Buildings insurance that doesn't cover buildings!

RuperttheBlackCat

Hello.

I'd like your thoughts, please, on whether we just have a rubbish buildings insurance policy or if this is standard stuff.

I own a flat in an Edwardian house that was converted into four flats many years ago. Each time something goes wrong with the building (leaking windows, guttering falling down) we're told that our buildings insurance doesn't cover it because it's 'wear and tear'.

Is this usual please?

Woodstok2000

Hard to say without knowing the exact details of your policy and each incident, but it is probably right.

Insurance doesn't usually cover maintenance - it's there for unexpected occurrences.

For example, if my house is 20 years old and a window starts to leak, that's on me to fix. If a tree fell on the house and knocked a window out, that would be an insurance claim.

Aretnap

If you read your policy you will see that it contains a list of the things that it covers ("perils", to use the jargon). The list of perils is reasonably standard and is mostly unexpected one off events which cause damage to your home - storms, floods, fires, collisions with vehicles etc. If you want to make a claim then you have to say which peril caused the damage that you are claiming for.

"Guttering getting a bit old and shoddy" or "badly fitted windows leaking" aren't insured perils on any buildings policy that I've ever seen. They're not unexpected one off events, they're just part off the joy of being a homeowner I'm afraid. If you want that sort of thing covered by a monthly payment rather than just paying for them as they come up then you would need some sort of maintenance contact with a builder, not an insurance policy.

(The main exception to the "one off events" thing is subsidence which is something that happens gradually over time but is covered. But that's the exception, not the rule.)

(A minority of policies are written on an "all risks" basis which means they don't contain a list of insured perils. Instead they cover "bad stuff that happens to your house" and then list some exceptions which are not covered. Wear and tear, routine maintenance and poor workmanship are standard exceptions so the outcome would be the same for the type of claims that you describe. However they do have the advantage that where the cause of the damage is not obvious, the onus is on the insurer to prove that it's excluded rather than for the customer to prove that it's covered.)

subsidence_expert

Yes that’s normal. You can’t insure against wear and tear / maintenance issues. It’s a general insurance principle that applies worldwide.

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6671349/buildings-insurance-that-doesnt-cover-buildings

Absolutely normal.

I live in an 170 year old converted victorian townhouse. As pointed out by @Aretnap building insurance covers unexpected perils.

You cannot expect cover for normal wear and tear, lack of prudent maintenance or the shoddy efforts of the original builder who converted the property. That is what you should be contributing annual service charges for, or establishing a long term sinking fund for big ticket items such as roof renewal.

Have to wonder whether this is the first time you have ever had direct experience of building insurance policies, your expectations seem unreasonable.

eddddy

RuperttheBlackCat said

Each time something goes wrong with the building (leaking windows, guttering falling down) we're told that our buildings insurance doesn't cover it because it's 'wear and tear'.

It sounds like you're saying that your freeholder/management company arranges buildings insurance.

If so, you should ask them for a copy of the policy so you can read what risks it covers.

Those risks will almost always be loss or damage caused by things like:

• fire, explosion, storms, floods, earthquakes
• theft, attempted theft and vandalism
• frozen and burst pipes
• fallen trees, lampposts, aerials or satellite dishes
• subsidence
• vehicle or aircraft collisions

(and possibly a separate policy covering damage as a result of terrorism.)

And damage resulting from the following will almost certainly be excluded

• gradual wear and tear,
• poor workmanship or poor materials