PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Correcting incorrect statement on existing home insurance policy
HotWater
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 19:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



Hi,
My home insurance is up for renewal shortly and I had a read through the documents and it mentions that I am confirming that any flat roofs do not make up more than a 30% of the total roof area.

When I originally signed up with them a year ago I'd said that it was no more than 30%, which I genuinely believed after trying to measure it on Google Earth.

However, I have now decided to physically measure it as best as I can, and it turns out that, taking into account the garage and an additional attached section, plus a couple of smaller areas on bits that jut out, the flat roof percentage is actually about 40%.

I've been generous in my flat roof measurements, and stingy in the sloped roof measurements, so it is actually probably a bit less than 40%, but I would say that it is definitely greater than 30%.

I've not had any claims, and I would like to stay with the same provider, but I am little concerned that if I raise it to them now, they might want to void the current policy (which only has two week to run until renewal).

That wouldn't matter in terms of claims, but I do not want to have a cancelled policy on my record.

It is a genuine error, and possibly a fairly trivial one at that, but I am concerned that bringing it to their attention now might cause problems.

The alternative would be just moving to another insurer and giving them my new figure.

I just wondered if anybody had an thoughts, or direct experience, on how an insurance company might view this.

This post has been edited by HotWater: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 19:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 19:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mickR
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 21:29
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



I would say it has to be an approximation. No insurance Co could reasonably expect the average person to know exactly nor expect them to measure it. Tech minded might look up on google aerial view but again it would be an approximate measurement.
What exactly does the question ask? Excluding or Inlcuding the outbuildings?
Also, is your garage not a out building?

This post has been edited by mickR: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 21:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 21:35
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (HotWater @ Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 19:09) *
I just wondered if anybody had an thoughts, or direct experience, on how an insurance company might view this.

They will thank you for letting them know and amend the policy. It might impact your premiums slightly, but simply to reflect what the risk should have been rated as all along.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 23:04
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



May be a silly question but how are the areas calculated?
Flat roofs are relatively simple.... Length x Width.
Pitched roofs cannot be taken as the same calculation on a plan view...such as measurements from Google Earth.
It is the area of the tiles/slates so if from a plan view, the pitch must be allowed for.
Or if by measurement, it will be the pitched distance from gutter to apex times the length, not forgetting where things like hips join at an angle.

So how have you calculated?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 23:57
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 00:04) *
May be a silly question but how are the areas calculated?
Flat roofs are relatively simple.... Length x Width.
Pitched roofs cannot be taken as the same calculation on a plan view...such as measurements from Google Earth.
It is the area of the tiles/slates so if from a plan view, the pitch must be allowed for.
Or if by measurement, it will be the pitched distance from gutter to apex times the length, not forgetting where things like hips join at an angle.

So how have you calculated?


Thanks for raising the point.

As you say the calculation of the flat roof is straightforward, I have just measured the footprint of the building.

For the slope roof I have done the same, so have not taken account of the overhang.

I do think that the overhang might actually be sufficient to swing the percentages, so I am going to try to get an approximation of it tomorrow. I've already deducted a bit for the flat roof as I have realised that one of the outbuildings narrows at the end, which has saved a few square metres.

I measured it again tonight on Google Earth and I again had the sloped roof as more than 70%, which would be explained by the overhang.

Of course, it depends upon how the insurance company do their calcs too. Whether it is footprint of the building that is covered by roof, or the actual plan size of the roof.

QUOTE (mickR @ Mon, 23 Nov 2020 - 22:29) *
What exactly does the question ask? Excluding or Inlcuding the outbuildings?
Also, is your garage not a out building?


It says in the list of check that

"not more than 30% of the roof is felt on timber"

I have spoken with them, incognito, and they confirmed that they count all buildings connected to the main house, including garages.

In my case all of the roofing that I have included in the calculation is on buildings attached to the main house (the garage is attached)

This post has been edited by HotWater: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 00:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 00:16
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



If the insurance company do not specify how to calculate and the phrase "not more than 30% of the roof is felt on timber" is the only relevant phrase then to me you calculate to your best advantage within logical principles.

To me, this can only be seen as a percentage of roof area and must take the pitch into account.
The area is IMO the actual area that is tiled, calculated as though you wanted to replace the tiles, ie the number of tiles per metre squared and how many square metres...that is not the footprint. It is far larger for most UK houses.

