Can I get buildings insurance without a completion certificate?

SavingDaemon

eddddy said:

To be honest - you're worrying about the wrong thing here. 

The more important question would be "Why wasn't a completion certificate obtained at the time?"

For example, was it because the extension was built by cowboy builders who didn't do things properly? e.g. Did they skimp on the foundations, or just guess what size joists to use? (Or was it just a naïve home owner who didn't think completion certificates mattered?)


As others have said, buildings insurance policies don't have exclusions for lack of building completion certificates, but they do have exclusions for damage resulting from poor workmanship and poor materials.

So if the extension starts to subside, and it's due to poor workmanship (e.g. the foundations are too shallow) that might be more of a reason for the insurance company to challenge a claim.

The best way to protect against that is to ask a surveyor to report on the extension.

We have documentation to show that the owners got building control to check all but the final inspection. The structural element appears to have been built without concern by the inspector based on his notes. We are concerned about the 'why' and they provided us with a plausible enough reason and so we are now investigating the other aspect of this. 

silvercar

SavingDaemon said:

silvercar said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

Who knows what work a previous owner did themselves, or whether they were competent or not? 

Our house is old and completion certificates wouldn’t have existed at the time when the original owners added bits here and there. Does that mean my home is still a building site 90 years later?

what public list are you talking about?

The building control website for your council which lists publically whether you have planning permission and building certificates for any extensions and if you have had gas, electrics or windows fitted by a competent person. 

They don't go back to 1966 when building regulations began.

SavingDaemon

TheJP said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

I've changed a light switch in my house, I'm not qualified. By your definition my insurance is invalid.

An electrician installed a new light fitting, I'm 100% sure that works is not listed publicly. Where is this public listings you talk about?

Further info here - https://www.electricalcompetentperson.co.uk/Choosing-An-Electrician

Key element is this:
All electrical work in dwellings is covered under Building Regulations. For any work that is notifiable, you should always receive a certificate to confirm that the work meets the applicable Building Regulations.

So I don't know to be honest what falls under jobs that are notifiable but any that are would automatically be listed on the relevant section of the building control website for your council. Also it says in most policies that you shouldn't be completing work that you're not qualified to, so if that job is found to fail and for example causes a fire and the insurer checks that it wasn't completed by a competent professional, your policy could be invalidated as I understand it.

SavingDaemon

silvercar said:

SavingDaemon said:

silvercar said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

Who knows what work a previous owner did themselves, or whether they were competent or not? 

Our house is old and completion certificates wouldn’t have existed at the time when the original owners added bits here and there. Does that mean my home is still a building site 90 years later?

what public list are you talking about?

The building control website for your council which lists publically whether you have planning permission and building certificates for any extensions and if you have had gas, electrics or windows fitted by a competent person. 

They don't go back to 1966 when building regulations began.

Yes but they do go back to the period when the extension on the property was built and it's publically listed that it didn't complete building certification. 

user1977

SavingDaemon said:

TheJP said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

I've changed a light switch in my house, I'm not qualified. By your definition my insurance is invalid.

An electrician installed a new light fitting, I'm 100% sure that works is not listed publicly. Where is this public listings you talk about?

if that job is found to fail and for example causes a fire and the insurer checks that it wasn't completed by a competent professional, your policy could be invalidated as I understand it.

Where are you getting your "understanding" from?

housebuyer143

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

TheJP said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

I've changed a light switch in my house, I'm not qualified. By your definition my insurance is invalid.

An electrician installed a new light fitting, I'm 100% sure that works is not listed publicly. Where is this public listings you talk about?

if that job is found to fail and for example causes a fire and the insurer checks that it wasn't completed by a competent professional, your policy could be invalidated as I understand it.

Where are you getting your "understanding" from?

How would they even know? Just tell them an electrician did it a decade ago or the previous owner? 
Notifiable I imagine are things like fuse boards? Not wiring a light switch.

SavingDaemon

housebuyer143 said:

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

TheJP said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

km1500 said:

Well...

Suppose your extension catches fire because of faulkty electrical work or a brick letting water in and shorting out the electrics

Suppose a tile blows off your extension roof and injures or kills someone

You may be able to think of other scenarios.

