Insurance excess

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Insurance excess

    Hi, we will be renewing the building insurance soon and I was thinking about the excess as it seems high? We have not made any claims since 2017 due to water escape and the excess seems high? I appreciate the insurance is slightly higher due to the claim and will come down in time however the excess is £400.00. does that seem high as I think its unreasonable?

    #2
    If claims had been made for escape of water, you might well be looking at £1,000. I think ours is £1,000. Escape of water is such a big problem for flats that the base value is likely to be high, unless, possibly, you have been clear for many years.

    Comment


      #3
      You can have a lower excess for a higher premium. You makes your choice.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Section20z View Post
        You can have a lower excess for a higher premium. You makes your choice.

        Definitely the case, I've seen some quite large differences in premiums based on excess.

        It is also one of the areas where leaseholders challenging insurance can make mistakes; they can look at the premium bottom line and try to minimise that, without thinking about the excesses.

        Comment


          #5
          It can be a good thing. It can ecourage better internal maintenance from Lessees and can deter more trivial claims that would push the cost up for all.

          Comment


            #6
            In one block of mine the excess went from 400 to 1000 and then to 3000 after water claims. Then water claims were excluded altogether and the premium doubled. Then we were declined insurance altogether. All this was down to a single lessee who was also Director of the RMC who lied to the insurers and placed false claims. The lessees obviously have no comeback at all nor anyone to sue because it's a RMC.

            Comment


              #7
              I would have thought the director was suable as an individual, by the company, in this case.

              In any case, an emergency EGM should have been called to remove him as a director, as no insurer is going to insure a company where a director is suspected of insurance fraud.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                I would have thought the director was suable as an individual, by the company, in this case.

                In any case, an emergency EGM should have been called to remove him as a director, as no insurer is going to insure a company where a director is suspected of insurance fraud.
                Yes that sounds nice in theory but in practice not so much. In this case (as is often the case) the Director has a controlling interest (owning a slight majority of flats in the building).

                So they are unlikely to Direct the Company to sue themselves
                nor is there any mechanism to remove them

                This is THE FUNDAMENTAL problem with the whole idea of lessee owned companies. Once a single lessee takes a controlling interest, they are essentially not subject to most law in any form of actionable way (unlike an independent freeholder). And to make things worse, if they deliberately drive the company into strike off/crown control (or create non payable service charges), they profit from their fraud by being able to purchase the entire freehold without any way of stopping them, depriving others who originally purchased a share of the freehold of all of their interest.

                (I should add that this building is currently under a FTT appointed manager - but when the term of this manager ends it will be exactly back to where it was before)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                  Yes that sounds nice in theory but in practice not so much. In this case (as is often the case) the Director has a controlling interest (owning a slight majority of flats in the building).

                  So they are unlikely to Direct the Company to sue themselves
                  nor is there any mechanism to remove them

                  This is THE FUNDAMENTAL problem with the whole idea of lessee owned companies. Once a single lessee takes a controlling interest, they are essentially not subject to most law in any form of actionable way (unlike an independent freeholder). And to make things worse, if they deliberately drive the company into strike off/crown control (or create non payable service charges), they profit from their fraud by being able to purchase the entire freehold without any way of stopping them, depriving others who originally purchased a share of the freehold of all of their interest.

                  (I should add that this building is currently under a FTT appointed manager - but when the term of this manager ends it will be exactly back to where it was before)
                  Lying to an insurance company is fraud so tell the insurance company, bring in the police and tell the fraudline.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                    Lying to an insurance company is fraud so tell the insurance company, bring in the police and tell the fraudline.
                    Yes, the insurance company voided the insurance (and consequently it is not possible to get insurance). The police are not likely to be interested in the fact that someone lied about past claims when gaining insurance, or that they lied about the nature of occupants. Hell they are not even interested in theft these days.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                      Yes, the insurance company voided the insurance (and consequently it is not possible to get insurance). The police are not likely to be interested in the fact that someone lied about past claims when gaining insurance, or that they lied about the nature of occupants. Hell they are not even interested in theft these days.
                      I disagree....the police are under an obligation to investigate any criminal matters....so how have you insured the building now? Surely this cant be right as its left everyone exposed.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        There are lots of criminal matters that aren't police responsibilities, e.g:

                        Fly tipping;

                        Failing to provide summary service charge accounts when reqeusted;

                        Having fire hazards in communal areas

                        Overcrowding houses

                        etc.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
                          There are lots of criminal matters that aren't police responsibilities, e.g:

                          Fly tipping;

                          Failing to provide summary service charge accounts when reqeusted;

                          Having fire hazards in communal areas

                          Overcrowding houses

                          etc.
                          Indeed, ... and there are also lots of criminal matters where the police do have remit, and they aren't interested either, like:

                          Theft
                          Burglary (most are not investigated in any way)
                          Trespass with damage to property
                          Minor mugging
                          Shoplifting
                          Most car crime
                          Child grooming
                          Child rape

                          They only really deal with major crimes like murder and kidnap these days I hear.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X