On Thursday, 22 June 2017 07:48:25 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/06/17 00:51, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 00:24:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article
,
tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 19:33:12 UTC+1, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 21/06/17 18:01, tabbypurr wrote:
If BR vanished we'd be back to how it was over a century ago.
Some houses were built properly to last, some weren't and
haven't survived the test of time. And some have worked well,
some have been unsatifactory.

if BR vanished insurers would set up something similar and it
would be a condition of insurance

1 or 2 might, but there'd still be a huge market for
noncompliant houses. As there is today. I don't know any insurer
that refuses Victorian houses.

They did some years ago. Along with many building societies. But
only some designs. Difficult types were terraced with semi
basements. Presumably due to damp issues.

It's possible to get insurance from specialists for buildings with
major problems, and 10s of millions of noncompliant houses are
insured, so I don't see insuring a noncompliant building being too
big a problem, even if the field of players is smaller.

Depends on what is being insured.

Its very hard to get insurance for houses with subsidence problems, but
no one cares about lack of insulation except the occupants.

Subsidence would not be a feature of such new builds. Bar subsidence one can insure nearly anything. In short this objection is a false one.


NT