On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:37:20 +0000, Andrew Chesters wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:01:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip
Isn't this what building insurance is for?


[cynic]

No. Building (in fact, all) insurance is there to make money for the
share holders. They REALLY don't like paying out. Give them 1/2 an
excuse and you're on your own!!

Entirely agree - settlement of the building so that under pinning is
required is relatively uncommon.

I am assuming that the current owner has kept the property insured if it
needs under pinning due to ground movement they'll have to pay.
Buildings insurance is one of the few insurances I believe in.
However I was delighted to find that I could halve the premium if I took a
£2.5 excess. Since I don't want to pay for other peoples minor trouble
and will likely find it quicker and easier to fix minor stuff myself I was
happy. £250 quid /year saved every year. Probability of a major claim I
reckon is less than 1%.

If the current owner did not insure his house against the really big
trouble then he will have lost tens of thousands off the value for
under-pinning.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html