DIYbanter

DIYbanter (https://www.diybanter.com/)
-   UK diy (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/)
-   -   How to calculate property value for buildings insurance? (https://www.diybanter.com/uk-diy/75099-how-calculate-property-value-buildings-insurance.html)

MM October 29th 04 05:35 PM

How to calculate property value for buildings insurance?
 
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM

Graeme October 29th 04 05:41 PM

"MM" wrote in message =
...
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!
=20
As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.
=20
MM



This should help

http://www.abi.org.uk/Public/Consume...uildingcalcul=
ator.asp


Andy Hall October 29th 04 05:48 PM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:35:00 +0100, MM wrote:

I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!


These people employ actuaries.

Actuaries are people who found accountancy too exciting.

Insurance companies are basically the white collar version of a
bookies and operate in similar ways - looking at odds and form, laying
off bets and so on.

So they look at what the others are doing as well as applying their
own rules.


As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.


You could ask the developer.... Normally the exercise would be part
of a lender's survey, so you could also ask prospective neighbours
what their buildings insurance is.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Owain October 29th 04 07:54 PM

"MM" wrote
| As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new,
| how am I supposed to find out what to insure it for? I
| believe the buildings insurance is normally a lot less
| than the price paid for the property.

In theory it would be the market price of the property less the cost of the
land (plot value). However if the property has been built to a better than
average standard (which would not be fully reflected in market price),
rebuilding costs will be somewhat higher. Also, market price does not take
into account the costs of eg alternative housing for you during
reconstruction.

Unless you expect rebuilding costs to be significantly higher than normal or
you have a very cheap house on a valuable plot, then advising the insurer of
current market value should be reasonably close.

Owain



R Taylor October 29th 04 08:45 PM

MM wrote:
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.

others may disagree, insurance companies dont....




RT



Andy Hall October 29th 04 09:36 PM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:45:29 GMT, "R Taylor"
wrote:

MM wrote:
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.

others may disagree, insurance companies dont....


The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land? The land doesn't go away......


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

MM October 29th 04 09:43 PM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:45:29 GMT, "R Taylor"
wrote:

MM wrote:
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.


At least I know that that is completely wrong. The rebuild cost is
*far* lower than the open market value.

MM

Andrew Gabriel October 29th 04 10:31 PM

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land?


What you pay for a house really has very little to do with
the cost of the land and the cost of building a house, and
much more to do with what the market will bear in that area
for x bedrooms, y reception rooms, and z bathrooms.

The land doesn't go away......


Rebuilding cost of an end-of-terrace 1895 house was nearly
double the market value. You couldn't just stick a modern
Barratt rabbit hutch up there if it burned down. You would
have to build a terraced property to join on and reasonably
well blend in to the rest (doesn't need to be a perfect
match), but to current building standards.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Jo October 29th 04 10:46 PM

MM wrote in
:

I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings
insurance based on post code, number of bedrooms and other
points. Then I called another broker and she said her firm had
to be advised the value required to be insured, as they could
not themselves provide any estimate. I kind of had the feeling
from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am
I supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the
buildings insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid
for the property.

MM

....from standard tables he
http://www.bcis.co.uk/costass.html

Andy Hall October 29th 04 10:57 PM

On 29 Oct 2004 21:31:51 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land?


What you pay for a house really has very little to do with
the cost of the land and the cost of building a house, and
much more to do with what the market will bear in that area
for x bedrooms, y reception rooms, and z bathrooms.

The land doesn't go away......


Rebuilding cost of an end-of-terrace 1895 house was nearly
double the market value. You couldn't just stick a modern
Barratt rabbit hutch up there if it burned down. You would
have to build a terraced property to join on and reasonably
well blend in to the rest (doesn't need to be a perfect
match), but to current building standards.



Agreed, but this is a brand new house......


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The Natural Philosopher October 29th 04 11:33 PM

MM wrote:

I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


Normally its rebuild after total destruction cots, which is probably in
the region of 100-150 a sq ft, for insurance purposes, tho in reality it
can be a lot less..

Mark October 30th 04 12:33 AM

R Taylor om typed:

MM wrote:
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings
insurance based on post code



the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.
others may disagree, insurance companies dont....


