Can I get buildings insurance without a completion certificate?

SavingDaemon

PartyOfFive said:

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

Therefore it is insurable.

You are overthinking things.

They had no insurance until recently and until a claim has been tested by the insurer actually paying out then you have no solid knowledge of how valid their insurance is. 

Either way it is irrelevant. If underwriters say they won't pay out on building work without completion certificates, it means.... that they won't pay out on claims involving building work without completion certificates. Not all insurers I grant you but I'd suggest it's worth checking before making a leap of faith.

SavingDaemon

housebuyer143 said:

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

Who would I go to to challenge the decision? The financial ombudsman? I mean legally the building work isn't complete as it doesn't have certification. So if you're unsure about terminology would the ombudsman not just question why you didn't ask?

JGB1955

Surely when they talk about 'building work' they mean works currently being undertaken - not historical changes.

SavingDaemon

JGB1955 said:

Surely when they talk about 'building work' they mean works currently being undertaken - not historical changes.

In the instance of those 5 insurers and their underwriters they mean any building work not signed off by building control if required to be, irrelevant of the timeframe. Our example is over a decade old.

housebuyer143

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

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

Who would I go to to challenge the decision? The financial ombudsman? I mean legally the building work isn't complete as it doesn't have certification. So if you're unsure about terminology would the ombudsman not just question why you didn't ask?

Under financial regulation it is not the customers responsibility to ask if something is going to stop them paying out, but it's the insurers to ask the question if they feel it will impact a claim. It's don't ask, don't tell with insurance. As long as you answer the questions they are asking as honestly as you can then there should be no problem.
Any complaint would be to the financial ombudsman who would look at this if a complaint was needed. 
If the insurer decided the misrepresentation was careless (rather than honest/reasonable), they would still be required to pay out but they could charge you the additional premiums or potentially pay out a little less than 100% of the claim. They would have to prove you were careless in your misrepresentation though.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/misrep-and-non-disclosure

user1977

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

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

I mean legally the building work isn't complete as it doesn't have certification.

Under what law?

You really are overthinking this, and all of my above advice still applies - including the bit about people in call centres giving you somewhat arbitrary "advice".

What did the other two insurers say? What advice is your own solicitor giving?

SavingDaemon

user1977 said:

SavingDaemon said:

housebuyer143 said:

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

I mean legally the building work isn't complete as it doesn't have certification.

Under what law?

You really are overthinking this, and all of my above advice still applies - including the bit about people in call centres giving you somewhat arbitrary "advice".

What did the other two insurers say? What advice is your own solicitor giving?

The other two said that they had different measures for what constitutes complete building works and so were happy to cover it. One of them was HomeProtect which prides itself on covering any kind of home.

The call centre folk asked advice from the underwriters. If the company was happy to pay out why did the underwriters tell me that they weren't willing to quote for a policy. It's rare insurance companies turn away business. Surely if they're happy paying out they wouldn't care?

At this stage, I haven't asked my solicitor.

I appreciate your advice but it's very interesting that the firms' underwriters are very clear that they won't cover it. 

And under this piece of legislation - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3119/made

eddddy

SavingDaemon said:

I mean legally the building work isn't complete as it doesn't have certification. 

SavingDaemon said:

And under this piece of legislation - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3119/made

Just to clarify - that's not what the legislation says.

The legislation says that once the the building work is complete, the local authority should be notified so that a completion certificate can be issued.

So the correct process is:

1. Complete the building work
2. Inform the local authority that the building work is complete
3. The local authority will issue a completion certificate

But in the case of the house you're buying, it sounds like this happened:

1. The building work was completed
2. The local authority weren't informed
3. So the local authority didn't issue a completion certificate

So there is nothing in the legislation to say that the extension "isn't legally complete". In fact, the concept of "legally complete" doesn't really exist.

However, there is a term "Practical Completion" which is widely used: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-107-7024?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true


But you seem to be saying that some insurers are choosing not to cover a building without a completion certificate - which is their right. (But it's best not to invent concepts like "legally complete", as that's likely to confuse people.)

doodling

Hi,

Unless an insurer asks the specific question, e.g. "Is there a building certificate for all applicable works carried out on the property?" then you don't need to declare it and they can't use that as a reason not to pay out.

What the insurer calls "incomplete building works" is irrelevant to you, unless it is defined in the policy documents and we have already concluded that it isn't, which means that the plain English interpretation of the words applies and bits of paper aren't "building works".  The insurer doesn't get to determine what the policy means in light of a claim being made.

Note that most people would be advised to answer "I don't know" to the question "Is there a building certificate for all applicable works carried out on the property?" because there is no way of knowing, except by getting all previous owners (some of whom might be dead) to honestly tell you.  Replastering a certain proportion of the inside of an external wall has required Building Regulations approval for some years now (you're supposed to bring the insulation up to standard if you do) but I suspect that a lot of walls get replastered without anyone ever caring.

What is more relevant is whether the works have been done correctly in the first place.  If the works haven’t been done correctly then a claim arising as a result won't be covered, not because of any issue to do with building regulations but because buildings insurance doesn't cover claims arising as a result of poor workmanship.

user1977

doodling said:

Unless an insurer asks the specific question, e.g. "Is there a building certificate for all applicable works carried out on the property?" then you don't need to declare it and they can't use that as a reason not to pay out.

And if they did care about this, then why (OP) do you think they don't ask it?

Given the huge proportion of properties which have had works done which haven't (provably) had completion certificates, surely there'd be lots of insurance claims turned down for this reason - can you find a single example of one?

And out of interest - have you seen a completion certificate for the remainder of the house?