Discussion in 'Insurance not covered in other forums' started by TillyD, 10 Aug 2017.
What's your point?
Just because a house is habitable doesn't make it a good insurance risk.
In terms of the electrics, I doubt any electrician would sign-off on an installation of that age as being safe. On subsidence & flooding, the insurance companies have access to records of all previous claims in an area, they'll base their assessment on that.
Vacant houses are a magnet for burglars, so it only makes sense that these attract a significant premium or are refused.
I think you know what my point is. Just to spell it out for you once more,
The industry needs more regulation. The way it is on mainland eurpoe.
All Insurance companies should be obliged to offer quotes for public liability at least.
Jumping to conclusions about property and saying NO for No valid reason is pathetic.
The coordinated negative response from home insurance compnies in ireland regarding older houses is tantamount to collusion.
The definition of insurance is "a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality."
Home insurance companies seem to have forgotten this definition. It has turned into a money making racket where only property that does not actually need insurance is insured.
Why does it need more regulation? Why should an insurance company be obliged to provide a quote? And what sense does it make "to offer quotes for public liability at least"? Most householders don't even consider they have PL insurance, all they see is material damage.
I think you just like a good rant. 3 posts all on the one topic. Original post in November and then drift back in 3 months later to respond to nothing? It was originally about houses over 100 years old and your feeling the questions were unreasonable when it fact they are a measurement of the risk involved.
You picked the most simplistic definition of insurance to suit your point. You could also have gone with " Insurance is an arrangement in which you pay money to a company, and they pay money to you if something unpleasant happens to you, for example if your property is stolen or damaged, or if you get a serious illness". Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not providing a social service. That is the role of the government.
Absolutely, and if insurance companies are forced to take on bad risks, the likelihood is the rest of us will end up paying more.
Just encountered the same "no flat roof"/"no 100+ year old house" rules by Axa and FBD when insuring contents of a rented apartment.
The flat roof objection makes more physical sense than the 100+ rule. Flat roofs made pre-1990 would usually be of combustible materials which also leak easily if not carefully pitched toward gutters and sealed.
The age rule seems absurd to me. Some of these old Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian houses are squarely built and only need good insulation and packing up of their massive chimney flues. Their roofs are seldom flat.
So I am inclined to see collusion between the insurers and their own investment funds. The more old houses pulled down, the more new construction - and the more the share value in those plcs and property funds.
Of course no insurer can - or should - be compelled to quote for any kind of house. But if there is a policy to preserve old style houses, a solution must be found for the insurance problem.
It all reminds me of the uninsurable thatched houses in the 70s.
AXA gave me insurance fior a 150 year old stone cottage last year, It had been newly plumbed and rewired though, as a result my quote came in very low as well.
Saavy, were you asked by Axa if the old house was recently rewired and plumbed - or did you volunteer the information in the hope of a low quote ?
They asked when it was rewired, plumbed and reroofed. I believed these appear to be standardquestions for houses over 100 years old.
Thanks, Saavy. Sounds fair enough. Wondering about replumbing - this seems to be a new thing. Maybe old systems were more prone to bursting and internal flood damage.
Separate names with a comma.