If you don't fancy climbing a ladder to actually measure, estimate the height of the gable above the gutters (counting brick rows is an easy estimate, you can measure ten or 20 rows at ground level so estimate should be close) and use the footprint for the horizontal measurement to the gable.... then apply Pythagoras.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 01:49
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 01:16) *
To me, this can only be seen as a percentage of roof area and must take the pitch into account.
The area is IMO the actual area that is tiled, calculated as though you wanted to replace the tiles, ie the number of tiles per metre squared and how many square metres...that is not the footprint. It is far larger for most UK houses.


Thanks. I had misread your original post to mean the plan area, but taking into the overhang. Now that I re-read it I can't explain how I came that conclusion.

If you are right and it is the total area of tile then I would certainly be OK. Just the tile area to the footprint would get me to the 70% and then the overhang would add even more tiled area.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 07:48
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



With 2 weeks left on the policy, just be safe and tell the next lot...............if they ask, I suspect some won't have this restriction?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 09:08
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,195
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Personally, despite what is said above, I think to refers to plan area and not roofing area.

The insurers are assessing risk, we know flat roofs are a greater risk of leaks/leak damage than conventional tiled/slate pitched roofs, they know from the building details the approximate plan area of the property and want to asses the approximate area of flat roof, that would be the logic in my eyes.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 11:12
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 09:08) *
Personally, despite what is said above, I think to refers to plan area and not roofing area.

....


TBH I would not argue against that as being a possibility.

But I do stick with my point that unless it is specified you are entitled to interpret in the best light.

Let's put it this way, google "area of a roof" an act that any householder who is unsure could be expected to do.
I've just done that, the first page of answers all deal with actual area, ie with the pitch taken into account.
Put in "size of a roof" and the same answers come up.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 16:22
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 09:08) *
Personally, despite what is said above, I think to refers to plan area and not roofing area.

....


TBH I would not argue against that as being a possibility.

But I do stick with my point that unless it is specified you are entitled to interpret in the best light.

Let's put it this way, google "area of a roof" an act that any householder who is unsure could be expected to do.
I've just done that, the first page of answers all deal with actual area, ie with the pitch taken into account.
Put in "size of a roof" and the same answers come up.


Thanks to both of you.

I had originally used the same reasoning as The Rookie, on the basis that the roof type is a predictor of risk. I think that leaks are the obvious risk, but I understand that fire is also factored. For leaks, the real metric would probably be the footprint of the building that the roof is protecting, but certainly no more than the plan size. For fire, the total expanse of the area would seem to be in play, with the ratio of tile to felt.

The rules are somewhat broad brush, and the insurer suggested that anything over 30% would need to be looked at by the underwriter with more details.

It is, for example, fair to say that a leak in any of the felt roof would not affect any contents of value, and the buildings that it protects are unimproved (i.e. just brick walls and concrete floors). A fire, of course, could easily consume the whole house.

So, again the 30% of felt roof is a very inexact measurement of insured risk, not least of all because I could pitch the roof on the outbuildings and change the corresponding area

I would agree with Dancing Dad that the exact wording would seem to simply refer to roof area, and furthermore, that any online search for "roof area" takes you to professional posts and calculators that include pitch. I think it is fair to say that the common meaning of "roof area" does include the pitch.

I think that I can properly go back to the insurer for clarification now. The plan area, if I include the overhang, probably is 70% or more, and certainly would be with the pitch included in the calcs. So I don't now feel that the insurer could suggest that my original declaration (based upon Google Earth) was intentionally misleading.

I would however, prefer to get clear agreement with the insurer, rather than having to potentially argue the semantics of "roof area" in the event of any significant claim.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 17:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,235
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



I stand by what i said earlier.
An unsurer cannot reasonably expect the average householder to be able to measure with any accuracy whatso ever the actual areas. It is guess work and only that. Should the risk factor be that important to the policy or costing of such a policy then the ins co should make it clear it requires a precise measurment performed by a qualified person such as a roofer or someone with working at height qualifications.
I would change ins Cos.
I have found Direct Line to ask the least questions and if i remember correctly gave options to choose the % of flat roof.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 17:41
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (mickR @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 18:02) *
I stand by what i said earlier.
An unsurer cannot reasonably expect the average householder to be able to measure with any accuracy whatso ever the actual areas. It is guess work and only that. Should the risk factor be that important to the policy or costing of such a policy then the ins co should make it clear it requires a precise measurment performed by a qualified person such as a roofer or someone with working at height qualifications.
I would change ins Cos.
I have found Direct Line to ask the least questions and if i remember correctly gave options to choose the % of flat roof.


