House insurance: Unsure how to answer

The question asks if there is any evidence of damp.

Providing their is no evidence of damp then you can answet that there is no evidence of damp

You had an issue, it was dealt with and now (Presumably) there are no signs of damp.

For obvoius reasons, Insurers want to avoid providing cover for the type of properties owned by people who do not actually maintain their properties.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Why don't they just ask "Is there any damp?" which is what they mean?
There might be no evidence of damp because it has been hidden, eg by inappropriate treatment which will cause trouble later.

If they asked "Is there any evidence of flooding?" they presumably don't mean is it flooded now - and they might regard an old newsreel clip showing the town under water as very real evidence of flooding.

If they want straightforward answers they should ask straightforward questions.

Because if they ask "Is there any damp" it would make it make it difficult to answer and possibly unfair.

Is there any evidence of damp? The homeowner can then answer the question if there are signs of damp. There may well be damp but with no evidence.

It could be seen as being unfair to penalise a (Possibly ignorant about DIY) at a later eg a claim because the home had damp but there were no signs a normal consumer could have spotted.

The is there any damp question could potentially mean a consumer has a claim declined when the Insurer finds that the home does have damp problems when there were no signs a normal home owner would reasonably spot.

By asking if there is any evidence of damp, it's fairer on the consumer and is likely to be an acceptable question should the matter ever be referred to the Ombudsman.