UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
Renewal came up, and no prob as as its all automatic, and as they're not increasing it by much, i just let it renew.
But anyway, they dutifully send me all the details and i do something i wouldnt normally- read through the entire policy.
Under Rooms(as in how many) 99
Ninety Nine rooms 😯 I've been stuffing all my spare junk in the other bedrooms. If only I'd known i'd loads of spare rooms. Maybe I'm actually a hotel 🤨
Under bedrooms 1. It's actually 3
So, i can just see the scenario. The other bedrooms are not being used as bedrooms(bike room,workshop) but they are still bedrooms for all intents and purposes. But god forbid i have a fire in one of them.
Company looks, sees that its in Bedroom 2(or 3) and refers back to the policy that only claims one and says - something amiss here, states only one bedroom, so how can there be another ? Claim voided, no compensation.
Or they discover there really isnt 99 rooms and i've far less. But as policy holder, i signed off on it - Policy voided.
I'll be getting on to them, so this is just a heads up. But im pretty sure its a deliberate move on their part. Slight mistake, not picked up on by me, so they have a get out clause.
I think everyone should check or recheck your insurance policy for an abnormalities.
Sounds like one of those blanket policies tbh. We have had them in the past. Your house is worth upto £1m......But is subject to rebuild value "upto" type statement. So a £300k house can be covered by the same wording. Rooms - 99 with a clause somewhere in the terms & conditions stating that the building can have 'upto' 99 rooms.
It saves them writing loads of different terms and conditions and policies specific to every scenario. As long as you havent declared anything untowards (I guerentee they will be able to bring that up if needed) then the policy wording is vague enough to cover it.
I don't think that applies to insurance companies. They've long been associated with dodgy practices. 😆
I suppose, just an oversight.
Still if push came to shove they probably wouldnt pay out. And given it could mean the difference between being compensated and losing everything, i think it best to highlight stuff like this just to be on the safe side
It seems unlikely to me that an insurer would refuse to pay out because you were over-insured. Certainly they'd have an argument on their hands if they tried.
Is this where they charge you $$$$ to adjust that "99" to actual number of rooms in home?
Currently being absolutely ****ed over by Esure for an escape of water claim. They've accepted the claim, had professional driers in, sent someone to assess the damage when it was dry and come back to us saying "Here's the schedule of work required, here's our cash offer for you to pay someone to do it".
I reckon the offer is at least £500-1000 light, and ignores a few other costs that should be included. Never mind that their emergency plumbers failed to find the leak and advised us to manage with no water while they waited 10 days to get authorisation to rip the floor/ceiling up to find it properly.
Now up to us to find a local tradesman to come in and quote on their schedule so we can go back and argue for longer. The novelty of being to pass a loo roll between the bathroom and the downstairs toilet has long worn off, as has using a torch in the downstairs loo when it's dark.
As a former claims manager, I'm usually sceptical about stories about shit claims handling, but Jesus, we weren't this poor even 30 years ago.
Indeed *always* read the small print.
And also *always* check they have not specifically changed the terms of bike (or canoe) storage. They often sneak in changes such as better locks, not in a shed. The canoe is mentioned as an old insurer (John Lewis) did cover it for a few years, then decided it had to be stored indoors.....
Currently being absolutely ****ed over by Esure for an escape of water claim. They've accepted the claim, had professional driers in, sent someone to assess the damage when it was dry and come back to us saying "Here's the schedule of work required, here's our cash offer for you to pay someone to do it".
I reckon the offer is at least £500-1000 light, and ignores a few other costs that should be included. Never mind that their emergency plumbers failed to find the leak and advised us to manage with no water while they waited 10 days to get authorisation to rip the floor/ceiling up to find it properly.
Now up to us to find a local tradesman to come in and quote on their schedule so we can go back and argue for longer. The novelty of being to pass a loo roll between the bathroom and the downstairs toilet has long worn off, as has using a torch in the downstairs loo when it's dark.
As a former claims manager, I'm usually sceptical about stories about shit claims handling, but Jesus, we weren't this poor even 30 years ago.
Had the same when the garage roof blew off in a storm. First tried to claim that the cracks in the sheeting were there already and not caused by the roof lifting until I showed them the video where you can see the whole lot moving up and down and then lifting off. I was lucky it lifted straight off and didn't fall on the car. Couldn't move the car as I thought the roof was going to fall on me.
They then agreed to pay out but at a lot lower than it would cost and we had to get our own tradies in!
I reckon the offer is at least £500-1000 light, and ignores a few other costs that should be included.
This is Esure's MO for household claims IMHO. We had exactly the same and their estimate was nearly £2k short. I had 6 separate companies come and assess to price for work and 6 quotes, all within £200 of each other but well over the estimate.
Dealing with their 'claims mgmt' company, ones who did estimate, was utter waste of time, but, when I checked the claim details realised I had a claims manager at Esure themselves. Dealt with them directly and eventually resolved to a better extent. Took a bit of arguing.
Shame, I found their car insurance claims to be spot on the twice I needed them. Wouldn't insure anything with them again though.
