WorstPigeon
Registered User
- Messages
- 89
I'm currently in the process of buying a house, and was wondering about the reinstatement costs that the insurers ask for. I've had the house valued for the bank, and the valuer gave a reinstatement cost 18% higher than the value from the society of chartered surveyors estimation website. I'm wondering if it's safe to go with the valuer's estimate.
The house would have better than average kitchen and bathroom fittings, though nothing amazing, but the aspect I'd be concerned about would be that it has a single concrete slab flat roof, which I understand to be an expensive option. A standard pitched roof would almost certainly not be an option; it'd block peoples' views and light. A normal felt flat roof presumably would be, but would be inferior to the concrete one from the point of view of longevity etc. The house is in a mews lane, which would probably complicate construction, too; access for vehicles etc would be a problem.
Basically, am I safe going with the valuer's estimate, or should I be giving a higher cost of reinstatement?
The house would have better than average kitchen and bathroom fittings, though nothing amazing, but the aspect I'd be concerned about would be that it has a single concrete slab flat roof, which I understand to be an expensive option. A standard pitched roof would almost certainly not be an option; it'd block peoples' views and light. A normal felt flat roof presumably would be, but would be inferior to the concrete one from the point of view of longevity etc. The house is in a mews lane, which would probably complicate construction, too; access for vehicles etc would be a problem.
Basically, am I safe going with the valuer's estimate, or should I be giving a higher cost of reinstatement?