C/H in an empty house

[chris French]

In message , Andrew McKay writes

But that's not 'occupying' the house is it? - or at least I wouldn't want to wait until a claim to find out what the ins. co thought about it. The ins. co might be happy with that, but I'd want to agree it with them. I just don't think it is worth the risk not to tell the co., to pretend the house is occupied when it isn't - as was suggested by Mike.

They normally say 'you must tell us if the property is unoccupied for x days ' etc. , not that they won't cover it, as I said my parents had no problems with this. If an ins. co was awkward, then I'm sure another one could be found easy enough

Well yes, I would want visits to be made anyway, but that is a different point.

[Lobster]

Yes it just depends on the insurer. "Surely this would be covered" just doesn't work - they will be very specific about their requirements for empty properties; eg they may say someone needs to stay overnight in the house at least once a month; or must be inspected once a week and a written log of inspections maintained. I've experienced both of these in the past. They may also reduce the level of cover, eg vandalism is a common exclusion.

If you don't like the T&C imposed by the insurer, then just change insurer! But you have to be up front with them and jump through any hoops they stipulate. It's just not worth it not to.

David

They

[Hugo Nebula]

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:58:16 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named "Mike" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

I've just spoken to my insurance company, and cover applies up to 365 days after being unoccupied. All that happens is that after 30 days and 90 days, the excesses increase. A little loophole for me is that it's only _consecutive_ days, so I could stay overnight once a month in order for the cover to stay as it is.

[Lobster]

If you do that, just make sure you document it or better yet keep some form of proof that you have stayed overnight, because if the place burned down between visits you can bet your life the insurance co will do their damnedest to prove otherwise!

David

[S Viemeister]

I always make sure to use my landline - the bill shows the time and date. Of course, that doesn't help, if you've had the phone disconnected!

Sheila

[Andrew McKay]

Even better, offer free bed and lodgings for Dr Evil or someone like that when it comes down. You get the insurance payout and do the world a favour at the same time :)

Andrew

[RichardS]

I assume that such insurance would exclude flood damage....

[DIYSOS]

I've lived without central heating in my particular house for donkey's years, and from experience I know this place isn't plagued with damp or burst pipes at the coldest or wettest of times. I'm putting in CH as I speak (well write... well while I'm writing this I'm not putting in CH but you know what I mean...). Personnally I wouldn't leave it on unoccupied in the winter, let alone now and in fact plan to turn it *off* during cold snaps to keep the bug population down. I would drain the system, esp tanks in summer months.

Then again I live in a terraced in a dry-ish part of the country, if the OP has a cold, damp detached in Scotland or on Lizard Point or in a flood plain that might make a difference, but otherwise think of your bills and the planet!.

DIYSOS

[Owain]

That would invalidate the claim on the grounds you'd had a tenant in the property ...

Owain

[Dave Plowman (News)]

;-)

[Fergus O'Rourke]

Why would the insurer be so gullible ?

[Hugo Nebula]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:38:25 +0100, a particular chimpanzee named "Fergus O'Rourke" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Indeed; the complete lack of furniture, the 'For Sale' sign outside and the contact details two hundred miles away are clues to a trained claims investigator that the place is not occupied.