Compton Group +ground rent +insurance

propertyman

Then you were poorly advised. Any Solicitor will be aware that there is a possibility of abuse and to take steps which are available to minimise or remove that, or understand the devil you are dealing with.

it is reckless and naive to take on a home without a full understanding, and then expect that the other parties adapt themselves to suit a buyers mistakes or assumption.

The last thing I do is wear rose tinted or any kind of glasses. Jut because its cheaper doesn't mean its better. How many posts here actually show that they proved there was "rip off"? s Do they understand how insurers write cheap policies build up volume and then sell on or sell out? That is why you see new policy holders get the discounts that we don't.How insurers write a cheap policy and aggressively risk manage their losses; any doubt and no payout. Or if the block of flats has a significant loss, that a landlord's block policy can spread that risk through buying power and are prepared where others are not. It is wrong to simply say that they are all rip offs.
And wrong to say that "they" are stopping you getting a bigger discount that you, through a buying decision, are not entitled to- rip off or not.

One large reason that no statutory action is taken is that the number of properties involved in comparison to the number of leasehold homes is relativity few. Experience of the last 20 years shows that the big factory firms that abuse the situation rapidly devour themselves and collapse as their business model is fundamentally flawed.

The effort time and cost, and the very real of prospect of failure given the international nature of the insurance market and its ability to create margins, is vastly disproportional to the scale of the problem. Comparing one insurer to another might result in a lower premium, but what understanding of the scope of cover do most have?

So for that small number of homes affected they, virtually without exception, are in a position to change or affect the outcome, by
a; understand what they are buying beforehand
b; get advice beforehand
c; put a little effort and time to do so

If they were unaware then the were poorly advised or unwilling to assess the pros and cons and put down the IKEA catalog.

but then it is always easier to reinforce prejudices and bitterness than understand, adapt learn and resolve.

That's why I am posting this to encourage you to not bleat but harangue your solicitor & exercise your rights "get mad & get even"

2sides2everystory

propertyman wrote: »

How many posts here actually show that they proved there was "rip off"? s Do they understand how insurers write cheap policies build up volume and then sell on or sell out? That is why you see new policy holders get the discounts that we don't.How insurers write a cheap policy and aggressively risk manage their losses; any doubt and no payout. Or if the block of flats has a significant loss, that a landlord's block policy can spread that risk through buying power and are prepared where others are not. It is wrong to simply say that they are all rip offs...

OK then. In what kind of ballpark do you as propertyman estimate the "All Risks" correct sort of premium rate will fall for a block of flats of standard construction otherwise featuring concrete floors but with nevertheless open stairwells between floors (although single 2 hour firedoors off stairwell landings to flat entrance lobbies), and open service risers in the 2 hour fire door cupboards? Built in the 90s by a major UK housebuilder. 4 floors only. No lifts, no special risks e.g. not in a flood area, tiny claims experience since built (the odd overflowing bath). Day One rebuilding cost estimate approx £7M?

... but then it is always easier to reinforce prejudices and bitterness than understand, adapt learn and resolve.

Who has been doing that exactly? The customers commenting in this thread or customers generally ?

Why should customers even have to consider using paying for expensive lawyers "to get even". Why haven't you volunteered on behalf of your industry to sort out the OP's problem using your contacts for example? Not the done thing, old boy, raining on someone else's parade, eh what?

propertyman

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Why should customers even have to consider using paying for expensive lawyers "to get even". Why haven't you volunteered on behalf of your industry to sort out the OP's problem using your contacts for example? Not the done thing, old boy, raining on someone else's parade, eh what?

But you are proving my statement....the trick is to
a: pay a solicitor to read the lease and advise you so that the issue does not arise in the first place;
b; god forbid that the single biggest commitment most will ever make might take a little homework and not just a shopping spree.

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Why haven't you volunteered on behalf of your industry to sort out the OP's problem using your contacts for example? Not the done thing, old boy, raining on someone else's parade, eh what?

The same question again; read the posts, I have in other posts and elsewhere spend a great deal of time doing just that, for example directing to lease-advice.org.

An expensive solicitor need not to be employed- the guidance is there as are the decisions to be read, from a tribunal that is operated very much in favour of the lay person.

In the case of your insurance I would need to know the location and claims history, but you can as a block or individuals
1: obtain the information via section 30a request and contact any number of specialist brokers
2; challenge the premium and cover at the LVT
3; exercise right to manage and take control over your affairs inc insurance.

