House Insurance on 'older' buildings
Discussion
Quick question on house insurance for anyone in the know;
I live in a converted steading (Scottish parlance for converted cow shed
) built well before 1900. It was only converted 14 years ago and is therefore pretty much a normal modern structure. The roof was removed and replaced, the granite walls repointed, plasterboard cavity walls installed etc etc.
However due to the original date of 'build' my house insurance is almost double what comparable houses owned by friends in similar local areas cost. I appreciate that post code, risk etc etc have a part to play, but basically the call centre guy (admittedly seemed very knowledgeable) quoting my house insurance has acknowledged that the date of 1900 is weighing my premium heavily. I argued they should call it a 14 year old house, as all it shares with the original structure is the footprint and some of the raw materials that were re-used, but he said that it was all based on the age of the foundations (then knocked 10% off anyway to appease me...).
In my eyes, if the building hasn't subsided in over a 100 years, it ain't going to start now, and therefore should actually be less risk than a new build? Not sure what else of relevance the foundations have on the total risk.
Has anyone come across this before? Is it worth trying to arrange a specialist policy, or will I go through a load of hassle only to get quoted the same, as everyone takes the age of foundations into account.
Any advice would be appreciated!
I live in a converted steading (Scottish parlance for converted cow shed
) built well before 1900. It was only converted 14 years ago and is therefore pretty much a normal modern structure. The roof was removed and replaced, the granite walls repointed, plasterboard cavity walls installed etc etc.However due to the original date of 'build' my house insurance is almost double what comparable houses owned by friends in similar local areas cost. I appreciate that post code, risk etc etc have a part to play, but basically the call centre guy (admittedly seemed very knowledgeable) quoting my house insurance has acknowledged that the date of 1900 is weighing my premium heavily. I argued they should call it a 14 year old house, as all it shares with the original structure is the footprint and some of the raw materials that were re-used, but he said that it was all based on the age of the foundations (then knocked 10% off anyway to appease me...).
In my eyes, if the building hasn't subsided in over a 100 years, it ain't going to start now, and therefore should actually be less risk than a new build? Not sure what else of relevance the foundations have on the total risk.
Has anyone come across this before? Is it worth trying to arrange a specialist policy, or will I go through a load of hassle only to get quoted the same, as everyone takes the age of foundations into account.
Any advice would be appreciated!
offshorematt2 said:
Quick question on house insurance for anyone in the know;
I live in a converted steading (Scottish parlance for converted cow shed) built well before 1900. It was only converted 14 years ago and is therefore pretty much a normal modern structure. The roof was removed and replaced, the granite walls repointed, plasterboard cavity walls installed etc etc.
However due to the original date of 'build' my house insurance is almost double what comparable houses owned by friends in similar local areas cost. I appreciate that post code, risk etc etc have a part to play, but basically the call centre guy (admittedly seemed very knowledgeable) quoting my house insurance has acknowledged that the date of 1900 is weighing my premium heavily. I argued they should call it a 14 year old house, as all it shares with the original structure is the footprint and some of the raw materials that were re-used, but he said that it was all based on the age of the foundations (then knocked 10% off anyway to appease me...).
In my eyes, if the building hasn't subsided in over a 100 years, it ain't going to start now, and therefore should actually be less risk than a new build? Not sure what else of relevance the foundations have on the total risk.
Has anyone come across this before? Is it worth trying to arrange a specialist policy, or will I go through a load of hassle only to get quoted the same, as everyone takes the age of foundations into account.
Any advice would be appreciated!
I wouldn't say the age of the building is the main factor. The price will be built upon all the details you have given the insurance company. (The age is just one of many variables) The company I work for would say that although your property was converted 14 years ago, unless less than 20% of the original structure remains we would build a price based on the earliest build date.I live in a converted steading (Scottish parlance for converted cow shed
) built well before 1900. It was only converted 14 years ago and is therefore pretty much a normal modern structure. The roof was removed and replaced, the granite walls repointed, plasterboard cavity walls installed etc etc.However due to the original date of 'build' my house insurance is almost double what comparable houses owned by friends in similar local areas cost. I appreciate that post code, risk etc etc have a part to play, but basically the call centre guy (admittedly seemed very knowledgeable) quoting my house insurance has acknowledged that the date of 1900 is weighing my premium heavily. I argued they should call it a 14 year old house, as all it shares with the original structure is the footprint and some of the raw materials that were re-used, but he said that it was all based on the age of the foundations (then knocked 10% off anyway to appease me...).
