Quidco and Nationwide Buildings and Contents

debyluann

HI all

Just bought my buildings and contents insurance via Quidco with Nationwide - it says on Quidco that genuine transactions offer a cashback of £85.

Anyone have experience on this, as i am looking forward to my free money.

thepearce

Yes - I've got contents only tracked at £85.

With "home" insurance where possible it can be more effective to split the buildings & contents - ie buy contents from nationwide and get £85 cashback and buildings from someone else getting another cashback.

Some companies are now stating "Buildings and contents" or £60 buildings + £60 contents but sure there are still bargains to be had.

This is probably better on the Quidco follow-up thread (in Referrers)

[Deleted User]

Earlier in the year I got £120 cashback via Quido with the Natwest policy. Ended up getting excellent buildings and contents insurance with £0 voluntary excess for £55! Excellent for my two bed bungalow. Took aaagggess - about 4 months to get cashback but it worked!

Ironically, Natwest was in the top 3 of cheapest quotes anyway even without the cashback!!!!!!!!!!!

ajb69

Just one word of warning - do be careful about splitting contents and buildings betwen different insurers. In the event of a claim which involves coverages on both policies (e.g. burglary with damage to building + theft of contents, or flooding which leads to total loss on both) then you may find that the two insurers both refuse payment because they say the other should pay up.

This may not happen, if you have nice insurers, and even if it does it will probably just involve a few hours on the phone arguing with them both until one agrees to pay - but if you've suffered a loss, this can be the last thing you need.

In the worst case, there can be real gaps where insurer A considers item X to be a fixture, where insurer B says it is a content; if you happen to have contents with A and buildings with B, then you may end up with a gap in cover - and unless you have read the wordings from cover to cover, this may not be easy to spot in advance.

Don't let me put you off - money saved is not to be sniffed at - but if you think you may make a claim, the admin saved by insuring both contents & buildings with he same firm may be worth the extra premium...

d

jessjess_2

ajb69 wrote: »

Just one word of warning - do be careful about splitting contents and buildings betwen different insurers. In the event of a claim which involves coverages on both policies (e.g. burglary with damage to building + theft of contents, or flooding which leads to total loss on both) then you may find that the two insurers both refuse payment because they say the other should pay up.

This may not happen, if you have nice insurers, and even if it does it will probably just involve a few hours on the phone arguing with them both until one agrees to pay - but if you've suffered a loss, this can be the last thing you need.

In the worst case, there can be real gaps where insurer A considers item X to be a fixture, where insurer B says it is a content; if you happen to have contents with A and buildings with B, then you may end up with a gap in cover - and unless you have read the wordings from cover to cover, this may not be easy to spot in advance.

Don't let me put you off - money saved is not to be sniffed at - but if you think you may make a claim, the admin saved by insuring both contents & buildings with he same firm may be worth the extra premium...

d

how can buildings and contents both decline cover for an item?

in simple terms, if its fixed to the structure its part of buildings, if its easilly removable from the property its contents, simple as!

ajb69

jessjess wrote: »

how can buildings and contents both decline cover for an item?

in simple terms, if its fixed to the structure its part of buildings, if its easilly removable from the property its contents, simple as!

You'd be surprised - there are many "grey areas" where one company will say it's "easily" removable and another will say it's fixed. For example, I've known one insurer say that carpet is buildings (because tacked down) but lino is contents (as it's not tacked down, so would technically fall out if the building is held upside down and shaken <g>). Another insurer would, sensibly, say both are buildings; so if you have building cover with A and contents with B, then your lino ain't covered. Other way round, you're covered twice...which actually causes its own problems!

You can get similar things with accidental damage caused by pets (sometimes excluded, sometimes included, sometimes buildings only), and several other common clauses. You will also hit issues if one insurer wishes to replace as new and the other wishes to just clean/repair - you'll win the argument with one but then have to start over again with the other.

You're never going to get entire claims declined, and if your insurers are decent firms then they'll not leave you uncovered; but - at the least - it is extra hassle and you have to balance the % saved against the potential for argument.

I work in insurance (although not in the household market) and also have had friends burgled who have had separate policies; from both the trade press and my friends' experience, they & I would never insure separately as the time spent allocating damage between policies often outweighs the saving. Admittedly, that's dependent on a lot of factors- price, coverage, excess and reputation all play a role: for example, RS&A (More>than) have a dreadful reputation for claims with brokers (see the survey in the last-but-one issue of Insurance Times )- so I'd rather have two separate policies with firms higher up the list. But that's a specific reaction to a specific insurer; so as a rule I'd still say that having a policy with two separate insurers can be cheaper until you have to make a claim.

d

fantasticsavings

I wouldn't relay on getting the cashback either, if you look on referrals page of the forum there are loads of users not getting payed from Quidco,,personally i think they are going down the drain,as with all 100% cashback sites....
good look with your payment because people are getting burnt!

jessjess_2

ajb69 wrote: »

You'd be surprised - there are many "grey areas" where one company will say it's "easily" removable and another will say it's fixed. For example, I've known one insurer say that carpet is buildings (because tacked down) but lino is contents (as it's not tacked down, so would technically fall out if the building is held upside down and shaken <g>). Another insurer would, sensibly, say both are buildings; so if you have building cover with A and contents with B, then your lino ain't covered. Other way round, you're covered twice...which actually causes its own problems!

You can get similar things with accidental damage caused by pets (sometimes excluded, sometimes included, sometimes buildings only), and several other common clauses. You will also hit issues if one insurer wishes to replace as new and the other wishes to just clean/repair - you'll win the argument with one but then have to start over again with the other.

You're never going to get entire claims declined, and if your insurers are decent firms then they'll not leave you uncovered; but - at the least - it is extra hassle and you have to balance the % saved against the potential for argument.

I work in insurance (although not in the household market) and also have had friends burgled who have had separate policies; from both the trade press and my friends' experience, they & I would never insure separately as the time spent allocating damage between policies often outweighs the saving. Admittedly, that's dependent on a lot of factors- price, coverage, excess and reputation all play a role: for example, RS&A (More>than) have a dreadful reputation for claims with brokers (see the survey in the last-but-one issue of Insurance Times )- so I'd rather have two separate policies with firms higher up the list. But that's a specific reaction to a specific insurer; so as a rule I'd still say that having a policy with two separate insurers can be cheaper until you have to make a claim.

d

The ABI has deemed all lino buildings, carpet is alwasy contents as it is easilly removable. the only time i can think of when it would be buildings is if it was glued to the floor, but that would be very rare indeed!

I handle household claims and can say ive never come across that before.