You can do all your own electrical work inside the house and if that catches fire they will still pay out, because they don't go asking for proof an electrician installed all your sockets when you claim, as that's completely unreasonable and almost no one will have this.

Given that you need a competent person to do the work and it will be listed publically and so easy to find if not, they could certainly raise it as an issue no? I've seen ts and cs in contracts which explains that you shouldn't attempt to do works you're not qualified to do as part of the policy document. 

I've changed a light switch in my house, I'm not qualified. By your definition my insurance is invalid.

An electrician installed a new light fitting, I'm 100% sure that works is not listed publicly. Where is this public listings you talk about?

if that job is found to fail and for example causes a fire and the insurer checks that it wasn't completed by a competent professional, your policy could be invalidated as I understand it.

Where are you getting your "understanding" from?

How would they even know? Just tell them an electrician did it a decade ago or the previous owner? 
Notifiable I imagine are things like fuse boards? Not wiring a light switch.

I agree, electrics are less of a concern to me I was just making the point. It's rather difficult with an extension, which has received planning permission and not building completion certifcation, to do the same thing. My point was that it isn't all hard to find what work you have done legitimately vs illegitimately.

SavingDaemon

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

Rang up an insurer anonymously today to dig into the definition of 'incomplete building works' which appears in every policy I've seen to date and in their definitions a building without completion certificate has incomplete buildings works and so is uninsurable.

This is nonsense. "Incomplete building works" means something which is a building site. Not something merely lacking a bit of paper from the council from decades ago.

I have been unable to find a legal definition of 'incomplete building works' which is why I rang up the insurer. One insurer told me that not having legal consent ie a lack of building completion certificate was their definition of incomplete works another told me it was at the point that contractors left the site. 

The reason I'm checking is so that an insurer doesn't try to weasel out of paying in the instance that I go to make a future claim. I think this is reasonable, no?

But like I said, insurers cannot "weasel out" of a claim because of something they never bothered asking you about. There is no need for you to fret about stuff which you think they ought to have asked you about, and then try having a chat with a confused customer service assistant about something which isn't on their script.

And no, there is no special legal definition of "incomplete building works". The words have their normal English meaning. If somebody turned up at the house, looked at the extension, and asked "when are the builders going to finish that?", you'd have "incomplete building works".

So to be clear, I have spoken to the underwriters of 7 insurers and 5 would not pay out because in their eyes not having a completion certificate is the same as incomplete building works.

housebuyer143

SavingDaemon said:

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

Rang up an insurer anonymously today to dig into the definition of 'incomplete building works' which appears in every policy I've seen to date and in their definitions a building without completion certificate has incomplete buildings works and so is uninsurable.

This is nonsense. "Incomplete building works" means something which is a building site. Not something merely lacking a bit of paper from the council from decades ago.

I have been unable to find a legal definition of 'incomplete building works' which is why I rang up the insurer. One insurer told me that not having legal consent ie a lack of building completion certificate was their definition of incomplete works another told me it was at the point that contractors left the site. 

The reason I'm checking is so that an insurer doesn't try to weasel out of paying in the instance that I go to make a future claim. I think this is reasonable, no?

But like I said, insurers cannot "weasel out" of a claim because of something they never bothered asking you about. There is no need for you to fret about stuff which you think they ought to have asked you about, and then try having a chat with a confused customer service assistant about something which isn't on their script.

And no, there is no special legal definition of "incomplete building works". The words have their normal English meaning. If somebody turned up at the house, looked at the extension, and asked "when are the builders going to finish that?", you'd have "incomplete building works".

So to be clear, I have spoken to the underwriters of 7 insurers and 5 would not pay out because in their eyes not having a completion certificate is the same as incomplete building works.

Again, unless they make it clear without calling them that lack of building certificate is deemed "ongoing building work", then it's likely to be an unfair term and can't be enforced which would result in a claim paying out if say the house burnt down. Insurers are legally required to pay out if you make an honest or reasonable misrepresentation, so someone assuming when asked about building work (unless it was stated it meant lack of building reg sign off), the insurer was referring to actual unfinished building work, would likely fall into this category. 

Same question asked here and same response.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6037735/buildings-insurance-that-covers-historic-alterations-that-dont-have-building-control-approval

PartyOfFive

I presume the current owners of the property have been able to insure the building?

Therefore it is insurable.

You are overthinking things.