Using a broker for home insurance

DocQuincy

I'm interested to know people's opinions on using a local broker for home insurance instead of going via a comparison website or directly on one of the big name websites. The price comparison model is fine for car insurance but sometimes it feels like they try and get you the cheapest price based on assumptions that may or may not be correct and then push you to buy.

What are the advantages of using a local broker? Do they have any liability should cover be insufficient at the time of claim (presuming you were honest in the information you gave)? Is there generally a bit price difference? I seem to have hit the ceiling for no claims (never had to claim thankfully) and my current insurance is very cheap so would be happy to pay a bit more knowing I am properly covered.

Thanks!

sal_III

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? 
Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker. 

Weighty1

sal_III said:

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? 
Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker. 

Personally, as an insurance specialist (life, critical illness & income protection) I disagree with this.  Too many comparison sites make certain assumptions and too few consumers know enough about the plans they are buying to protect them adequately.  I'd bet 95%+ of people don't know how being underinsured affects the potential for claiming in the event of a loss and I'd suspect a high percentage don't bother considering things like trace and access cover when claims for this can run into the tens of thousands in some cases.
Obviously, it's going to be dependent on cost but at least when you use a broker they are obliged to arrange appropriate cover and there's protection with the Financial Ombudsman Service if they've failed to arrange what you requested.

DocQuincy

Weighty1 said:

sal_III said:

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? 
Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker. 

Too many comparison sites make certain assumptions and too few consumers know enough about the plans they are buying to protect them adequately.  I'd bet 95%+ of people don't know how being underinsured affects the potential for claiming in...

I used to be like that. Most people think you need to put a price on how much it's worth now rather than what it costs to replace.

when you use a broker they are obliged to arrange appropriate cover and there's protection with the Financial Ombudsman Service if they've failed to arrange what you requested

Thanks. So would a broker effectively ask you the same kinds of questions that a price comparison site would and then go and find you the best option? The advantage here would be you that you can ask questions and they can ensure you disclose what is required.

Is there any kind of standard or qualification I would look for to know that I am using a decent broker and that they would actually take the policy out for me?

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker.

Probably not in most cases but I would imagine local knowledge may be an advantage in some cases. There is clearly going to be a bias in a forum where people report problems but there are some negative experiences on here from people whose circumstances are fairly standard (as mine are).

I guess I just think if it cost ~£50 per year extra to use a broker and get a more belt and braces policy it'd be worth it to me since my house is the only thing I own that is worth anything.

sal_III

Weighty1 said:

sal_III said:

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? 
Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker. 

Personally, as an insurance specialist (life, critical illness & income protection) I disagree with this.  Too many comparison sites make certain assumptions and too few consumers know enough about the plans they are buying to protect them adequately.  I'd bet 95%+ of people don't know how being underinsured affects the potential for claiming in the event of a loss and I'd suspect a high percentage don't bother considering things like trace and access cover when claims for this can run into the tens of thousands in some cases.
Obviously, it's going to be dependent on cost but at least when you use a broker they are obliged to arrange appropriate cover and there's protection with the Financial Ombudsman Service if they've failed to arrange what you requested.

For life/CIC/IP I would agree that a broker can provide some value as there are plenty of variables to consider.

But for home insurance, with no unusual circumstances like non-standard construction or high value possessions - not so much. 

Under-insuring aside, what other benefits would a broker bring when advising on home insurance?

DocQuincy

Under-insuring aside, what other benefits would a broker bring when advising on home insurance?

I'll wait for others time chime in since being the OP I don't know the answer to this but one of the reasons I asked is some price comparison websites ask yes/no questions for things that aren't necessarily black and white.

For example, on Confused it asks if your property is so many metres (400m?) near water (brook, stream, river, etc). Now, my property is < 400m to a brook so the algorithm is programmed to “think” flood risk when I answer that question since I cannot in all honesty select No. However, there is a common sense factor here: the brook my home is near to is at such a low elevation compared to my house it would take a flood of Biblical proportions to come close to my house. Yet, I'd have to still answer Yes for that and this would affect premiums (as it happens my current insurer doesn't ask this since they have a risk associated with each postcode).

