the uk insurance

A survey from Legal & General has revealed that many UK homes could be at risk due to poor maintenance of security and safety devices designed to protect us. The annual 'Safe as Houses' report, showed that although we’re good at having home security features in place, we’re not good at checking that they're still working and could even be putting off repairs to broken or faulty home security equipment. The survey asked people to provide details of the security and safety devices they have in their homes, and has shown an increase in the number of people with home security features fitted. Figures show that nearly 90% of us have a smoke alarm, 85% have window locks and 72% good quality door locks. However, of those that are putting off home maintenance, 37% one in five, 21% are delaying plans to repair broken or malfunctioning window and door locks and 11% are ignoring faulty alarm systems. For example, nearly 40% stated that they had a house alarm fitted, but 44% admitted that they had actually checked that it was in working order. These are the top five safety and security features that people admitted they had never checked... Fire extinguishers 69% Intruder alarm 56% Electrical wiring 54% Gas pipes 51% Roof and chimney 42% Head of communications for Legal & General’s general insurance business, Ruth Wilkins, commented: "It's very encouraging that there has been an increase on last year in the number of people that have security measures in their homes. People mentioned that they’ve made their homes more secure with new windows and quality locks. Although there were still a small number, 13%, mentioned that they still rely on a dog to protect their property. Although 76% stated that they feel just as safe in their home as they did five years ago, if people are not checking their safety and security measures, they may not be as safe as they think." To promote awareness of the checks we all should take to protect our homes Legal & General has prepared a special guide, Safeguarding your home. It offers useful tips and explains home security features to help homeowners and those in rented accommodation protect their property and possessions.

A steep rise in renting rather than buying should serve as a reminder of the importance of getting the correct home insurance for all concerned, experts have warned.
The Residential Landlords Association says there are several reasons for the increase in the number of renters, including:

• the difficulty of obtaining a mortgage as banks become choosier about new customers;
• a rise in the deposit required on mortgaged properties, with a 20% downpayment now common;
• more people struggling to save up to buy a home because of the effects of the economic downturn; and
• a drop in the number of new houses being built meaning people who have to move home may struggle to find a suitable purchase to buy in the new location.

While there are some insurance benefits to renting rather than buying, such as avoiding the need to buy buildings insurance (this is usually the responsibility of the landlord), it's important to remember the landlord is not responsible for insuring a tenant's personal property.
If a problem with the house, such as a burst pipe, causes damage to belongings it's possible a tenant may be able to sue the landlord to cover the costs, but this can be an expensive and lengthy process and doesn't exactly help landlord-tenant relations.
Contents insurance designed specially for tenants can include cover for any accidental damage to items belonging to a landlord, such as those in a furnished flat. While a tenant policy won't normally cover the full replacement costs, it may cover the loss of any deposit.

Home insurance premiums can vary by almost three times depending on where you live according to new figures. The most expensive postcode, Stanmore in northwest London (HA7) has an average premium of £286.50, compared with just £103.98 in central Bournemouth.
The other most expensive areas were NW11 (Golders Green, £280.59), SE21 (Southwark, £279.07), NW7 (Mill Hill in northwest London, £270.76) and HA6 (Northwood in northwest London, £286.47). Five of the ten most expensive areas where in the Harrow postcode region.
Other areas among the cheapest were YO1 (York, £109.22), G5 (the Gorbals in Glasgow, £110.73), SP9 (Tidworth in Wiltshire, £110.79) and NG1 (Nottingham, £111.87).
The figures come from MoneySupermarket.com and represent the cheapest average quote for each postcode from the insurers it covers. The company noted that what makes an expensive or cheap area is a complicated process: areas at higher risk of burglary may also be areas where the value of homeowner belongings is lower. There's also an effect from the risk of subsidence or flooding in an area.


PLEASE NOTE: News items are intended for information only and should not be relied upon when making buying decisions. Due to their nature some of the information in these news stories may no longer be current

As many as 1.5 million people could be without adequate home insurance according to a new survey. A poll of 2,017 homeowners found 2% had contents insurance but no buildings cover, 3% had buildings insurance but no contents cover, and 1% had neither type of insurance. The survey also found that the problems were more serious among young adults, with 12% of those aged 18-34 missing at least one of the two insurance types. London and the South East was the most underinsured area, with 11% of people across all age groups lacking one or both forms of cover. Moneysupermarket.com, which commissioned the survey, warned that this was a substantial risk with burst pipes, subsidence and boiler breakdowns all posing potentially thousand of pounds in costs for those without buildings insurance. It noted that combined cover can cost as little as £169 for an average household and suggested those on tight budgets look for insurers who break down premiums into monthly payments without charging fees or interest.

The Financial Services Authority has issued one of its biggest ever fines to the director of an insurance company that collected premiums but didn't put the policies in place. The company, Jeffery Flanders (Consulting) Limited, had forged documentation to scam other insurance companies. The customers, many of whom were elderly or vulnerable, were left without adequate home and motor cover. Director Andre Jeffrey was hit with a £150,000 fine. In a separate case four people have been banned from holding regulated finance positions, one of whom was fined £50,000, for their role in financial mismanagement at insurers Orion Direct Limited. Around £300,000 of the company's funds was used to set up a new insurance firm, Peppercom Plc. This breached rules that say money taken in insurance premiums must be used primarily for providing cover. Although the policies appear to have remained valid, the misuse of funds increased the likelihood that the company would have been unable to make payouts. The FSA's director of enforcement and financial crime, Margaret Cole, said "The FSA does not tolerate these types of failings. We will continue to take action against those who commit insurance fraud, as well as those who fail to take action to prevent it."

The Local Government Association has warned that homeowners' flood insurance could be compromised by government spending cuts. At the moment, an agreement between the government and the Association of British Insurers means insurers must offer affordable flood insurance to all but the most at-risk properties. However, part of the agreement was that the government would continue to carry out "a long-term investment strategy, which will set out strategic flood prevention aims and assess future policy options and funding needs." The LGA says there is a "real danger" that public spending cutbacks could mean not enough resources go into flood protection. That raises the possibility that insurers won't be as willing to extend the agreement when it comes up for renewal in three years. The ABI has already raised that issue earlier this year. It's general insurance director Nick Starling said in July that "cutting back on investment in flood defences would be a false economy in these tough times." He warned that for insurers to continue offering cover "we need the Government to keep to its pledge, under our agreement, to deliver a long-term flood management strategy backed by the right level of investment. This must include robust planning decisions, so that new homes are not built in areas at high risk of flooding." PLEASE NOTE: News items are intended for information only and should not be relied upon when making buying decisions. Due to their nature some of the information in these news stories may no longer be current.

Home insurance has become the biggest problem area for fraudulent claims according to the Association of British Insurers.
Home claims now make up 170 of the 335 fraudulent insurance cases detected on an annual day. Motor insurance is responsible for "only" 108 bogus claims. However, such claims tend to be for much larger sums: fraudulent motor claims average £1.12 million a day (more than £10,000 per claim), almost half of the £2.3 million for the entire industry.
Those figures show why, despite home insurance scams apparently being more frequent, motor insurers continue to point to fraud as a reason for rising premiums.
Publicising the figures, the ABI also unveiled some of the more outlandish claims people have made in an attempt to defraud insurers. One policyholder claimed for DVDs he claimed to have bought in local shops, despite the fact the titles hadn't yet been released in the UK. Another crashed a car on a German racetrack (where he wasn't covered), but shipped the wreckage back to the UK and left it on a roadside before making a claim for a domestic road crash.