Any Recommendations of Home Insurance Based on Actual Claims Experience?

dunstonh

Sounds like I shouldn't delve too much into investigating which company is the best but just pick any and hope for the best!

Not really.

For example, if I picked one off moneysupermarket.com then the chances are that I would have plenty to choose from but none of them would be suitable for what I need and I would be disappointed in the event of a claim.     If you get the cover right then the insurer will usually cover and payout claims without issue (bar admin).  If you don't get the coverage right, then that is usually where many of the problems occur.

BucketFull

Thanks. Well, my plan is to over-insure everything, for example, the automatic rebuild calculator only showed less than £200,000 rebuild cost and the RICS calculator had shown around £250,000 I think (can't remember now), however, I entered £500,000 when I submitted my quote form. I also included legal cover and home emergency. OK, I won't just 'pick any', but after reading about all this insurance business (first time insurer!), there are just too many tiny little conditions that need to be met in various circumstances, that I'd be totally overwhelmed trying to investigate what is required for what kind of claim!

I've still got Compare the Market, GoCompare and DirectLine to do as per Moneysavingexpert's guidance.

BucketFull

Compare the Market's cheapest was £146.55 for Admiral Gold.

Go Compare's was £102.39 for Policy Expert Silver (similar to Money Supermarket).

Sandtree

BucketFull said:

Thanks, that is exactly what I'm going to do.

I did go back and change one or two things that I thought could have a remote possibility of being the culprit, but got the same message. For example, I left the default of 1900 for the age of the property and then changed it to 1920. Had selected stone for the walls, which I'm not 100% sure about, but changed it to brick. Can't remember what else, but it wasn't anything of note, but nothing made any difference. Anyway, onto Plan B!

Its not 100% clear if you got quotes on your first attempt, then changed items and then got no quotes? If the is the case then its likely you triggered counter fraud protections... Insurers are very sensitive to quote manipulation where people try different options on things that cannot legitimately vary (eg your home was built in a certain decade so one of 1900 and 1920 must be wrong) . 

If you trigger them you may find big increases in quoted premiums or companies simply decline to quote.

BucketFull

No, I didn't get any quotes at all at Confused.com, however, on the other site(s), I did go back and changed my answers several times! Not to try to obtain lower quotes, but to check what the maximum quote would be for the most costly combinations, e.g. stone and slate instead of brick and tile, etc. Maybe your tip could be added to the guidance on Monseysavingexpert. Hope that hasn't caused too much damage!

Still not found a company yet. Could just go for DirectLine in the end. Their quote was £267.68. Came across the following site that says its ratings are based on claims, however, it's from 2019.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-6963563/The-best-worst-insurers-car-home-insurance-claims.html

NFU Mutual looks to have been performing well back then.

ILoveSittingDown

I’ve claimed twice due to floods. Once from L&G and one from Ageas (policy sold by Swinton). Both companies were great and didn’t quibble on a single cost

Sandtree

Which? also rank insurers however I've always taken their results with a pinch of salt when noticing three brands operated by the same company with identical claims and service staff and processes were ranked notably differently to each other and conveniently in the exact order of their socioeconomic target market - ie Mass-Exclusive brand was listed first out the three and near the top of the overall table, mass market was second and about the 75% mark and the cheap & cheerful brand was around the mid point of the table. 

The problem with many rankings is its based on price rather than service, that those with a negative experience are most likely to post comments online. If you read the negative comments a lot are highly unfair like people complaining they have to pay their excess after a hit and run... that's simply how insurance works, excess is payable on all claims but recoverable from a third party in certain circumstances if they are identified. 

Annemos

Am I the only one who was completely unaware that the same company can have three different brands/levels: 

Mass-exclusive      Superb
Mass Market         Cross your fingers and hope for the best if you have to claim. 
Cheap and Cheerful      Forget it

I have only ever wanted the first one for my home. 

Also, when I took out that SAGA policy, I had no idea it would NOT be the first one. It was expensive! And it was called PREMIER.

How is the general public supposed to know all this? (If they have not read Sandtree.) 

Sometimes I feel that homeowners are being blamed for not having the Insider knowledge of the Insurance Industry.

("Homeowners are out to commit fraud, homeowners just want the lowest price". I do not know anyone who thinks like that.  I think there is often a complete lack of Insider knowledge and what makes up a Policy.)

One of my old colleagues has been following my problems with my claim. He is a Partner at a top Accounting firm. He said he had no idea how the Insurance Industry actually operates and my experience has been an eye-opener for him. My sister is also horrified. 

Apologies for this rather sad post. My experience of the Insurance Industry has been very sad and depressing. Only the Financial Ombudsman can help in these circumstances. 

Sandtree

Annemos said:

Am I the only one who was completely unaware that the same company can have three different brands/levels: 

Mass-exclusive      Superb
Mass Market         Cross your fingers and hope for the best if you have to claim. 
Cheap and Cheerful      Forget it

Many companies in all industries operate different brands aimed at different customer segments... VAG make VW, Audi and Bentley, whilst many VW customers may aspire to a Bentley the majority of marketing, service proposition etc is going to focus much more on existing and realistically possible customers.

Target market is only one dimension though, there is a separate question on if the product, service etc aligns to it... in the aforementioned setting initially the "cheap and cheerful" brand (a purchased company) actually had the most comprehensive cover for a few years before they were redesigned. Even after that the claims and service teams were identical with no procedural differences between the three brands.


As a consumer, and even insider, it is difficult to know and in particular when you are considering things outside the T&Cs. For example a previous client used to offer white labelled travel insurance for high street brands, banks etc that wanted to sell/give it to their customers. Generally the T&Cs were identical for all but the largest clients however the clients could choose to pay more to have their customer's telephone calls prioritised, have leniency shown when a claim for delay is 5 mins short of the required 4 hours etc. These things impacted the wholesale price of the policy but the client set the customer price themselves. 

The client with the highest price of all had selected none of these "optional extras" and was generally seen as a higher end brand when it came to service. One other client was a real budget brand but they selected everything they could and basically sold it at wholesale price (so considering marketing etc it would be loss making for them in isolation). These are things no one outside of the parties will know.

Annemos

Yes the Insurance Product is actually so opaque. (A car is not..... even I can see which is a top range car.) 

I start to wonder if the Insurance Industry as a whole is trying to get a bit too clever with its 'deflection of responsibility' techniques. In the end they can end up bearing much more costs than if they had just made the required effort right from the start. 

(But I did read a US website that said, if only 10 percent of claims go wrong or if only 10 percent of people complain, then the business model has worked.)

I have a feeling my Subsidence claim was categorised from the outset (or I as a homeowner was??)  as one that could be done and dusted very quickly. It was therefore delegated within the Claims Handlers on that basis. And from that point onwards, the required effort, skills and care were badly lacking. 

I used to feel that my Subsidence claim was being treated as if it was just a small leak in a kitchen tap washer! Merely captured within a process. "We have done thousands of claims and never had a problem. Trust us!"

Nobody was intercepting it along the way at important strategic points of the claim, to make sure things would not go badly wrong. (Culminating in additional bad damage done by the Insurance Process to my building and me.) 

When you consider the whole ramifications of Subsidence on a home and homeowner, they really do need to take a lot more care on EVERY case.