Insuring a Vacant Property awaiting sale

NorthernGuy

A relative may soon be moving into care and so have to sell the home she owns.  She may have to leave it before it is sold, leaving it vacant meanwhile.  The estate agent thinks that from marketing the property to completion could take 6 months.  My question is about insurance in such circumstances.

30 years ago I found myself in a similar situation looking after my late father's home.  The broker advice back then was that 'Insuring an unoccupied property is the greatest risk an insurer can face' with vacant cover reduced to only remote acts of God, almost worthless.  In the end, we managed to get the existing insurer to keep insuring it normally, pending sale, provided we visited at least once a month.  The Estate Agent thought we were very lucky to get that cover.

So, what is the situation likely to be if we're stuck with a vacant house to sell for 6 months?  The house is half owned by the relative in question, the other half in trust to her late husband's children (i.e. she has a 'Life Interest' to remain there) and the executors/trustees of his Will (the relative, my wife and a child of the late husband) have the normal duties to look after the property etc until she leaves and it is sold.  But can we realistically get any meaningful cover beyond remote risks?  The current insurer is Saga, I haven't approached them yet.

Devongardener

Definitely talk to the insurers.  When my mother went into a care home and I had to sell her house I notified her insurance company (I think it was Lloyds) and they insured the building but not the contents for 6 months.  We did sell within the 6 months.

NorthernGuy

Devongardener said:

Definitely talk to the insurers.  When my mother went into a care home and I had to sell her house I notified her insurance company (I think it was Lloyds) and they insured the building but not the contents for 6 months.  We did sell within the 6 months.

Thanks, it's the building that's the worry not the contents, I will see what Saga say and hope they don't just cancel all cover.

ebc

We had a similar problem - existing insurer wanted regular weekly visits once the owner moved into care and the house was empty. As no family lived near the house (and all the neighbours were elderly) we asked the company who had been providing visiting carer services to continue to send someone for one short weekly visit to check over a list of items round the house .

Insurer was happy with this.The carer agency we used had a web-portal where they logged tasks and info from their visits so we set up a list of checks we wanted them to do - eg check no tiles fallen off roof; check no signs of forced entry; check no water leaks  etc.

This meant that we had proof of weekly visits which we felt could be useful in the event of any insurance query.

Obviously we had to pay for the weekly visit but it was far cheaper than any family member driving all the way to the house every week.

NB Insurer also wanted heating left on to keep house at a reasonable temperature to prevent freezing pipes (or we could have drained the heating). We left heating on as Estate Agent was showing people round and we didn't want it to feel cold and uninviting.

Seasalt3

In a similar situation a couple of years ago and house insured with Saga and they agreed to carry on insuring the property but not for accidential cover.  Heating had to be left on low and visit once a week.  No increase in premium

DullGreyGuy

Speak to the existing insurers first, also make sure its clear what a "visit" means... some insurers it can be someone walking in the door and straight out again, for others it requires an overnight stay. 

Unoccupied Property insurance is the other option, it covers more than just remote acts of god but you need to be clear on the requirements as the longer its unoccupied the more actions they'll require you to take (eg draining down the water system or blocking the letterbox etc). Some of these are probably going to be detrimental to the sale (having to board windows is never going to add kerb appeal) so you may find you need someone to visit/stay over once every couple of months to avoid the harsher requirements. 

NorthernGuy

ebc said:

We had a similar problem - existing insurer wanted regular weekly visits once the owner moved into care and the house was empty. As no family lived near the house (and all the neighbours were elderly) we asked the company who had been providing visiting carer services to continue to send someone for one short weekly visit to check over a list of items round the house .

Insurer was happy with this.The carer agency we used had a web-portal where they logged tasks and info from their visits so we set up a list of checks we wanted them to do - eg check no tiles fallen off roof; check no signs of forced entry; check no water leaks  etc.

This meant that we had proof of weekly visits which we felt could be useful in the event of any insurance query.

Obviously we had to pay for the weekly visit but it was far cheaper than any family member driving all the way to the house every week.

NB Insurer also wanted heating left on to keep house at a reasonable temperature to prevent freezing pipes (or we could have drained the heating). We left heating on as Estate Agent was showing people round and we didn't want it to feel cold and uninviting.

Thanks for that advice, the carer visit is a good one!  We likewise are far away and that would be cheaper than trekking there and back.  At the request of the carers currently visiting the relative, I fitted an outside 'key safe' type combination locked box.  I don't like these things, they can be smashed open, but I had little choice with daily visitors needing access and a relative not always able to open the door.  I'll need to check if Saga are OK with that when vacant, I'd hope so given they serve the older market but must check.

NorthernGuy

DullGreyGuy said:

Speak to the existing insurers first, also make sure its clear what a "visit" means... some insurers it can be someone walking in the door and straight out again, for others it requires an overnight stay. 

Unoccupied Property insurance is the other option, it covers more than just remote acts of god but you need to be clear on the requirements as the longer its unoccupied the more actions they'll require you to take (eg draining down the water system or blocking the letterbox etc). Some of these are probably going to be detrimental to the sale (having to board windows is never going to add kerb appeal) so you may find you need someone to visit/stay over once every couple of months to avoid the harsher requirements. 

Thanks, this is good advice.  We have cameras sending alerts upon front/rear activity, would they count for anything?

DullGreyGuy

NorthernGuy said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Speak to the existing insurers first, also make sure its clear what a "visit" means... some insurers it can be someone walking in the door and straight out again, for others it requires an overnight stay. 

Unoccupied Property insurance is the other option, it covers more than just remote acts of god but you need to be clear on the requirements as the longer its unoccupied the more actions they'll require you to take (eg draining down the water system or blocking the letterbox etc). Some of these are probably going to be detrimental to the sale (having to board windows is never going to add kerb appeal) so you may find you need someone to visit/stay over once every couple of months to avoid the harsher requirements. 

Thanks, this is good advice.  We have cameras sending alerts upon front/rear activity, would they count for anything?

Maybe, but the main issues they are concerned about is the burst pipe that you'd spot if you were living there within hours at most on average but if you're visiting once a week that can be a lot of extra water filling the kitchen before its spotted. 

NorthernGuy

For the benefit of anyone reading this thread in future, Saga agreed to offer reduced cover (no accidental damage; all valuables removed; and an additional £500 excess on top of existing excesses) provided the house was visited by someone weekly 'to inspect inside & out'.  I think they'd have liked a higher visitation rate, and likewise anything less than weekly 'would need to be referred to the underwriters', so we decided weekly was manageable for cover really aimed at protecting the building more than the contents.  They issued a small refund reflecting the reduced cover.