Help! Very few insurers offer joint buildings insurance

Smithcom

eddddy said:

Smithcom said:

With the greatest of love and respect, your comments validate the expression 'a little knowledge can be dangerous'.  

Unless you can answer the questions that I have raised, you may want to be a little less confident in your responses.  Insurance that is incorrectly arranged and/or with the incorrect disclosures is a disaster waiting to happen.

You may well be correct that incorrectly-arranged insurance does exist, and is common here !!    

Do you mean these questions?

Smithcom said:

 However, if you are on the top floor, does that mean that you don't need to insure the foundations?    If you are on the ground floor, does that mean that don't need to insure the roof?    

The lease should very clearly specify what parts of the building the leaseholder is responsible for (and therefore should insure).

If it doesn't specify that, it would be classed as a defective lease - and you might have trouble getting a mortgage.

If the lease is defective, either the freeholder and leaseholders can voluntarily agree to vary the leases, or one of them can go to tribunal to get a compulsory lease variation.

Smithcom said:

And on an individual policy, would an average clause not apply?   And what happens if one of the freeholders does not insure. And what happens if the policy cover is different between the policies?

I suspect you mean "if one of the leaseholders does not insure".

Conveyancing solicitors usually recommend that a buyer takes out Contingent Building Indemnity insurance. That provides cover, if the other party fails to insure adequately (or at all).

(And/or you sue the other leaseholder for damages as a result of breaching the lease.)

Smithcom said:

And will that mean that two excesses are payable in respect of the one claim?    And two loss adjusters are appointed?    And two different insurers involved? 

It would work the same as 2 semi-detached houses damaged by one incident (e.g. a fire)

So one incident but 2 separate claims by the 2 property owners (probably with different insurers) . Each property owner would pay their own excess etc.

Smithcom said:

And do you simply take the total buildings sums insured and divide it by two? 

No - each leaseholder has insured their own part of the building.


Overall, it's not an ideal solution - but if that's what the lease says, you might be stuck with it.

No, I meant freeholder, but to some/much extent its semantics.

I would love to see a lease that details how a building could be accurately divided between two parties (including wiring, plumbing, foundations, windows, roofs, ceilings, walls etc etc).   You would have to detail every single component part.

I am not a solicitor, and I suspect that you are.   Possibly you are getting muddled between the financial/repair obligations of a leaseholder, but with the freeholder being responsible for everything else.    This case here involves two freeholders receiving 'advice' to insure their respective 'half' separately.

alittlejam

Whilst I don't have a lot of experience of leasehold contracts, from my own research and learning as a FTB, it seems to make much more sense to have one policy for the whole building, for many of the reasons stated above already. 

In the process of buying this property we have had several surveys completed.  Through the survey process, we came to realise that it is our responsibility to arrange the maintenance of the first floor structure of the building and the roof.  However, in accordance with the conditions of our lease contract, we are entitled to demand one half of the costs of the repair from the owners of the ground floor flat. A reciprocal right exists for the downstairs owners to also claim 50% of costs when they undertake repairs.

The other point to mention, is that the owners of the property downstairs are renting the property out and don't live in the building.  This also made finding an insurance provider more difficult.

Thanks for everyone's responses.