Joint freeholder doesn't want joint insurance

G_M

ethank wrote: »

I had a flat with an absent landlord before. Every tenant insured their own buildings and contents and if there are any issues the insurers can discuss within themselves. Not a problem.

'Not a problem' in the sense that a claim never had to be made, or a major claim was made and the various insurers did sort it out between themslves without problems.......

The potential problem is not in taking out the policy/policies, it's in (major) claim-handling.

AdrianC

MarlaM wrote: »

Separate insurance would save us £300 each (It would be around £100)

£200 for two separate policies, £800 for a single joint...?

That doesn't sound right.

eddddy

ethank wrote: »

I had a flat with an absent landlord before. Every tenant insured their own buildings and contents and if there are any issues the insurers can discuss within themselves. Not a problem.

Did you take professional advice before doing that?

Was somebody insuring the shared parts of the building (e.g. roof, stairs, hallways)?

Did you ever make a buildings insurance claim, and if you did, did the various insurers sort out the claim amongst themselves?

Did you have 'Contingent Building Indemnity Insurance' as well?


I would be very cautious about following that route, without taking specialist professional advice first.

Richard_Webster

Separate insurance would save us £300 each (It would be around £100) - and that is what they want to do. I don't know their situation with money but they are point blank saying "no way" to it, so it seems I have to lump it.

Were the insurers told the whole story? I'd be concerned that they might refuse to pay out or cause problems as suggested inan earlier post.

If you take the view that you don't care about the detail - worry about that if it happens - why bother with insurance at all? The insurance must be right and the insurer must acknowledge the precise postion.

G_M

Richard_Webster wrote: »

.

If you take the view that you don't care about the detail - worry about that if it happens - why bother with insurance at all? The insurance must be right and the insurer must acknowledge the precise postion.

Absolutely.


I suggest you propose to your co-freeholder that you save a bit more money and just forgoe insurance completely.

gwynlas

Definetly need one policy for the building to cover fire or ioher damage and cost of rebuilding including temporary accommodatuion if needed. Otherwise you have no proof that they have adequate insurance cover particularly as they are arguing about costs, What do sellers say happened previously?

[Deleted User]

Hi all,

Thanks so much for all the replies. I thought it best to put replies in one message so as not to spam with lots of replies, but hope this makes sense without doing the quotes.

@G_M - Yes, sometimes I do feel like saying "let's save money and not get it at all then and see what happens - I happen to have a spare 800k to re-build, don't you!"

@eddddy - So, I've checked the lease - it says "Each leaseholder must contribute to insuring the building" - but I phoned my solicitor again after chatting with you and she reminded me that she made the vendor take out Contingent Building Indemnity Insurance out for us because she did indeed see a red flag on the lease. (I had forgotten this fact - my apologies for not mentioning).

@gwynlas - Our vendor bought the property, gutted and renovated it and flipped it for sale quick so they had separate insurance, but I asked what they did with the former long-term owner and they said... a little dodgy... that he insured the whole building just himself by pretending he owned the whole property and they just paid him half.

@AdrianC - Yes, I agree, it doesn't sound right but apparently freeholder/landlord insurance is expensive regardless of how many flats are under one roof even if both owners live there and it's not rented. If we were 4 flats it would be a lot easier to convince them to pay £200.

eddddy

MarlaM wrote: »

@eddddy - So, I've checked the lease - it says "Each leaseholder must contribute to insuring the building" - but I phoned my solicitor again after chatting with you and she reminded me that she made the vendor take out Contingent Building Indemnity Insurance out for us because she did indeed see a red flag on the lease. (I had forgotten this fact - my apologies for not mentioning).

OK - but that's not the question I asked.

I'm not asking who has to contribute to the cost of insuring.

I'm asking who is responsible for arranging the insurance?

1. Does the lease say it's the freeholder is responsible for insuring the whole building?
2. Or does the lease say that each leaseholder is responsible for insuring their own part of the building?

On the basis that you mention "contributing" - I'd guess it's option 1.

[Deleted User]

eddddy wrote: »

OK - but that's not the question I asked.

I'm not asking who has to contribute to the cost of insuring.

I'm asking who is responsible for arranging the insurance?

1. Does the lease say it's the freeholder is responsible for insuring the whole building?
2. Or does the lease say that each leaseholder is responsible for insuring their own part of the building?

On the basis that you mention "contributing" - I'd guess it's option 1.

Hi, sorry, I couldn't answer because it doesn't say either - There is one very brief paragraph about it and it simply says "leaseholders must contribute towards insuring the building" then goes on to list various items that should be covered. That's it - there's no mention of who is responsible for arranging.

eddddy

MarlaM wrote: »

Hi, sorry, I couldn't answer because it doesn't say either - There is one very brief paragraph about it and it simply says "leaseholders must contribute towards insuring the building" then goes on to list various items that should be covered. That's it - there's no mention of who is responsible for arranging.

I find that hard to believe, but since I can't see the lease I can't comment further.

TBH, "leaseholders must contribute towards insuring the building" doesn't sound like a phrase you'd find in a lease. I wonder if you're looking at the wrong document - perhaps a description of the lease written by your solicitor.