House insurance - 12 week holiday

oz0707

Anyone have any good options for insuring house for a 12 week holiday period?

Luckily my current policy runs out around 2 weeks into the holiday so it will cover me for that (think up to 6 weeks). Ideally after that I'd find an insurer who allows long periods of un-occupation to cover the remaining 10 weeks. Alternatively I could take out a temp unoccupied policy for the remaining 10 weeks. 

Does anyone know any insurers who offer long holiday periods?

Cheers

oz0707

Found this on a web search can't get a quote yet as holiday a few months away
https://quotes.homeprotect.co.uk/cover-details

comeandgo

What I did find out when I had to get the extra insurance was even at the end of your original policy, you say you will have two weeks left on the policy, it will not cover you as your house will be unoccupied for 12 weeks which is outwith their terms.

oz0707

comeandgo said:

What I did find out when I had to get the extra insurance was even at the end of your original policy, you say you will have two weeks left on the policy, it will not cover you as your house will be unoccupied for 12 weeks which is outwith their terms.

Typical, I'd like to see some of these rules tested in court.
I will just have to cancel policy before leaving if this is the case

DullGreyGuy

oz0707 said:

Anyone have any good options for insuring house for a 12 week holiday period?

There are some standard home insurers that cover up to 90 days such as M&S (Aviva)

It is likely in the event of a claim the insurer will look at the total period you are to be away not just the period you've been away under this policy up to the point of the loss. As such the unoccupied clause of your current insurance would probably kick in... in most cases this means Theft, Vandalism and Escape of Water cease to be insured perils. 

Smithcom

oz0707 said:

comeandgo said:

What I did find out when I had to get the extra insurance was even at the end of your original policy, you say you will have two weeks left on the policy, it will not cover you as your house will be unoccupied for 12 weeks which is outwith their terms.

Typical, I'd like to see some of these rules tested in court.
I will just have to cancel policy before leaving if this is the case

  If your desire was achievable, which is that you are covered for the first 2 weeks unoccupancy, but not the final 10 weeks, what do you think would happen in the event of a leak sometime during the 12 week absence?

1.  Even if the leak occurred during the first 2 weeks, it would not be found for 12 weeks, so there would be no way of assessing which damage was caused in the first 2 weeks, and which damage would not be covered because it happened in the final 10 weeks.

2.   Every policyholder would be arguing that the leak and the whole damage happened in the first 2 weeks


Policyholders should have certainty (as much as possible) as to what is covered and what is not.  

Unfortunately, your well-meaning suggestion would just create heaps of uncertainty.

SC

oz0707

Smithcom said:

oz0707 said:

comeandgo said:

What I did find out when I had to get the extra insurance was even at the end of your original policy, you say you will have two weeks left on the policy, it will not cover you as your house will be unoccupied for 12 weeks which is outwith their terms.

Typical, I'd like to see some of these rules tested in court.
I will just have to cancel policy before leaving if this is the case

  If your desire was achievable, which is that you are covered for the first 2 weeks unoccupancy, but not the final 10 weeks, what do you think would happen in the event of a leak sometime during the 12 week absence?

1.  Even if the leak occurred during the first 2 weeks, it would not be found for 12 weeks, so there would be no way of assessing which damage was caused in the first 2 weeks, and which damage would not be covered because it happened in the final 10 weeks.

2.   Every policyholder would be arguing that the leak and the whole damage happened in the first 2 weeks


Policyholders should have certainty (as much as possible) as to what is covered and what is not.  

Unfortunately, your well-meaning suggestion would just create heaps of uncertainty.

SC

Easily could exclude escape of water. In fact some of these unoccupied policies specifically exclude escape of water claims during winter months

oz0707

Which insurers have the longest unoccupied periods as standard? I will check out the M&S one

Smithcom

oz0707 said:

Smithcom said:

oz0707 said:

comeandgo said:

What I did find out when I had to get the extra insurance was even at the end of your original policy, you say you will have two weeks left on the policy, it will not cover you as your house will be unoccupied for 12 weeks which is outwith their terms.

Typical, I'd like to see some of these rules tested in court.
I will just have to cancel policy before leaving if this is the case

  If your desire was achievable, which is that you are covered for the first 2 weeks unoccupancy, but not the final 10 weeks, what do you think would happen in the event of a leak sometime during the 12 week absence?

1.  Even if the leak occurred during the first 2 weeks, it would not be found for 12 weeks, so there would be no way of assessing which damage was caused in the first 2 weeks, and which damage would not be covered because it happened in the final 10 weeks.

2.   Every policyholder would be arguing that the leak and the whole damage happened in the first 2 weeks


Policyholders should have certainty (as much as possible) as to what is covered and what is not.  

Unfortunately, your well-meaning suggestion would just create heaps of uncertainty.

SC

Easily could exclude escape of water. In fact some of these unoccupied policies specifically exclude escape of water claims during winter months

That'll be the policy to take then.   But I guess the same scenario could apply to many perils, like storm, malicious damage, etc etc.

I think that you're slightly missing the point, insofar as, if the policy allows a period of unoccupancy, any period in excess of that number (i.e 4 weeks etc), will effectively delete the entire policy cover from day 1.   It's unlikely that the policy will cover the first 4 weeks unoccupancy, but not the remaining 6 weeks

SC

harz99

A few years back we were away from home around 12/13 weeks, from memory I managed to find house insurance through one of the Caravans clubs, not sure which one though I think it would be either of Caravan Club, or Caravan and Camping Club...you would have to join whichever club it is.

oz0707

Luckily i'm with LV and found this on their website recently

So, what would LV= do?

Well, if Simon was an LV=customer, he'd need to let us know that his property is going to be unoccupied for more than 60 days. Once we know that, we’d advise Simon to make sure that any locks and/or alarms are in good working order and used at all times. 

We’d continue to cover Simon’s home while it’s unoccupied and would also confirm this in his documents with the requirements needed to maintain cover for events such as escape of water, theft and vandalism (as long as Simon has told us and has paid the relevant premium). 

We would also recommend that someone checks Simon’s property weekly and removes any refuse, newspapers and junk mail. Once the property is occupied again, Simon would need to let us know.

If Simon didn’t tell us the property was going to be unoccupied, the above wouldn’t be covered.

https://www.lv.com/home-insurance/home-insurance-for-unoccupied-property