LOL
Undoubtedly for a House in Stoke, could even be treble.
But do you think this would also apply to a similar house in London. ?




Phil Addison October 30th 04 01:05 AM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:57:21 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 29 Oct 2004 21:31:51 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land?


What you pay for a house really has very little to do with
the cost of the land and the cost of building a house, and
much more to do with what the market will bear in that area
for x bedrooms, y reception rooms, and z bathrooms.

The land doesn't go away......


Rebuilding cost of an end-of-terrace 1895 house was nearly
double the market value. You couldn't just stick a modern
Barratt rabbit hutch up there if it burned down. You would
have to build a terraced property to join on and reasonably
well blend in to the rest (doesn't need to be a perfect
match), but to current building standards.



Agreed, but this is a brand new house......


Why would anyone insure their house for other than its market value,
less the value of the cleared land? Why would anyone want to rebuild
anyway, and why should anyone expect a brand new rebuilt house to
replace, say, a 100 year old Victorian one?

If your house gets bombed to the ground surely you would do the same as
if your car was written off - just collect the market value from the
insurance company, walk away and buy a similar one with the dosh. Then
sell off the old land to developer who will put 3 modern boxes on it.

I suppose there could be a case for insuring for the full market value
if the insurers would deem it a 'write-off' and deal with the land
clearance/re-sale issues themselves.

I haven't seen any statistics but it seems to me that the chances of a
complete domestic gutting must be pretty small compared to the millions
of properties paying yearly premiums.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Jim Alexander October 30th 04 09:17 AM


"MM" wrote in message
...
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.


As well as the ABI guide already suggested you could look at
http://www.bcis.co.uk/costass.html on which the ABI is based on. Your
library may be able to get the book or you could blag online access at a
college or uni.

Looked into this when renewing my insurance recently. Many companies will
fill in a value based on the house details. If you accept their valuation
you are usually covered whatever the actual costs. Egg had the closest to
the ABI figure but still higher. Norwich Union were usually close but not
for older houses. Esure who like to think they offer the lowest premiums
had a ridulously high suggested value resulting in a higher premium.

Accepting a reasonable suggested valauation is still cheaper than employing
a valuer who if you are lucky will just use the book anyway....

Jim A





Lobster October 30th 04 09:30 AM

"Jim Alexander" wrote in message
...

"MM" wrote in message
...
As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.


Looked into this when renewing my insurance recently. Many companies

will
fill in a value based on the house details. If you accept their

valuation
you are usually covered whatever the actual costs. Egg had the closest to
the ABI figure but still higher. Norwich Union were usually close but not
for older houses. Esure who like to think they offer the lowest premiums
had a ridulously high suggested value resulting in a higher premium.


My buildings insurance is with the AA (which, unlike contents insurance or
car insurance IME) is an excellent deal - but also, significantly for this
thread, they aren't interested in the market or reinstatement value at all;
they simply ask you for postcode, no of bedrooms etc, and you're covered for
full reinstatement cost (they don't bother with giving you a figure). I
recommend the OP at least gives them a go.

David



Alan October 30th 04 11:20 AM

In message , Mark
wrote
R Taylor om typed:

MM wrote:
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings
insurance based on post code



the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.
others may disagree, insurance companies dont....


LOL
Undoubtedly for a House in Stoke, could even be treble.
But do you think this would also apply to a similar house in London. ?



Isn't it the land that costs the money in London and not necessarily
the property build on it?
--
Alan


The Natural Philosopher October 30th 04 12:26 PM

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall writes:

The other way around, surely.

How can the rebuild cost exceed the cost of the existing building plus
the land?



What you pay for a house really has very little to do with
the cost of the land and the cost of building a house, and
much more to do with what the market will bear in that area
for x bedrooms, y reception rooms, and z bathrooms.


The land doesn't go away......



Rebuilding cost of an end-of-terrace 1895 house was nearly
double the market value. You couldn't just stick a modern
Barratt rabbit hutch up there if it burned down. You would
have to build a terraced property to join on and reasonably
well blend in to the rest (doesn't need to be a perfect
match), but to current building standards.

Rebuilding my house has cost about half of what its current market value is.