2sides2everystory

Propertyman, you are giving the usual straight bat propertyman's response. You are not engaging with the real problem which is your industry and the cosy deals it does with the insurance industry.

You have not floated any proper premium rate not because you need more information but because you dare not broadcast it knowing full well that the majority of property insured under landlord's block policies in the UK is in the 100% overcharge ball park.

You would not need to know the location and the claims history to offer a ballpark estimate since I have already told you the claims history is insignificant and that there are no special risks like flood (or subsidence, or riot alley or what you will).

Far too much of the false property management industry has been for too many years been heavily reliant on insurance commissions secretly agreed and on barefaced ruthless "sue us if you think you can" tactics as I have already explained. Homeowners are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property and they should not have to constantly watch their backs because people from your industry are constantly trying to cream off obscene profit from some kind of "protection" racket.

propertyman

I thank you for the straight bat compliment.

You are however are taking a singular view; its a conspiracy and a rip off. That is based on a minority of examples with no understanding of the market

Bluntly there are landlords and agents who do just that. Our professional bodies have lobbied for regulation for years, I lobby for licensing of individuals too.

I resigned and sold out when my parent group started that approach many years ago, doubling premiums. My partners and I now as most agents do place insurances under FSA regulation, and take a reasonable commission of around 10 to 20 %. This is not an add on, that is the same amount that would be paid to any broker as a reward for introducing business, and in addition if we handle all claims. it is fully declared to all clients and resident management companies, and claims handling not hidden in management fees.

The fact is that any insurer has their own costs and margins as do a broker, to make a profit. Even if capped by regulation, the international market is such that it would be insured abroad so that the underlying premium might be lowered but the end price much the same. Similarly like many other companies already do in other financial sectors, foreign intermediaries would be introduced to ensure that rather than one chunk of 50%, several take smaller slices. I do not think it can therefore be regulated. Is it morally wrong, perhaps so.

The message is not sue if you can; you need not do that the remedies are largely self help, and if you take advice before buying the need rarely arises. In your case exercising right to manage a no fault remedy might be the perfect solution.

As to the insurance cover you are proving my point again by displaying a lack of knowledge, inserting prejudice and opinion rather than asking ok why do you say that? and thereby learning...not using wide assumptions and generalisations as fact.

You may as well say a flight to Portugal is £200 when Ryan Air will do it for the price of a pizza ( and you arrive feeling as it you have been in a box on the back of a scooter) or BA for £400. It's a helpful average but not really of much specific help.

2sides2everystory

propertyman wrote: »

That is based on a minority of examples with no understanding of the market.

You think.

I resigned and sold out when my parent group started that approach many years ago, doubling premiums.

Which parent group was that? The one that has kept re-metamorphosing ad-infinitum phoenix-like in all the usual places and which has spawned a network of ex-group members who can be found in "other" property companies now but who all seem to share the same culture ?

My partners and I now as most agents do place insurances under FSA regulation

Really? And that regulation would amount to what exactly? Do they ask you questions like I do ? Do you avoid answering them like you avoid answering me about a simple ballpark rate for a standard build block of no consequence?

... and take a reasonable commission of around 10 to 20 %.

Who are you to say it is reasonable? Are you even insurance qualified by examination and a broad general insurance experience?

This is not an add on, that is the same amount that would be paid to any broker as a reward for introducing business, and in addition if we handle all claims.

But you are not a any broker and in fact you are no broker at all you are just using language rather too boldly for my liking suggesting that you deserve to be treated as if you are.

... it is fully declared to all clients and resident management companies, and claims handling not hidden in management fees.

You know full well that unless you insure council blocks in Hackney the claims frequency is quite often piffling mostly because of the perceived and deliberate obstruction between those who pay the premium and actual hard evidence of properly arranged insurance. The bits of paper floating around in your industry purporting to be insurance certificates are like so much useless confetti.

It all often means means that "all claims" on a block the size of the one I asked you to ballpark might actually amount to maybe one seriously overflowed bath b^ggering up a ceiling below each year for you to worry about if you are lucky and a couple of claims which you can deflect to claimants contents insurers. Yet you seem to be suggesting that you do in fact charge for claims handling??

The fact is that any insurer has their own costs and margins as do a broker, to make a profit.

