Buildings Insurance that covers historic alterations that don't have Building Control Approval

Reddog1

Hi all,
Does anyone know of insurers who cover property's without all the building regulations documentation from historic alterations?
We've just hit a hurdle with a property we are purchasing. It has several historic alterations that require Building Regulation Approval. A 1 small one story extension. Conversion of Kitchen and Dinning room to a kitchen diner (imagine the wall that was removed was somewhat load bearing (as has a wall in line above it); and removal of chimney breast to first floor. None was done by the vendor - who's been in the property around 15 years. 2 of the works (extension and kitchen diner) have Building Regulations Approval - but not certificate of completion. Remove of the Chimney has either.
We are happy to take out an indemnity policy's to cover the council making us put it right if it's not - however I've just discovered that the alterations wouldn't be covered by our buildings insurer. And not sure how we feel about it - particularly the chimney removal (which may or may not have a gallows bracket - nobody knows) as it is a party wall.
We are very close to exchange (hopefully!) and would be happy to proceed if we know we are insured against the worst happening. Would even pay a premium.
We've tried several insurers and not had any joy. Surely this is fairly common?
Thanks in advance for any knowledge and advice.

davidmcn

What do you mean by "wouldn't be covered"? Standard insurance policies don't cover the risk of shoddy workmanship falling down, whether or not it's something which had building regulations approval. I've not encountered questions on proposal forms about consents, so at what point is it coming up?

Reddog1

I specifically asked the insurer having read others say that they found they weren't covered under those circumstances.

It doesn't come up in the questions - but that doesn't mean they won't use it as a reason not to honor their insurance.

G_M

Reddog1 wrote: »

....... - however I've just discovered that the alterations wouldn't be covered by our buildings insurer.

.....

We've tried several insurers and not had any joy. Surely this is fairly common?
.

discovered how?


Most insurance application forms simply ask for the number of rooms/stories in the property, and the rebuild value.


I've never seen a question about Building Regs, nor read any condition excluding cover for rooms/extensions etc that lack Building Regs.

davidmcn

Reddog1 wrote: »

I specifically asked the insurer having read others say that they found they weren't covered under those circumstances.

Where did you read this?

It doesn't come up in the questions - but that doesn't mean they won't use it as a reason not to honour their insurance.

I can't think of a legitimate basis for them doing so, and have never heard of it happening. A huge proportion of properties either have had works done without consent, or were built before building regulations even existed. If the insurers cared, they'd ask the question.

It's more likely that you're just confusing the call centres by asking them questions which aren't on their scripts.

Reddog1

I asked it as a direct question to the broker and was told (not verbatim) "If an alteration that didn't have building control approval - completion certificate failed and needed repairing that the buildings insurance wouldn't cover it".

davidmcn

What do you mean by "failed"? Buildings insurance doesn't generally cover you for the building "failing", only for specific risks (fire, flood, malicious damage, etc). It's not a substitute for getting a proper survey and then carrying out regular maintenance.

Doozergirl

Reddog1 wrote: »

I asked it as a direct question to the broker and was told (not verbatim) "If an alteration that didn't have building control approval - completion certificate failed and needed repairing that the buildings insurance wouldn't cover it".

That's not 'not covering the house' that's not covering shoddy workmanship.

You need to ensure it isn't shoddy, then there's no need for cover for shoddy workmanship.

Reddog1

Of course it is possible that the broker was confused by what I was asking - but it has come up before in online conversations I've read (think on here) - I'll dig some out after work. I'm not trying to make my life more difficult, but a really knowledgeable buildings insurance broker may be able to help my request - so if anyone knows of one of those... I would be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

davidmcn

Reddog1 wrote: »

Of course it is possible that the broker was confused by what I was asking - but it has come up before in online conversations I've read (think on here)

Yes, it's a common misconception. I've refuted it several times previously here and nobody has produced any evidence that it's actually a problem.

I'm not trying to make my life more difficult, but a really knowledgeable buildings insurance broker may be able to help my request - so if anyone knows of one of those... I would be grateful to be pointed in the right direction.

I'm a reasonably knowledgeable lawyer who thinks you're barking up the wrong tree.

G_M

Mountain out of a molehill.


Try posting on the insurance board here if you're still worried.