Ed Sirett wrote:

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.


Current owner is a property management company who has let it in the
past. I suspect its condition is one reason its about to be up for
sale..its insured, and we beliecve a claim may be made, pending results
of vendors structural survey.