YMMV.

When a family friends house burnt down, the shell and land went for the
original house cost. The newer rebuild was infinitely better than the
old house and commanded a little under twice the price.


The Natural Philosopher October 30th 04 12:30 PM

Alan wrote:

In message , Mark
wrote

R Taylor om typed:

MM wrote:

I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings
insurance based on post code



the rebuild insurance is double the purchase price, ime.
others may disagree, insurance companies dont....


LOL
Undoubtedly for a House in Stoke, could even be treble.
But do you think this would also apply to a similar house in London. ?



Isn't it the land that costs the money in London and not necessarily
the property build on it?



Yes. Curiously enough, I am in the throes of selling my mothers house -
a new build in 1953.

There are no deeds to the house, only the land, and planning permission
to build.

It seems that when you sell a house, you actually sell the freehold to
the land, and whatever is fixed upon it....

...extension of this principle to insurance, probably means you merely
insure what is built upon it, not the land.

This may have extreme implications if the land becomes unusable due to
coastal erosion or flooding, or subsidence etc.


MM October 30th 04 01:42 PM

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:30:08 GMT, "Lobster"
wrote:

"Jim Alexander" wrote in message
...

"MM" wrote in message
...
As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.


Looked into this when renewing my insurance recently. Many companies

will
fill in a value based on the house details. If you accept their

valuation
you are usually covered whatever the actual costs. Egg had the closest to
the ABI figure but still higher. Norwich Union were usually close but not
for older houses. Esure who like to think they offer the lowest premiums
had a ridulously high suggested value resulting in a higher premium.


My buildings insurance is with the AA (which, unlike contents insurance or
car insurance IME) is an excellent deal - but also, significantly for this
thread, they aren't interested in the market or reinstatement value at all;
they simply ask you for postcode, no of bedrooms etc, and you're covered for
full reinstatement cost (they don't bother with giving you a figure). I
recommend the OP at least gives them a go.


Now this is a very interesting comment. Are you happy with the service
you're getting? Can you pay by cheque? (I never use any form of
credit, direct debit or standing order unless absolutely unavoidable.)

MM

Andy Hall October 30th 04 01:57 PM

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:42:03 +0100, MM wrote:



Now this is a very interesting comment. Are you happy with the service
you're getting? Can you pay by cheque? (I never use any form of
credit, direct debit or standing order unless absolutely unavoidable.)

MM


Is your concern about a company direct debitting too much? The bank
covers you for that. Standing orders are not a lot of use unless
payments are level over a long period anyway.

There can be advantages (although probably not in this case) of paying
by credit card or other credit mechanism, because it provides
additional consumer protection - I'm not suggesting running a credit
balance, BTW.

For other payments that are one-offs, I tend to ask the payee for
their bank details and then simply pay them via an online transaction.
It goes through as a BACS transfer (we talked about those a few days
ago)
This gives complete control and is far quicker and easier than messing
around with cheques. I don;t remember writing a cheque for over a
year.....






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Peter Scott October 30th 04 03:06 PM


"MM" wrote in message
...
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


There is a book called 'Spons' something or other used by architects and
engineers to calculate these things. Its brilliant for all kinds of
estimating. It allows you to choose the type of construction, age etc.
Google gives the following: Spons Estimating Costs Guide To Minor Wks, Alts
& Repairs 2nd Ed. by Spain, Bryan. I think this is the correct one. Should
be in a reference library.

Peter Scott



Peter Scott October 30th 04 03:08 PM


"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...

"MM" wrote in message
...
I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!

As I don't need a mortgage and the building is brand new, how am I
supposed to find out what to insure it for? I believe the buildings
insurance is normally a lot less than the price paid for the property.

MM


There is a book called 'Spons' something or other used by architects and
engineers to calculate these things. Its brilliant for all kinds of
estimating. It allows you to choose the type of construction, age etc.
Google gives the following: Spons Estimating Costs Guide To Minor Wks,
Alts & Repairs 2nd Ed. by Spain, Bryan. I think this is the correct one.
Should be in a reference library.

Peter Scott

There are several books listed on:

www.constructionbooksdirect.com

Peter Scott



Grant October 30th 04 04:23 PM

"Lobster" wrote in message


My buildings insurance is with the AA (which, unlike contents
insurance or car insurance IME) is an excellent deal - but also,
significantly for this thread, they aren't interested in the market
or reinstatement value at all; they simply ask you for postcode, no
of bedrooms etc, and you're covered for full reinstatement cost (they
don't bother with giving you a figure). I recommend the OP at least
gives them a go.


'More Than' is the same. The cover is for contents up to 60k and buildings
up to 400k. Just had the renewal through and even with a family discount, my
broker can't beat it.



MM October 30th 04 06:20 PM

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:23:47 +0100, "Grant" wrote:

"Lobster" wrote in message


My buildings insurance is with the AA (which, unlike contents
insurance or car insurance IME) is an excellent deal - but also,
significantly for this thread, they aren't interested in the market
or reinstatement value at all; they simply ask you for postcode, no
of bedrooms etc, and you're covered for full reinstatement cost (they
don't bother with giving you a figure). I recommend the OP at least
gives them a go.


'More Than' is the same. The cover is for contents up to 60k and buildings
up to 400k. Just had the renewal through and even with a family discount, my
broker can't beat it.


With More Than, do you have to do all the business with the company
over the phone? I am of the 'old school' where one always tended to
correspond (and expect replies) in writing.

MM

Lobster October 30th 04 07:17 PM


"MM" wrote in message
...

Now this is a very interesting comment. Are you happy with the service
you're getting? Can you pay by cheque? (I never use any form of
credit, direct debit or standing order unless absolutely unavoidable.)


Well I've been with them - heaven's - 18 years now, since buying my first
property. I keep checking their rates vs the competion, but despite having
owned different types of property from Aberdeen to Bristol, I've never found
any company cheaper.

I've never had to make a claim, so can't comment on that side of their
service - which of course is the crux of things - but whenever I've moved
house etc, the changes have gone very smoothly, no probs.

I'm almost certain they take cheques but I'm afraid I'm a fan of Visa
myself!

David



Lobster October 30th 04 07:20 PM

"Grant" wrote in message
. ..
"Lobster" wrote in message


My buildings insurance is with the AA (which, unlike contents
insurance or car insurance IME) is an excellent deal - but also,
significantly for this thread, they aren't interested in the market
or reinstatement value at all; they simply ask you for postcode, no
of bedrooms etc, and you're covered for full reinstatement cost (they
don't bother with giving you a figure). I recommend the OP at least
gives them a go.


'More Than' is the same. The cover is for contents up to 60k and buildings
up to 400k. Just had the renewal through and even with a family discount,

my
broker can't beat it.


That's interesting (see my other post) - I have my contents insured with
MoreThan, although I don't much like separating buildings and contents - I
think it's better to use the same for both. However when I last tried
adding my buildings cover to the policy, it was way more expensive than the
AA. Must remember to check this again at next renewal!

David



Jo October 30th 04 09:34 PM

Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?

"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property. It is the responsibility
of the insured to get this figure right. BCIS is commissioned by the
Association of British Insurers (ABI) to provide guidance figures for
the rebuilding cost of a home. The information in this section gives
a general indication of rebuilding costs for many common properties
within the UK, but it should be noted that it is not appropriate for
all houses."

http://www.bcis.co.uk/costass.html

Phil Addison October 30th 04 11:48 PM

On 30 Oct 2004 20:34:46 GMT, Jo wrote:

Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?

"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property.


Why?

It is the responsibility
of the insured to get this figure right. BCIS is commissioned by the
Association of British Insurers (ABI) to provide guidance figures for
the rebuilding cost of a home. The information in this section gives
a general indication of rebuilding costs for many common properties
within the UK, but it should be noted that it is not appropriate for
all houses."

http://www.bcis.co.uk/costass.html


Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Phil Addison October 30th 04 11:54 PM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:48:27 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:35:00 +0100, MM wrote:

I got one quote, and they worked out the value for buildings insurance
based on post code, number of bedrooms and other points. Then I called
another broker and she said her firm had to be advised the value
required to be insured, as they could not themselves provide any
estimate. I kind of had the feeling from them of, take it or leave it!


These people employ actuaries.

