Buildings Insurance When Potential Long Standing Movement is Mentioned

Sim1N

Hello,

I have a strange situation, I see there have been threads in the past on this but not sure if insurance policies have changed since then.

We are FTB buying a 3 bed ex council semi, built around 1955. Our homebuyers report mentioned what I have now learned to be normal “cracks to masonry could indicate long standing movement which is non progressive” etc.

As first time buyers, we went into a panic and immediately thought the house would fall down and was told we wouldn’t be able to get insurance for it. I then proceeded to, in a panicked state, go online to get A LOT of quotes for insurance. As I didn’t know at the time I was ticking the boxes saying movement/cracks/subsidence etc. and all the “bad” things I thought the report was indicating. Anyway they have all been saying no or asking for proof that the subsidence is treated and so on, which to my knowledge doesn’t exist as there hasn’t been any reported subsidence to the house.

Only now have I spoken to the actual surveyor (who was surprisingly very nice, from what I read a lot of them aren’t), who said that the cracks he reported are simply a few hairline cracks in a couple of the bricks, which he doesn’t deem urgent or as a result of subsidence but he has to put these things on the report to cover his back. He asked what I have been doing getting the insurance quotes and if I have been ticking boxes for subsidence and structural damage etc. as he has never had anyone come back to him to say they couldn’t get insurance and 95% of the properties he surveys in the area have similar hairline cracks to a few of the bricks.

He said he isn’t an insurance specialist, but I didn’t need to be ticking boxes about cracks and landslip and all the other words these companies use, as the cracks are insignificant and not in any way a subsidence concern. He said that if he suspected the property had any form of landslip, movement or subsidence other than the usual settlement movement when it was first built, he would have recommended a structural engineers survey, which he didn’t.

So my question is, what am I supposed to do now about insurance? I am really stressing over it and think that cos I’m new to this and did a panic shop for insurance, I have just made a bigger deal out of things that I didn’t need to.

Oh also I have had a company refuse because the house is in South Yorkshire and obviously there’s all the mining history here, they don’t cover properties that have any mining history in the areas.

Sorry for being wordy but it’s really hard to navigate when you’re new to all this stuff!

anselld

Get new quotes with the questions answered correctly.  

user1977

Historic non-progressive movement is utterly standard on a survey for an older property (I'd swear some surveyors just copy and paste it in even if they haven't seen any evidence of it). There's no need to start chatting to insurers about it.

eddddy

But you might have some problems, because you've previously told the insurance companies that the house has subsidence (maybe by ticking boxes on comparison sites).

The insurance companies will probably have saved that information. (The comparison sites pass the info to insurers.)

If you now ask for more quotes, and say that the house hasn't had subsidence - that might be flagged up as an indicator of somebody trying to commit fraud.

Sim1N

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. 

Eddddy, the surveyor did say they have to effectively “copy and paste” certain standard phrases into reports. But yeah that is my concern now that I’ve hammered loads of comparison sites with incorrect info.

I just wish there was a official guidebook for things like that on how it interpret reports and how to correctly shop for insurance and so on… just the whole process has been extremely stressful and confusing, the solicitors receptionists speak to me like I’m stupid when I ask them a valid question or to confirm something I’m unsure on. I would like to think that it gets better and easier once you move up the property ladder and it’s not as daunting as the first time… but reading on these forums it seems that might not be the case!

I spoke to a company on the phone yesterday who I had previously ticked the “bad” boxes on and explained the surveyors comments and they said “oh well we will requote you now and fill it in correctly for you now we know this information” which was great… but their premiums were still insane so I’m now saying no to them and will keep shopping. I will just call companies directly now instead of filling in vague tick boxes online!

Albermarle

 but their premiums were still insane 

As in how many £££'s?

A typical semi should be no more than £200 for buildings insurance? Used to be less, but seems to have gone up quite a lot recently .

Sim1N

They quoted £1,200 just for buildings and £1,300 and something to include contents! Luckily I have just managed to get insurance sorted for building and contents elsewhere for £436 speaking to someone on the phone instead of doing it all online. Might be a bit higher than the average £200, but £1k cheaper than the other company! The only thing I can think is that they didn’t untick the subsidence and structural problem boxes like they said they did for it to come out at £1,200 for a 3 bed 70 year old house!

Albermarle

Sim1N said:

They quoted £1,200 just for buildings and £1,300 and something to include contents! Luckily I have just managed to get insurance sorted for building and contents elsewhere for £436 speaking to someone on the phone instead of doing it all online. Might be a bit higher than the average £200, but £1k cheaper than the other company! The only thing I can think is that they didn’t untick the subsidence and structural problem boxes like they said they did for it to come out at £1,200 for a 3 bed 70 year old house!

With contents as well, you would expect it to more than £200, especially with a few add ons.