Now this is a very interesting comment. Are you happy with the service you're getting? Can you pay by cheque? (I never use any form of credit, direct debit or standing order unless absolutely unavoidable.)
MM
Is your concern about a company direct debitting too much? The bank covers you for that. Standing orders are not a lot of use unless payments are level over a long period anyway.
There can be advantages (although probably not in this case) of paying by credit card or other credit mechanism, because it provides additional consumer protection - I'm not suggesting running a credit balance, BTW.
For other payments that are one-offs, I tend to ask the payee for their bank details and then simply pay them via an online transaction. It goes through as a BACS transfer (we talked about those a few days ago) This gives complete control and is far quicker and easier than messing around with cheques. I don;t remember writing a cheque for over a year.....
There is a book called 'Spons' something or other used by architects and engineers to calculate these things. Its brilliant for all kinds of estimating. It allows you to choose the type of construction, age etc. Google gives the following: Spons Estimating Costs Guide To Minor Wks, Alts & Repairs 2nd Ed. by Spain, Bryan. I think this is the correct one. Should be in a reference library.
Peter Scott
There are several books listed on:
Peter Scott
'More Than' is the same. The cover is for contents up to 60k and buildings up to 400k. Just had the renewal through and even with a family discount, my broker can't beat it.
With More Than, do you have to do all the business with the company over the phone? I am of the 'old school' where one always tended to correspond (and expect replies) in writing.
MM
Well I've been with them - heaven's - 18 years now, since buying my first property. I keep checking their rates vs the competion, but despite having owned different types of property from Aberdeen to Bristol, I've never found any company cheaper.
I've never had to make a claim, so can't comment on that side of their service - which of course is the crux of things - but whenever I've moved house etc, the changes have gone very smoothly, no probs.
I'm almost certain they take cheques but I'm afraid I'm a fan of Visa myself!
David
That's interesting (see my other post) - I have my contents insured with MoreThan, although I don't much like separating buildings and contents - I think it's better to use the same for both. However when I last tried adding my buildings cover to the policy, it was way more expensive than the AA. Must remember to check this again at next renewal!
David
Hello, hello, is there anyone listening out there?
"House Rebuilding Cost Assessments for Insurance Purposes Most domestic house insurance policies require that the sum assured is the full rebuilding cost of the property. It is the responsibility of the insured to get this figure right. BCIS is commissioned by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) to provide guidance figures for the rebuilding cost of a home. The information in this section gives a general indication of rebuilding costs for many common properties within the UK, but it should be noted that it is not appropriate for all houses."
Why?
Heh heh. Andy, you could compile a dictionary for cynics. Should be a best seller.
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
Phil Addison wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
I don't know the answer to your irrelevant question, I was quoting from the BCIS web site. Maybe you should ask most domestic house insurers, the ABI or BCIS.
Meanwhile, back on topic, this site appears to answer the OP's question.
Because that's the risk they're covering. If you're under-insured, any claim will be subject to "averaging".
If you insure your house for only half of its rebuilding cost, and half of it burns down, the insurance company will only pay out half of the insured value - which will only half pay for the repairs.
All insurance works that way. If you make a claim, and you were only insured for half the full cost, then you will only get half the claim, even if the claim is only for a 100th of the full cost. Same with home contents, etc. That's one of the things the insurance assessor is checking when he/she calls during a claim.
The risk you are insuring yourself against is that of needing to be re-housed. I can think of no reason why that has to be achieved only by re-building. Taking the car write-off analogy, why can't the insurers just write you a cheque for the book (market) value of your house (less the sell-on value of the site). You are then free to use that as you wish to re-build or move elsewhere.
Yes, I know most insurance companies talk in terms of re-building. My point is why can't it be the way I suggest? What happened to "you can insure for anything you want"?
Should my house burn to the ground I wouldn't want the hassle of trying to get an 1890 Victorian house rebuilt in 2004. I would head for a hotel while I found a rented house, then start looking to buy another ready built property. I would expect the burnt out site to be cleared and sold as building land.
I fully understand that.
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
Clearly.
I know. You quoted it.
Oh? You don't think folk on here are capable of answering me. Or more likely you just don't understand the implications of my question.
That was done to death days ago. This is an offshoot of the topic, and well within the specific subject line. Haven't you heard of thread drift?
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
Yes, I'm well aware of that Andrew. My previous remarks are all on the basis that I am fully covered and paid up.
I am querying the whole basis of the idea that the insurance should be based on the need to re-build. I want to know why we can't be insured just sufficient to be able to buy a similar replacement home.
Phil The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at
Mind you, if you did get an 1890 Victorian house rebuilt, this time it would come with foundations!
MM
More than you credit since the link you provide has already appeared in the thread.
Indeed and maybe but the thread has provided correct information that at least two insurers indemnify against actual rebuilding cost based on only house location and size and other insurers indemnify against actual rebuilding cost if their cost estimate is accepted. That may or may not be exactly what the OP wanted but its the way the group works until it gets taken of the rails for no apparent reason.
If its not appropriate for *most* then somebody has wasted their money.
known until rebuilding out-turn costs are known but I would expect any rebuilding contract to be strongly influenced by floor area, cos that's how builders and architects work As I said its what the valuer would use anyway. And if the insurers really know better why should their suggested figure for the same house vary so much?
Jim A
The analogy doesn't quite work - because there are no scrapyards for crashed houses.
AIUI you wouldn't be allowed by your local authority simply to abandon a wrecked house and move on. Would you be happy if your next door neighbour did that?
The subject is a bit academic anyway. In most cases, the cost of re-building is considerably *less* than the market value of the property. So if you were insured for less than the re-building cost, you wouldn't have a hope in hell of buying another equivalent property with the insurance payout.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.