Hi my problem is that i moved out of the house i jointly own about 12 months ago and forgot to tell the insurance company id moved....then at the end of january the house was burgled and lot of items were taken, the insurance is in my name only.......what do i do?.....can i still claim as its still my house and some of the contents were mine like the tv and hifi that was stolen.

Was the house unoccupied at the time of the burglary (that is to say there was nobody actually living there)

Just as a clarification as well (it sounds stupid I know) but was it the house that you moved into taht had been burgled?

The insurer may be willing to cover the claim on the basis that you pay any difference in premiums taht would have been charged. At least taht was normal for car insurance when I worked in the industry. The same principle applies to home insurance. However, the insurer may say that they would not have covered you had they known about the change. Personally, I would not have had a problem if I were presented with a situation like this so long as there was no there was no indication of fraud or deceit. whether the insurer will or not is another matter.

The issue of adjusting the policy retrospectively is akin to insuring after the event. Where there is some genuine reason, as many peope do forget to tell their insurers such little things like changing their car, £2000 telly they just bought (or moving out in your case) - but usually not that much time passes. But to mention it a year later? Some may have dificulty with that.

Also check if your policy is still actually running - it may have renewed automatically but you will need to check.

If you do claim, be prepared for staff telling you that you can't claim. Many are only trained to a basic level, and even those who have a better understanding of insurance tend to get it wrong quite a lot. Just a tip - ask them to refer the matter to the FOS Helpline which is run for insurers (if it still exists - it used to). This is an advise line that assists insurers in making decisions on the more complex matters, but it is not binding on the insurer and if a complaint did go to the FOS, they are not bound to follow what they have said to the insurer. However, it may avoid long arguments and rants and get an unbiased decision more quickly.

Its the house ive moved out of and my ex still lives there, thought id covered most things but totally forgot about the house insurance being in my name only but being paid from a joint account still with my ex which i dont use any more.

My ex suggested just to claim as if i was living there, so we dont lose out on the stuff that was stolen....he says hes been paying the premiums still every month but he didnt know it was in my name only, claiming this way bugs me as its seems dishonest and worries me if they'l check and know i dont live there anymore....i feel under pressure as he want his stuff back or replaced, but im not that bothered because ive got a new house with my bf and didnt need the things i left there.

Im still freinds with my ex and dont want to cause any problems as we have a child, should i go ahead with his plan or if not any ideas on how i can let him down or tell him what would happen if i claimed and they found out i didnt live there anymore...like a short horror this will happen if i do this kinda thing??

thanQ

Well, to do so is dishonest and potentially fraudulent. That is something I do not advocate. If you did claim an if they sent an adjustor or investigator round, they could easily determine whether or not you actually live there or not. It is still possible that the insurer would be willing to amend the cover - but there is the risk that they will not.

Personally, and I know that this sounds callous, but why not tell your ex either:

1. it is nothing to do with you and you dont want to start messing about or

2. You have called the insurer and its not covered. A lie (and therefore against what I said in the first sentence!)

After all, it is really for your friendship that you are doing this (you did say tht you were not bothered with the goods being stolen). Is it that important that you feel a need to engage in deception? If it's access to your child you are worried about, that i a different matter, and the cost of stolen items should not even be a consideration.

Hopefully, someone will come along and advise as to the change of insurance bit (been a while since I last worked in the field), but if it would not be possible, then I think you have a bit of soul searching to do.

I hope things work out.

Are you still an owner or part owner of the property?

If so then you could argue that although you don't live there there's no reason for you not to insure it.

Yes im still a joint owner, thats why my ex says i should claim......but my gut instinct says no but i feel mean if i say no.....gonna give Insurers a ring tomorrow and tell em the truth n clear my head, so fingers crossed they'l be nice and understanding......thanks 4 ur help guys :)

In that case there should be no problem with you making a claim even if your not living there. Admittedly I'm not an expert on house insurance but it seems logical that the owner can insure without living the (think of all the landlords out there - I doubt they don't have insurance).

Anyway I think you should be able to claim and maintain a clear conscience

Hope it works out!

A wor of warning is that what seems logical and common sense does not necessarily mean that it is what insurers do! I admit that I have lost a lot of knowledge of in this industry, so would not like to (mis)advise one way or the other. It will come down to interpretation. If the insurance is in your name, then it is was, in my time, expected that you would be living there. Otherwise, we would be naming ourselves oneveryone elses insurance and be having a bonanza. But I refer you to my caveat.

I would suggest seeking professional advice in the absence of anything concrete on here (with all respect to jbmb2000).

A wor of warning is that what seems logical and common sense does not necessarily mean that it is what insurers do! I admit that I have lost a lot of knowledge of in this industry, so would not like to (mis)advise one way or the other. It will come down to interpretation. If the insurance is in your name, then it is was, in my time, expected that you would be living there. Otherwise, we would be naming ourselves oneveryone elses insurance and be having a bonanza. But I refer you to my caveat.

 

I would suggest seeking professional advice in the absence of anything concrete on here (with all respect to jbmb2000).

Fair enough. I forgot about logic not counting for much in the insurance industry

Does this mean that if someone owns a property and rents it out that the renters as apposed to the owner would have to insure the property?

Apoligises if my comments were misleading!

Oh now I really am being tested! As far as I recall, it the person who has a financial interest in the matter that has to insure - which is usually the owner. That is why you dont get buildings insurance on council properties, and also why you cant insure someone elses property (in general - goods, I mean). If you have no financial interest in it, then you have no potential of finanical loss if something happened to the thing insured.

However, a contract between a leasor and leasee(?) may stipulate that it is for the leasee to insure the property - the leasee therefore does have a financial interest.

I'm afraid I can't be much more help on this. Someone else might come along and be more helpful.

If I get this right, you moved out of the 'old' property permanently but did not remember to tell the insurance company of this meaning a policy is still running on that address. The person living there is your ex-partner who owns part of the property with you.

I'm swaying between thinking this could be considered a 'let' property as you no longer live there, and a standard claim. Your moving out could potentially be considered a material fact that may have changed cover/premiums (i.e. is it no longer occupied during the day but used to be? has someone else moved in with him? has the insurer had the opportunity to assess the risk of the new 'tennant' i.e. claims/convictions etc.) however it sounds like an honest mistake and I'm sure the insurer would realise this.

If you own part of the building and need to claim - put forward a claim. You still have an interest in insuring it and indeed insurance on the property.

If you have little or no interest in the contents because they are his, think long and hard before claiming as it will follow you for at least 4 years (and could possibly be a factor on your new policy with your new partner - you would defo need to disclose it and let the newer insurer decide).

Incidentally, this also raises questions on your new policy such as No Claims Discount as you can only have 1 set of NCD running on one policy at any one time (unless you've had multiple policies in the past).

Ultimately, the FSA require the insurer to treat you fairly. If the change to your circumstances would not be a decline of cover by the insurer I would hope they make the required changes and consider the claim.