In my eyes, if the building hasn't subsided in over a 100 years, it ain't going to start now, and therefore should actually be less risk than a new build? Not sure what else of relevance the foundations have on the total risk.
Has anyone come across this before? Is it worth trying to arrange a specialist policy, or will I go through a load of hassle only to get quoted the same, as everyone takes the age of foundations into account.
Any advice would be appreciated!
As with all insurance the only way you're going to get the best price/cover is by shoppping around (compare the market, go compare etc etc then try the big insurers like Aviva and Direct line as they aren't on comparison sites.) I suggest ringing the best three but don't let them add things on if you don't need them, although it's sometimes best to spend a few quid more just to make sure you have the insurance you need.
37Flipper said:
I wouldn't say the age of the building is the main factor. The price will be built upon all the details you have given the insurance company. (The age is just one of many variables) The company I work for would say that although your property was converted 14 years ago, unless less than 20% of the original structure remains we would build a price based on the earliest build date.
As with all insurance the only way you're going to get the best price/cover is by shoppping around (compare the market, go compare etc etc then try the big insurers like Aviva and Direct line as they aren't on comparison sites.) I suggest ringing the best three but don't let them add things on if you don't need them, although it's sometimes best to spend a few quid more just to make sure you have the insurance you need.
Just to clarify, I did all this last year and couldn't get the policy down in cost significently. In fact as soon as you flag the pre 1900 age thing, a lot of the normal 'big insurers' just decided not to quote via the supermarkets. As with all insurance the only way you're going to get the best price/cover is by shoppping around (compare the market, go compare etc etc then try the big insurers like Aviva and Direct line as they aren't on comparison sites.) I suggest ringing the best three but don't let them add things on if you don't need them, although it's sometimes best to spend a few quid more just to make sure you have the insurance you need.
If the 20% thing you mention is true across the board, then it looks like I'm screwed
- probably around 95% of the steading was reused as that is the driver for planning permission up here. I've had plenty of properties over the last 15years, and know what my peers are paying for theirs. Age appears to be the main differentiator here (backed up by the discussion with the guy quoting me). Just wondered if all insurance companies went by the same parameters or whether say, a specialist would be more realistic. Not the end of the world if not, but if someone had experience to the contrary, it would make a good starting point!
Certainly I;m not in the camp of "reduced premiums regardless of cover" - I pay for insurance because I want to be properly covered (not just because the mortgage company says I have to be!) Edited by offshorematt2 on Thursday 28th July 00:37
In fact, I'll throw it out there - I'm being quoted almost £500 a year for buildings insurance for a five bed house last valued at around £300,000. I'm just outside a rural village, and nearby friends are paying less than £200 for the same cover. No log burners, open fires or aga's here - just conventional modern living (albeit with granite walls and slate roof) twenty miles outside a major conurbation.
High contents insurance in the country I can understand (increased risk of burglary etc) but what else would weigh my buildings insurance in this manner?
High contents insurance in the country I can understand (increased risk of burglary etc) but what else would weigh my buildings insurance in this manner?
Currently living in a 1780 house just outside Glasgow. Insurance through typical high-street vendor at the sub £500 for B&C. Nothing out of the ordinary; I filled in the forms with the information required and got a figure. I'm currently 2 claims down the line this year alone and no-one has questioned the cover (because I haven't hidden anything).
Stone walls, slate roof, all original lath-plaster and cornicework, modern wiring & plumbing, smoke alarms and modern locks. No problems.
My mortgage provided did give me a 'quotation' for £2,500 B&C for a year when I bought the place and that was based on the same information that I used online.
Dr Rick
Stone walls, slate roof, all original lath-plaster and cornicework, modern wiring & plumbing, smoke alarms and modern locks. No problems.
My mortgage provided did give me a 'quotation' for £2,500 B&C for a year when I bought the place and that was based on the same information that I used online.
Dr Rick
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff