Am I likely to make any savings switching broker for house insurance?

T

tinymouse

Registered User
Messages
36
Due to a seemingly very arbitrary variable (My roof is something like 52% flat), I found it hard in the past to get insurance with companies refusing to quote. So
I've been with a broker for a few years. Despite not making any claims or having any damage, each year my premium has risen between 10 and 20%. It's getting to the point where I'm considering just going without insurance. The constant increases are removing any peace of mind that insurance provides.
Anyway, someone recommended their own broker. Are there actually savings to be made this way or do they just go to the same companies and get more or less the same prices?
I'm a little worried that a second set of enquiries going out to every insurance company next year will end up with my premiums rising even more.
 
You should always shop around for insurance.
In your case if you can't get quotes online then you should try a few different reputable brokers.
Bear in mind that both the price and the actual cover (outlined in the policy booklet) need to suit your needs - i.e. price alone is not the only factor.
Unfortunately home insurance premiums in general seem to have been rising in recent years so the increases that you mention are probably not surprising and may be unavoidable.
 
Thanks. Is there any truth to the idea that applying multiple times can cause your premiums to rise?

And I understand that premiums have been rising. But looking at the other thread, people are moaning about it going from €400 to €500 a year. Whereas mine has gone up from under €1,000 to €2,500 for quite a modest house with no claims. It's crazy.
 
tinymouse said:
Thanks. Is there any truth to the idea that applying multiple times can cause your premiums to rise?
Click to expand...
I've never heard that and it doesn't really sound plausible to me.
tinymouse said:
And I understand that premiums have been rising. But looking at the other thread, people are moaning about it going from €400 to €500 a year. Whereas mine has gone up from under €1,000 to €2,500 for quite a modest house with no claims. It's crazy.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that you're insuring for an appropriate rebuilding cost?
Always take care not to underinsure but, equally, there's no point in grossly overinsuring.
Some people still mistakenly insure for the market value and not the reinstatement value.

SCSI House Rebuild Calculator – Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland

scsi.ie scsi.ie
The 52% flat roof is very likely to contribute to your higher premiums but by how much I don't know.
Are you insuring contents? For a large amount?
 
Last edited:
tinymouse said:
Whereas mine has gone up from under €1,000 to €2,500 for quite a modest house with no claims. It's crazy
Click to expand...
It's a 'non standard' insurance - the competition effectively disappeared from that market post Brexit.

Who's your policy currently underwritten by (not the broker)? A lot of brokers actually only have access to one underwriter for non-standard policies.
 
Is there any actual way, an engineers report or anything, to get the building classed as standard construction. Flat roofs (of which this has a very high spec one) are hardly unheard of construction. And it seems baffling that were the roof to be a couple square metres smaller, it'd make my house insurance a fraction of what it was before.
 
tinymouse said:
Is there any actual way, an engineers report or anything, to get the building classed as standard construction. Flat roofs (of which this has a very high spec one) are hardly unheard of construction.
Click to expand...
No. They're no unheard of, but it's such a small number that are done properly that it's too much hassle for insurers to make it a standard offering.
As part of a non-standard policy, an underwriter might consider an engineers report, or the specific construction method / materials used.

Arachas, OBF, Dolmen, and Britton as mentioned by another poster all have specialist non-standard teams you can call. Between them they cover the main underwriters; Plum and Lloyd's being the big 2.
 
What is the maximum flat roof area percentage that a standard policy will cover?
 
I had very similar issue - though mine was too much of the roof was “non standard roof construction”. It was a flat roof - two extensions. I had it re-felted with asphalt when we moved in and never had a leak. Was with Aviva as had staff rates but they took this off me a few years after I left. Renewal went to nearly €3k. Then I found a specialist broker who recommended Allianz - quote was 1k, but it went up to 1.2k after a year. This year I went online to Allianz, and realised that the issue was the definitions of a non standard roof.

Aviva
  1. At least 75% of it consists of standard building materials, such as brick, stone or concrete with a slate or tiled roof.
Allianz

  • The roof of the premises is constructed (at least 70%) with slates, tiles, metal, concrete or asphalt.
So my asphalt roof met the standard criteria in Allianz but was non standard in Aviva.

And the other surprising thing was that the Allianz online quote was €690ish compared to the broker quote of €1200.
 
Last edited:
dishwasher said:
Allianz

  • The roof of the premises is constructed (at least 70%) with slates, tiles, metal, concrete or asphalt.
So my asphalt roof met the standard criteria in Allianz but was non standard in Aviva.
Click to expand...
Wow, so there are options depending on material.

Can I just ask, have you confirmed with Allianz, rather than your interpretation, that you are fully covered, including storm damage? I don't see anything in their policy booklet that contradicts you, but there's always fine print when a claim is made.

My previous house had a concrete flat roof over part of it, and it was the flat roof rather than the concrete that was an issue when I was shopping around for insurance, but maybe the industry has moved on. I'm happy to be wrong on this.
 
I was told 50% was the cutoff. It's not very clear either if you take the footprint or the area of roof itself. Since the roof area of a pitched roof changes drastically if you measure the roof surface area instead of the footprint.
 
@RedOnion No I didn’t specifically ask the question of Allianz. I didn’t really want to rock the boat but I did make sure I answered the question honestly and my roof met their standard definition.
 
Is there any point in converting a flat roof in to a pitched roof to get rid of the insurance problem ?
AFAIK there is some technical definition in terms of angle of pitch that constitutes the difference between a flat roof and a pitched roof.
I suppose it would have to be checked with the individual insurer.

I think that some household insurers also have restrictions on cover for flat roofs in terms of the period of time for which they will cover it against damage once it has been installed or renewed.

In relation to the idea of not having insurance bear in mind that this might breach the terms and conditions of any mortgage on the property.
 
Last edited:
daveinchcape said:
Is there any point in converting a flat roof in to a pitched roof to get rid of the insurance problem ?
Click to expand...
Pitched roofs are preferable where possible. Cost or the challenge of tieing an extension into an existing building without blocking windows are often the determining factors driving the choice of a flat roof. If those aren't an issue, replacing a flat roof (perhaps subject to planning) will certainly ease the insurance challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top