How to live without heating - save £000s

HertsLad

I mentioned in my opening post that it may be necessary to take special measures if you have water pipes in the loft. I removed everything so there is no water above ceiling level now. Another option is to fit trace heating cables but they use electricity, of course.

I agree that if I ever had a claim based on damage caused by leaving the house colder than 12C throughout 11 entire winters, then I would be in trouble if the insurance company found out. But I view it as so unlikely, it's a risk I am prepared to take. 

Here are two further garments I bought this week for my cache of clothing: a thinsulate hat and 2 further pairs of long johns. The childrens size was the lowest price so I took a chance. It seems trousers for a 13 year old do fit me, just about! I do have some other brands of thermal clothing but consider Campri both warmest and lowest cost.

MWT

GingerTim said:

It might be OTT but if that's what's in your policy, that's what's in your policy. (And persistently cold indoor temperatures doesn't just mean damage to pipes, of course.)

I don't recall seeing a specified minimum temperature in a home insurance policy that wasn't linked to the property being empty, so yes, they are very concerned about empty property getting too cold, just never seen one mention a minimum for occupied property...

HertsLad

Here are the precise duck down trousers which I bought and find so effective. The level of down in this garment is quite good. If you buy other brands, who knows, even if you pay a lot more, as I found on amazon.

Tahlullah.H

The Insurance you are referring to is Home Emergency Insurance, which is not the same as  buildings and contents insurance.

I have just checked my home insurance - I do not need emergency cover on top of the insurance which will cover me in the event of damage following an incident - and the closest thing to giving a specific temperature for the heating is - 

This insurance does not cover the following -
Claims relating to your alleged dishonesty, alleged violent behaviour, deliberate, reckless or dishonest acts or failure to act.

I suppose in a worst case scenario, they could claim the water leak was as a result of your reckless behaviour.

HertsLad

MWT said:

I don't recall seeing a specified minimum temperature in a home insurance policy that wasn't linked to the property being empty, so yes, they are very concerned about empty property getting too cold, just never seen one mention a minimum for occupied property...

My original comment has been removed. On reflection, it was uncalled for and unnecessary. I am sorry for any offence caused.

GingerTim

HertsLad said:

MWT said:

I don't recall seeing a specified minimum temperature in a home insurance policy that wasn't linked to the property being empty, so yes, they are very concerned about empty property getting too cold, just never seen one mention a minimum for occupied property...

You are hopefully right. I fear GingerTim is scraping the barrel trying to find any excuse for not adopting my approach. Maybe he is in cahoots to the fat cats running energy and insurance companies. The energy companies, in particular, would be very worried if this idea catches on.

Nope - my only excuse for not adopting your 'approach' is that life is far too short for people to put themselves through the sort of thing you have a tolerance for, or are unable to follow suit. Instead, most people (me included) will bung on an extra layer or two and put thicker socks on.

As I've said before, it works for you - great! But it's fanciful of you to believe that if only people knew about your 'idea' that it will suddenly catch on, and thousands of people will suddenly become willing to layer-up like the Marshmallow Man inside near-freezing properties out of choice or for 'fun', rather than from sheer necessity.

If that happens, well, I'll eat your down-lined trousers.

HertsLad

I just removed my comment but, due to the quotes, others are now responsible if they leave the quotes intact.

Update: I am grateful to MWT for removing his post with the quote, leaving only GingerTim's

theoretica

Elisheba said:

So it is potentially affordable, and if I decide to go heatingless next winter I think I would invest in some of these things. I've been managing with a couple of pairs of legging, fleecy socks, lots of layers on top, and a hat - but I do still feel cold at times, especially my hands at times. Hot water bottles, sleeping bags and throws are also my friends! It would be nice not to have quite so many layers on though 

I find wrist warmers make a significant difference to warm hands (and ankle warmers for the feet). One pair I have is just some very nice wool socks that felted badly, so I cut the feet off. You have a lot of blood flow through the wrists and it is near the surface.  And they let me use my hands in a way gloves don't.

Elisheba

Thanks @theoretica I'll give them a go 

HertsLad

theoretica said:

I find wrist warmers make a significant difference to warm hands (and ankle warmers for the feet).

Interesting - I bought some fabric wrist warmers about 3 years ago but have forgotten to give them a try. Then, I purchased some electrically heated wrist warmers last month. I was going to give them a trial if the temperature drops close to 2C. Perhaps I will have to wait until next winter now. It was after I read in 2013 about a university team who reckoned warming your wrists was one way of keeping yourself warm rather than heating the house. Looking back, energy costs in 2013 now seem cheap.

The article is from 2013: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2484022/Is-end-sky-high-energy-bills-Thermoelectric-wristband-body-warm-created-scientists.html#ixzz2jXnouqUH  

"With energy bills soaring and no sign of prices coming down one team of scientists in America may have come up with the answer - heat the person not the building."