Jobs

Insurance

Insurance for unoccupied property

Is it true that empty houses are statistically more likely to be broken into, catch fire, have burst pipes etc, than occupied houses? This would mean thieves prefer breaking into houses with little or nothing in them to steal, and that vandals will more likely set fire to an empty house than a house being set fire to by unwitting occupants, etc. I have a house which is vacant for a few months until builders renovate it, and I got a shock when the buildings insurance premium went sky high with a 250% increase and with a huge reduction in the number of risks covered - I no longer have cover for theft! I would love to know if the insurers are ripping me off or are being truthful with this "statistical higher risk" and if so, how much higher the risk is. Are there any web sites for this sort of info?

markcarlisle Tue 18/03/08 19:06

<< Previous

Next >>

Subscribe to question

Post an Answer

pusspuss
Tue 18/03/08
19:17

hi a few years ago i had a similar problem ,the only insurance that i could get was what is called flea (fire explosion )insurance,the estate agents that i spoke to explain that with the house being empty for a few months it was high risk and that the insurance would not be worthwhile for the high cost.

CheekyChops
Tue 18/03/08
20:40

There is not necessarily nothing in there to steal - they will take copper or lead pipes amongst other things. You could get smackheads using it as a drugs den and trashing/torching the place.

lespots
Tue 01/04/08
01:20

as long as you inform ur insurance company that the property is empty you will be covered for any unlawful entery, believe or not ther is no such law as squatters rights,its a ploy to pass the buck from one benifit department to the other

Post an Answer

Submit the above question and answers

add to del.icio.us	add to digg	add to furl
add to reddit	add to Technorati	add to Blinklist
add to StumbleUpon	add to squidoo	add to ma.gnolia
add to Cocomment	add to Netscape	add to Fark