Using a broker for home insurance

sal_III

dacouch said:

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My advice to the OP if they are using a broker is to avoid Swintons and also be careful that the broker do not quote you with a cheap and not cheerful Insurer to find the best price.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.

I can see how this might have been the case in the olden days, but today when "computer says NO" I find this hard to believe, will have to take your word on it.

First time I hear the broker gets involved in claims, always thought their involvement is done once the policy is purchased.

coachman12

Re the last question asked above, there are many brokers who have a legal contract with their clients regarding insurance policies they have negotiated for them.
On the wider questions, I think brokers ( and I , as usual , recommend Cavendish online---who have saved me a fortune in premiums over the years ) are essential. Car insurance is particularly in need of a broker. And life insurance is just as in need of a broker ; in the case of life insurance you can very often save premium amounts as high as a fifth or even better pcm as opposed to applying to the insurance company direct---------simply by using a reputable broker for a low lump sum payment.( Cavendish is £25------no, I don't work for them but from my "plugs" on several MSE forums they should be paying me commission    .  As for home insurance, there is less of a huge need for a broker but I think it was Weighty who said ( and I paraphrase only ) that the use of brokers is well-worth doing if you want to have more peace of mind, and I agree. 

dacouch

sal_III said:

dacouch said:

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.

I can see how this might have been the case in the olden days, but today when "computer says NO" I find this hard to believe, will have to take your word on it.

First time I hear the broker gets involved in claims, always thought their involvement is done once the policy is purchased.

There are plenty of situations i (Although not as many as before) where the broker can get an Insurer to accept a risk when the computer has said no.
Getting involved in a claim is very much what a broker will do

DocQuincy

coachman12 said:

Car insurance is particularly in need of a broker...As for home insurance, there is less of a huge need for a broker but I think it was Weighty who said ( and I paraphrase only ) that the use of brokers is well-worth doing if you want to have more peace of mind, and I agree. 

Why would car insurance be better with a broker? I would assume car insurance is less nuanced than home insurance since most of us have unmodified off the assembly line cars whereas with home there are more factors (contents, high risk items, locks, flooding, etc).

Do you have a broker you recommend for home insurance?

DocQuincy

Getting involved in a claim is very much what a broker will do

If a broker gets involved in claims as well how do they make enough money? I mean, how long does it take them to process your initial situation and find you a policy — an hour surely. And then if you claim they have to get involved too. Do they get a kickback from the insurers as well as the commission fee from the customer? A standard home insurance policy for someone without a claims history isn't that expensive so there doesn't seem to be much scope for them to make a profit — unless using a broker is a lot more expensive,

Weighty1

DocQuincy said:

Getting involved in a claim is very much what a broker will do

If a broker gets involved in claims as well how do they make enough money? I mean, how long does it take them to process your initial situation and find you a policy — an hour surely. And then if you claim they have to get involved too. Do they get a kickback from the insurers as well as the commission fee from the customer? A standard home insurance policy for someone without a claims history isn't that expensive so there doesn't seem to be much scope for them to make a profit — unless using a broker is a lot more expensive,

If I am honest, this is why I do not write buildings and contents policies.  I could, but the time taken to source the right policy, arrange it, provide the client with the necessary documents and answer any questions means unless it stays on the books for at least 5-6 years then it's just not profitable.  I do believe that for vanilla type cases this is why the comparison sites have very much taken over.  For more niche situations though the use of a broker works very well as you aren't usually dealing with minimum premium cases and clients with unusual circumstances don't tend to bother shopping around year after year in my experience as they know their options are limited in the first place.

DocQuincy

Weighty1 said:

If I am honest, this is why I do not write buildings and contents policies.  I could, but the time taken to source the right policy, arrange it, provide the client with the necessary documents and answer any questions means unless it stays on the books for at least 5-6 years then it's just not profitable.  I do believe that for vanilla type cases this is why the comparison sites have very much taken over.  For more niche situations though the use of a broker works very well as you aren't usually dealing with minimum premium cases and clients with unusual circumstances don't tend to bother shopping around year after year in my experience as they know their options are limited in the first place.

Thanks for your insights! I think maybe since I do not have any special requirements I may not bother with a broker then.

Out of interest are brokers generally able to find policies that aren't prohibitively expensive in most special circumstance cases (excluding things like living on a flood plain or unspent conviction for insurance fraud)? E.g. previous policy cancelled, criminal convictions. The assumptions made on online quotes would appear to preclude some people who aren't necessarily high risk (e.g. policy cancelled due to bank error, subsidence on a house that has now been underpinned, cellar flooded with no actual damage to habitable space) since the assumptions are quite broad.

coachman12

DocQuincy said:

coachman12 said:

Car insurance is particularly in need of a broker...As for home insurance, there is less of a huge need for a broker but I think it was Weighty who said ( and I paraphrase only ) that the use of brokers is well-worth doing if you want to have more peace of mind, and I agree. 

Why would car insurance be better with a broker? I would assume car insurance is less nuanced than home insurance since most of us have unmodified off the assembly line cars whereas with home there are more factors (contents, high risk items, locks, flooding, etc).

Do you have a broker you recommend for home insurance?
_______________________________________________________________

As to your first point, best see https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/brokers/
As to best home insurance see https://www.moneysupermarket.com/home-insurance/home-insurance/?p=0&gclsrc=aw.ds&cicp1=&source=GOO-1EA6B65B&mckv=siGovwZIn%7Cdc_pcrid_231082275310_mtype_e_kword_best%20home%20insurance%20broker_2764ri918980_slid__pgrid_2904034251_ptaid_aud-542058333483:kwd-2398976188&uuid=11111111-1111-1111-1111-111111111111&Device=c&engine=google&ptaid=aud-542058333483:kwd-2398976188&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyY2w-_PO5wIVSkPTCh3YagplEAAYAiAAEgKWHvD_BwE&adloc=9044899&pgrid=2904034251
 Or, a bit simpler  https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/home-insurance/
I have used a number of brokers for home insurance, from local brokers -----which has an advantage-----to some of the ones recommended by Martin and others. 
Good Luck. Cheers.

DocQuincy

This is interesting from your first link:

Under the rules of the British Insurance Brokers Association (Biba), car insurance brokers are obliged to put you first in any transaction, rather than the insurance company

I have used a number of brokers for home insurance, from local brokers -----which has an advantage-----to some of the ones recommended by Martin and others.

On that MSE page they do link to this page:

https://insurance.biba.org.uk/find-insurance

And you can perform a postcode search for brokers who fall under the Biba obligations mentioned above or you can call them direct.

Nice find, thanks!