Actuaries are people who found accountancy too exciting.

Insurance companies are basically the white collar version of a
bookies and operate in similar ways - looking at odds and form, laying
off bets and so on.

So they look at what the others are doing as well as applying their
own rules.


Heh heh. Andy, you could compile a dictionary for cynics. Should be a
best seller.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Jo October 31st 04 12:08 AM

Phil Addison wrote in
:

Why?


I don't know the answer to your irrelevant question, I was quoting
from the BCIS web site. Maybe you should ask most domestic house
insurers, the ABI or BCIS.

Meanwhile, back on topic, this site appears to answer the OP's
question.


Set Square October 31st 04 12:18 AM

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Phil Addison wrote:

On 30 Oct 2004 20:34:46 GMT, Jo wrote:


Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property.


Why?


Because that's the risk they're covering. If you're under-insured, any claim
will be subject to "averaging".

If you insure your house for only half of its rebuilding cost, and half of
it burns down, the insurance company will only pay out half of the insured
value - which will only half pay for the repairs.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.



Andrew Gabriel October 31st 04 12:29 AM

In article ,
Phil Addison writes:
On 30 Oct 2004 20:34:46 GMT, Jo wrote:

Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?

"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property.


Why?


All insurance works that way. If you make a claim, and you
were only insured for half the full cost, then you will only
get half the claim, even if the claim is only for a 100th of
the full cost. Same with home contents, etc. That's one of
the things the insurance assessor is checking when he/she
calls during a claim.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Phil Addison October 31st 04 12:54 AM

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:26 +0100, "Set Square"
wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:

On 30 Oct 2004 20:34:46 GMT, Jo wrote:

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property.


Why?


Because that's the risk they're covering.


The risk you are insuring yourself against is that of needing to be
re-housed. I can think of no reason why that has to be achieved only by
re-building. Taking the car write-off analogy, why can't the insurers
just write you a cheque for the book (market) value of your house (less
the sell-on value of the site). You are then free to use that as you
wish to re-build or move elsewhere.

Yes, I know most insurance companies talk in terms of re-building. My
point is why can't it be the way I suggest? What happened to "you can
insure for anything you want"?

Should my house burn to the ground I wouldn't want the hassle of trying
to get an 1890 Victorian house rebuilt in 2004. I would head for a hotel
while I found a rented house, then start looking to buy another ready
built property. I would expect the burnt out site to be cleared and sold
as building land.

If you're under-insured, any claim will be subject to "averaging".

If you insure your house for only half of its rebuilding cost, and half of
it burns down, the insurance company will only pay out half of the insured
value - which will only half pay for the repairs.


I fully understand that.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Phil Addison October 31st 04 01:02 AM

On 30 Oct 2004 23:08:13 GMT, Jo wrote:

Phil Addison wrote in
:

Why?


I don't know the answer to your irrelevant question,


Clearly.

I was quoting from the BCIS web site.


I know. You quoted it.

Maybe you should ask most domestic house
insurers, the ABI or BCIS.


Oh? You don't think folk on here are capable of answering me. Or more
likely you just don't understand the implications of my question.

Meanwhile, back on topic, this site appears to answer the OP's
question.


That was done to death days ago. This is an offshoot of the topic, and
well within the specific subject line. Haven't you heard of thread
drift?

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

Phil Addison October 31st 04 01:09 AM

On 30 Oct 2004 23:29:02 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article ,
Phil Addison writes:
On 30 Oct 2004 20:34:46 GMT, Jo wrote:

Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?

"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property.


Why?


All insurance works that way. If you make a claim, and you
were only insured for half the full cost, then you will only
get half the claim, even if the claim is only for a 100th of
the full cost. Same with home contents, etc. That's one of
the things the insurance assessor is checking when he/she
calls during a claim.


Yes, I'm well aware of that Andrew. My previous remarks are all on the
basis that I am fully covered and paid up.

I am querying the whole basis of the idea that the insurance should be
based on the need to re-build. I want to know why we can't be insured
just sufficient to be able to buy a similar replacement home.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to email me

MM October 31st 04 08:24 AM

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:54:10 GMT, Phil Addison
wrote:

Should my house burn to the ground I wouldn't want the hassle of trying
to get an 1890 Victorian house rebuilt in 2004. I would head for a hotel
while I found a rented house, then start looking to buy another ready
built property. I would expect the burnt out site to be cleared and sold
as building land.