This is just one example off the top of my head where a human would be better than a website. I know you could explain this to the insurers once you ring through but that may not choose to quote in the first place or the call handler may not be able to adjust the quote to reflect that.

sal_III

In most cases when a specific insurance provider doesn't consider specific value, lets use your example of proximity to water - it won't be passed on by the comparison site and won't factor in the quote.

So if InsuranceCo A uses post code to evaluate flood risk your answer "yes" to the question of how close you are to a body of water will not affect your quote. The answer will not be simply passed on by the comparison site as consider "high flood risk".

There will be little a broker can do in this situation, other than not submitting your information for a quote from an insurer that considers proximity to water no matter the elevation as a flood risk. Which is equivalent to getting a higher quote on a comparison site and ignoring it, as that insurer is not right for your circumstances.

dacouch

sal_III said:

Weighty1 said:

sal_III said:

In this day and age, does it have to be a local? 
Generally if your circumstances are standard and your property is standard, there isn't much reason/value in using a broker. 

Personally, as an insurance specialist (life, critical illness & income protection) I disagree with this.  Too many comparison sites make certain assumptions and too few consumers know enough about the plans they are buying to protect them adequately.  I'd bet 95%+ of people don't know how being underinsured affects the potential for claiming in the event of a loss and I'd suspect a high percentage don't bother considering things like trace and access cover when claims for this can run into the tens of thousands in some cases.
Obviously, it's going to be dependent on cost but at least when you use a broker they are obliged to arrange appropriate cover and there's protection with the Financial Ombudsman Service if they've failed to arrange what you requested.

For life/CIC/IP I would agree that a broker can provide some value as there are plenty of variables to consider.

But for home insurance, with no unusual circumstances like non-standard construction or high value possessions - not so much. 

Under-insuring aside, what other benefits would a broker bring when advising on home insurance?

A broker can pressure / ask a favour from the Insurer to pay a claim that is not technically covered, it's not so common as it was but is still possible.
My advice to the OP if they are using a broker is to avoid Swintons and also be careful that the broker do not quote you with a cheap and not cheerful Insurer to find the best price. It's perfectly possible they can find a good Insurer in your price point so just use the same precautions you would on checking the Insurer as you would if you were choosing an Insurer to go direct with.

DCFC79

I always go direct to the insurers and always will, Ill pick 2 or 3 insurers and see who comes out top.

DocQuincy

sal_III said:

In most cases when a specific insurance provider doesn't consider specific value, lets use your example of proximity to water - it won't be passed on by the comparison site and won't factor in the quote.

So if InsuranceCo A uses post code to evaluate flood risk your answer "yes" to the question of how close you are to a body of water will not affect your quote. The answer will not be simply passed on by the comparison site as consider "high flood risk".

There will be little a broker can do in this situation, other than not submitting your information for a quote from an insurer that considers proximity to water no matter the elevation as a flood risk. Which is equivalent to getting a higher quote on a comparison site and ignoring it, as that insurer is not right for your circumstances.

Interesting, thanks.

DocQuincy

A broker can pressure / ask a favour from the Insurer to pay a claim that is not technically covered, it's not so common as it was but is still possible.

This was what I was wondering: do brokers have better relationships with insurers? It sounds like there are some limited benefits — especially the one mentioned earlier about having protection through the Ombudsman.

It's perfectly possible they can find a good Insurer in your price point so just use the same precautions you would on checking the Insurer as you would if you were choosing an Insurer to go direct with.

I would of course ready the policy information as I do with my current insurer but per post #3 from @Weighty1 (“they are obliged to arrange appropriate cover and there's protection with the Financial Ombudsman Service if they've failed to arrange what you requested”) don't you have more protection with a broker so long as you answer their questions honestly?

On that note, is your agreement with the broker or the insurer? Do you pay all your money to the broker or just a fee to them and everything is as though you found the policy yourself?

Thanks.