Apologies if this is slightly off topic.
I recently arranged buildings insurance through a particular insurer. The
building I'm in is a house which has been converted into two flats, A & B.
I own flat A, someone else owns flat B, but I also own the freehold of the
building as a whole, hence the buildings insurance being my responsibility
(arranging it at least - payment is shared).
Originally I was quoted about £40 a month, similar to what the previous
owners had arranged with the same company. However on the printed quotation
they sent me was the line "Is the home ever occupied, or will it be
occupied, by anyone other than you and/or your family? -- No". Given the
presence of the flat B's occupants, the answer should have been "Yes" (All
other details being correct).
When I phoned up to fix this, I was told that this one simple alteration
would change the type of the insurance from "Derived Sum Insured" to "Actual
Sum Insured" (still not entirely sure what these are), doubling the monthly
premium in the process to over £80. The original policy was what's termed
"block insurance", but apparently that now turns out to be unsuitable too.
Does this sound right? When I originally arranged the policy I explained
the type of property and who owned what and who lived where in a fair amount
of detail, so I'm surprised that what I was quoted back then (and what the
previous people were paying) should be so different to what I'm now being
asked to pay.
I'll be trying other companies of course, but am I right in thinking firms
that cover buildings of this type are in a minority?