Mind you, if you did get an 1890 Victorian house rebuilt, this time it
would come with foundations!

MM

Jim Alexander October 31st 04 08:54 AM


"Jo" wrote in message
...
Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?

More than you credit since the link you provide has already appeared in the
thread.

"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes

Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured
is the full rebuilding cost of the property. It is the responsibility
of the insured to get this figure right.


Indeed and maybe but the thread has provided correct information that at
least two insurers indemnify against actual rebuilding cost based on only
house location and size and other insurers indemnify against actual
rebuilding cost if their cost estimate is accepted. That may or may not be
exactly what the OP wanted but its the way the group works until it gets
taken of the rails for no apparent reason.

BCIS is commissioned by the
Association of British Insurers (ABI) to provide guidance figures for
the rebuilding cost of a home. The information in this section gives
a general indication of rebuilding costs for many common properties
within the UK, but it should be noted that it is not appropriate for
all houses."

If its not appropriate for *most* then somebody has wasted their money.

http://www.bcis.co.uk/costass.html


In a way you pose a good question. The actual rebuilding cost will never be
known until rebuilding out-turn costs are known but I would expect any
rebuilding contract to be strongly influenced by floor area, cos that's how
builders and architects work As I said its what the valuer would use
anyway. And if the insurers really know better why should their suggested
figure for the same house vary so much?

Jim A




Set Square October 31st 04 09:49 AM

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Phil Addison wrote:


The risk you are insuring yourself against is that of needing to be
re-housed. I can think of no reason why that has to be achieved only
by re-building. Taking the car write-off analogy, why can't the
insurers just write you a cheque for the book (market) value of your
house (less the sell-on value of the site). You are then free to use
that as you wish to re-build or move elsewhere.

The analogy doesn't quite work - because there are no scrapyards for crashed
houses.

AIUI you wouldn't be allowed by your local authority simply to abandon a
wrecked house and move on. Would you be happy if your next door neighbour
did that?

The subject is a bit academic anyway. In most cases, the cost of re-building
is considerably *less* than the market value of the property. So if you were
insured for less than the re-building cost, you wouldn't have a hope in hell
of buying another equivalent property with the insurance payout.
--
Cheers,
Set Square
______
Please reply to newsgroup. Reply address is invalid.



Stefek Zaba October 31st 04 09:59 AM

Phil Addison wrote:


I am querying the whole basis of the idea that the insurance should be
based on the need to re-build. I want to know why we can't be insured
just sufficient to be able to buy a similar replacement home.

If "we" own the house outright, such a decision is ours to make. But
most "homeowners" have a mortgage, and the mortgage provider wants very
much to cover their backside, which they see as meaning that in the
event of a total loss, a property with no less than the existing one's
full resale value will appear in place of the smoking heap. (They would,
I presume, argue that even if the outstanding mortgage was only, say,
30% of that value, their lending criteria had given that mortgage on the
basis of covering a particular proportion of the purchase cost, and
you'd be nadgering their carefully-constructed risk-of-nonrepayment
profile if you put up a yurt in place of the elegant Georgian pile.
Though if they got their outstanding mortgage repaid, I don't see it's
any business of theirs what your future housing derangements might be...)

Stefek

Owain October 31st 04 02:51 PM

"Set Square" wrote
| Phil Addison wrote:
| The risk you are insuring yourself against is that of needing
| to be re-housed.

No, because the council have a statutory obligation to provide you with
housing eg after a fire. The risk is that of having to rebuild the house to
soemthing like it was in accordance with current regs.

| The analogy doesn't quite work - because there are no scrapyards for
| crashed houses.
| AIUI you wouldn't be allowed by your local authority simply to abandon a
| wrecked house and move on. Would you be happy if your next door neighbour
| did that?

In many parts of the country, detached properties are probably in the
minority, with semis or flats being more common. The obligations under
Scottish law to provide support for adjoining houses within a building can
be traced back to Roman law.

Owain




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter