always possible to toss in a steel if required. Chuck on a new roof, no problem. Those that aren't let go, or that don't have building plot potential will just keep chugging along if the areas are such that the people buying them have the spare cash to keep abreast of work.

Most that've "fallen down" are in what became cheap/shabby areas, where the owners couldn't afford to keep on top of things and nobody was interested in buying a shabby old one and giving it a makeover.

While an area's "sought after" enough and bought by people with a credit rating or disposable income they'll just keep going.

The problem is when these houses reach such a state that repairing them costs more than knocking them down and either selling the cleared plot or building something new.

The council don't want the houses knocked down. But the council don't actually do anything (or care about it). So the owners let the houses fall into disrepair - hoping that once the doors are kicked in to strip out the metal pipes, kids will follow and start lighting fires.