Sealing a letterbox; risk of property being seen as empty

RaymondDouglas

My house, which I formerly let and is now empty of furniture, has been sold subject to contract. As discussed in another thread, my insurance company insists that I must seal up my letterbox. I could do this myself with duct tape and cardboard (on the inside), yet I am not sure how secure this would be: might be vulnerable to the poking of persistent postmen, thereby failing to meet the insurance company's standards in the event of an inspection following a claim? A Blockabox device would do the job thoroughly, replacing the letterbox with a new metal box. The worry here is that it advertises the property as empty. Is this a legitimate worry, do you think?

user1977

Not sure how much added risk it is, if the insurers want it then presumably they've taken that sort of assessment into account?

Valli

I would contact the insurance company for clarification. It may be that they require it to prevent arson, for example.

RaymondDouglas

Thanks! The insurers didn't actually specify that they wanted a Blockabox; that was my suggestion to them. Their stipulation, upon my inquiry, was vague: 'must prevent anything from being put into the letter box to meet our requirements.'

HouseHuntingAmy

From a pure logic point of view the two worries pull against each other, and the insurers wording actually resolves it: they said prevent anything being put into the box, which a tidy internal plate does just as well as a metal Blockabox. Cardboard and duct tape might not survive a determined postie, but a thin sheet of plywood or a letterbox draught plate screwed to the inside looks like an ordinary bit of DIY rather than a security device, so it doesnt shout "nobody home" to anyone walking past.

The arson point further up is probably the real reason for the stipulation - people posting lit material through the door is exactly what empty-property policies worry about. Worth getting the insurer to confirm the internal-plate approach in writing though; if they accept it, both problems are solved at once.

(Reading threads like this with great intrest as a hopeful first-time buyer - the odd little conditions in empty-property insurance are an education in themselves.)

RaymondDouglas

Thanks Amy! Very useful advice.

RaymondDouglas

If arson is the most serious threat then a Blockabox should do the job. Is squatting a credible possibility (mid-terrace house, a little out from centre of small city)?

Herzlos

What kind of door and letterbox is it? Can you just screw the letterbox shut or put something more substantial than duct tape and cardboard over it?

RaymondDouglas

I'm considering plywood, although the purchaser might not be keen on my leaving (after eventual removal of plywood) screw-holes in the (wooden) door.

Someone else had the same dilemma in 2012.

MyRealNameToo

As per the discussion on the insurance thread, you can also look at other insurers, not all require postbox to be blocked from day 1

The Blockabox are more than just steel plates, they have foam on the inside to ensure that liquid wouldnt seep though. A bit of plywood on the back isnt going to achieve that plus ply itself is going to be flammable.

In principle it is possible to put a letterbox in front of the metal plate as long as the total thickness doesnt take it beyond the maximum length bolt provided. Its going to stick out more than normal but wouldnt be that obvious from the casual observer on the street. Alternatively you could only put the back plate on but that leaves the void in the door accessible where fluids and burning material could be put.

Vote remains going with a different insurer.

RaymondDouglas

Thanks for the helpful advice.

Perhaps the dilemma reduces to: is the predominant fear arson, or should squatting (or some other empty property danger) be considered a serious threat?