But you are not an insurer and you are not a broker. You are a propertyman who thinks insurance is part of your game and your language suggests you wish to cloak yourself with some of the terms that describe real insurance firms.

Even if capped by regulation, the international market is such that it would be insured abroad so that the underlying premium might be lowered but the end price much the same.

Are you talking about the same kind of conspiracy that I have already said exists in the UK?

Similarly like many other companies already do in other financial sectors, foreign intermediaries would be introduced to ensure that rather than one chunk of 50%, several take smaller slices.

They already do, don't they? Are you the only intermediary between the client management company or freeholder and the ultimate risk carrier or are there another one or two middlemen in your particular FSA regulated food chain who also take a "reasonable" 10-20%?

As to the insurance cover you are proving my point again by displaying a lack of knowledge, inserting prejudice and opinion rather than asking ok why do you say that? and thereby learning...not using wide assumptions and generalisations as fact.

Would it surprise you if you learned I was an underwriter of this type of business? Not an agent under some cosy delegated authority scheme but an actual underwriter for a major UK player? Someone who decides the premium rates. Someone who creates relationships with suitable middlemen who might be trusted not to abuse my rates and facility. Someone who communicates what premium loadings that might apply for inflation factors of +30% or +50% and the sort of loss ratios the UK underwriting management like to see. Does that surprise you? Do you know the sort or do you place your landlords block business via a more indirect route ?

You may as well say a flight to Portugal is £200 when Ryan Air will do it for the price of a pizza ( and you arrive feeling as it you have been in a box on the back of a scooter) or BA for £400. It's a helpful average but not really of much specific help.

You clearly don't know too much about Ryanair versus the competition which makes me wonder whether you know the difference between Brit AXA Zurich Erinaceous LVT ARMA and Oxygen for example. Actually I jest. From the way you write, I am sure you know them all. But I'll decide if it is of any help thanks, which is why I asked.

propertyman

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Are you talking about the same kind of conspiracy that I have already said exists in the UK?

At which point you lost all credibility.

Start another thread and take off the silver foil hat and I am happy to respond ( e.g. if I were one of the evil conspirators, why am I here trying to help?).

The average member here is concerned about abuse under the leases. My point therefore is

a; take advice and do your homework before buying

b; for those stuck in that situation realise that "what you think", has to be replaced by "what the leases say"

c; government is not going to magically solve it; Watchdog is only interested to fill a 10 minute slot, take a deep breath, and exercise your rights that the government has given as set out in

www.lease-advice.org

2sides2everystory

I am not a cranky conspiracy theorist - real conspiracy is staring all us leaseholders in the face, is it not? You are not an insurance broker yet you cream off 10-20% of the insurance premiums associated with your landlord friends' and RTMCo friends' businesses and I doubt you have a direct agency with any ultimate risk carrier let alone the many you would need to even dream of calling yourself an insurance broker, so there's likely to be at least one more middleman taking a further 10-20% of all business you "introduce" just for standing in the chain with their hand out alongside yours and all for what? Issuing bits of paper you call insurance certificates and which are kept hidden from gaze of mere payers lest one of them get ideas about showing it to the competition and risking upset to your commissions gravy train, year in year out.

If you truly believe in helping then why don't you stick to the property management bit and keep your nose out of the insurance commissions trough so that proper premiums for the risk reach the people who are forced to pay instead of the obscenely inflated ones that appear on insurance debit notes, sometimes even with spurious Admin Fees added just to make sure you and your other middlemen pals get a free cut of these multi-thousand pound money merry go rounds and get to keep all those extra thousands (the whole premium not just your cut) in your bank accounts for as many months or two as you can so's you can impress your bank manager?

Tell us you don't need to do the insurance to make your "business" worthwhile. Your peers would laugh at you for walking away from one of the Golden Geese propertymen keep, wouldn't they?

You say you are here to help but preaching hindsight, caveat emptor and pointing down the yellow brick road to lease advice is just sticking plaster stuff and I think you know it.

FSA regulated? To even make such a statement thesedays is tantamount to an admission of a misleading commercial practice.

player

I've just received one of these letters (from compton insurance). It jumped head first into the shredder, am I going to jail?

propertyman

player wrote: »

I've just received one of these letters (from compton insurance). It jumped head first into the shredder, am I going to jail?

No, but you will be approached by a DCA or Solicitor and eventual Court proceedings if you ignore it.