Thanks.

I think you are right and I think that the Financial Ombudsman would agree with you.

I have, however, found myself in the unfortunate situation of being in dispute with a big name insurer on whether the wording of a policy excluded my claim (not a home insurance claim).

In that case, the wording of the policy was extremely clear, and there was no real argument that my claim should did not fall within it. That did not stop them from trying all kinds of legal gymnastics to avoided paying out, and it put me in a potentially very difficult position until it was resolved. Their arguments were frankly ridiculous and I have absolutely no doubt that they would have been completely dismissed by any independent adjudicator.

Resolution only came the day before I could escalate my case to the Ombudsman, when the insurer agreed "as a gesture of goodwill" to cover my claim.

That experience has certainly coloured my view of the claim process.

I'm left with the view that insurance companies will try every trick that they can to avoid paying out and that you can find yourself in a potentially very difficult position, while an insurer continues to stonewall you for an extended period of time, even though they know that they cannot justify their position. It was challenging in my previous experience, it would be far more so if I was dealing with some kind of catastrophic situation such as a house fire and a homeless family.

I'm therefore keen to deprive them of any wiggle room that I can.

Any vagueness in the terms probably works to my advantage in the long run, but ups the chances of me getting into a prolonged battle with them.

This post has been edited by HotWater: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 17:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
essexdriver
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 19:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,565



[quote name='DancingDad' date='Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 00:16' post='1601619']
If the insurance company do not specify how to calculate and the phrase "not more than 30% of the roof is felt on timber" is the only relevant phrase then to me you calculate to your best advantage within logical principles.


Of course some of the flat roofs may be covered in asphalt, fibreglass or single ply membrane so don't assume that even if the percentage of flat to pitched is more than 30%, the area of felt on timber may be lower or even zero.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foxy01
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 19:39
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,764



Do you have a mortgage? If so then you would probably have found out then if there was a large percentage of flat roof. Like insurance, mortgage lenders do not like flat roofs and usually charge more to lend against them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 21:52
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



We've got two flat roofs on extensions to the main house, one quite large, and I've just estimated it as 30% but I've never put much thought into it. That a large % is flat is the relevant point I reckon. I'm not sure that most events would be relevant anyway - I wouldn't claim for a leak as that's usually bad maintenance, only for something pretty major like structural damage to an extension that affected the roof, or maybe dry rot.

Buildings cover is cheap and I look at it mainly as protection to get the house rebuilt if say we had a major fire.

That said I've claimed successfully in the past for a broken sewer drain, and dry rot in a previous house.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotWater
post Wed, 25 Nov 2020 - 04:38
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,529



QUOTE (Foxy01 @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 20:39) *
Do you have a mortgage? If so then you would probably have found out then if there was a large percentage of flat roof. Like insurance, mortgage lenders do not like flat roofs and usually charge more to lend against them.


Thanks. Yes it is mortgaged. I will try to dig up the survey to see if it mentions anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 26 Nov 2020 - 11:11
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086




It seems to me that the area of roof must include pitch in any calculation, or reckoning. Not the floor plan.

Taking an extreme example, what is the area of a church spire? Clearly more than the circle at the base!

The OP talks about 'overhang' which confuses me. The overhang is relatively insignificant compared to the pitch.

If you had a 4m x 4m flat roof the area is 16 sq m.

If the roof is raised at one end by 3m. Conveniently using the easy maths of a 3,4,5 right angled triangle!
The roof area is 5m x 4m, 20 sq m. Increase of 25%.

This gives a pitch of 37 degrees. According to wiki average pitch in U.K. Is between 40 and 50 degrees.

I would say that applying 25% increase to the flat area is a good ready reckoner. If roof is roughly square.

If this calculation leaves OP comfortably within 70:30 threshold. That's good enough, to put op at ease.
If it's borderline, then more accurate measurements required.

If it is not easy to physically measure actual height of roof, to calculate pitch.
Then , apart from counting bricks suggested above.
A) take a photo at gable end and use this to approximate angle of pitch.
B) Guess angle, or take the industry standard, and use this.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:19
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here