House Ins is due next month. I always check to see if there is better value elsewhere.
One of the companies that had my details from last year called last week - £230 but did ask if I was near water...........YES, I replied, 200 yds (180m) away but as I am half way up a hill and at least 100 ft (30m) above the burn it was not an issue (Burn = Stream).
They were back on yesterday, the quote had gone to £450 and a £1,000 excess for flooding........ Excuse - Near water course and they had to be mindful of flooding.
I await my renewal note then try again with hopefully a more sane insurer.
|
>> They were back on yesterday, the quote had gone to £450 and a £1,000 excess
>> for flooding........ Excuse - Near water course and they had to be mindful of flooding.
>>
Even though you may not be planning to take up their "offer", you should not allow these types of administrative "computer says no" lazy responses from Insurance companies. Ask to speak to a senior manager who has the power to make decisions, and point out their ludicrous quote.
Refer them to
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/31654.aspx
and threaten to take your story to the press.
Earlier this year, this story raised difficult questions for the ABI
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16652779
They tried to hide behind the excuse "Insurers use actuarial data to calculate the additional risk". When asked live on TV where these stats could be checked and if the data to back up this "risk assessment" would be forthcoming, the ABI spokesman was left floundering.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 15 Jun 12 at 11:00
|
We found a very good quote from the Meerkat.
Turned out to be with Swiftcover and lots cheaper for the same figures than the likes of Saga, LV, RIAS et al.
|
|
Also, that "Excuse" will be added to your file, and passed on / left available for other Ins co`s to peruse. Like the advice above, get it removed, its false information that will haunt you!
|
|
I've just renewed. What a hassle. I had to read very carefully what is and isn't covered by different insurers.
|
|
Similar to car insurance. Risk factors are based on Static or as mentioned Actuarial factors. In other words purely based on statistical evidence, So ALL 17 year old males are 'hot heads'. What they don't take into account are the Dynamic factors which are based on individual circumstances or in the case of car insurance what skills, temperment, reaction times etc an individual may have.
|
>> Similar to car insurance. Risk factors are based on Static or as mentioned Actuarial factors.
>>
>>
That is quite sensible to use as a tool in most circumstances, provided you have actual stats or actuarial information. In the highlighted case of "unemployed due to redundancy", there really were no stats or actuarial data, but the spokesmand made up the case on the hoof.
In the case of flood risks, there are agreed procedures to follow - as outlined int he link I gave. The fact that your home is x metres above the highest flood experienced should be an important fact to take in to account.
If the clerical or call centre staff don't know this, follow it up by taking the matter up as high as you need to and with as many decision making bodies that you need to.
Do that not just for your own benefit, but as a service to your neighbours and other customers so that they are not victimised by such incompetent companies.
|
On the recent house purchase our solicitor very solemly raised the risk of flooding indicated on some search they do and advised we might like to take specialist advice.
We were being alerted to a 200ft x 100ft pond in the grounds of a Victorian mansion nearby. The pond is 250ft from us and 6ft below the level of our house... and ironically it doesn't produce runoff water it acts as a sink for surface water.
Some of the ways circumstances/attributes are pulled from mapping and historical data then presented as fact in computer/online databases can be very hard to argue against.
|
House Ins Renewal - John H
