Thanks, I agree with what you're saying and my insurance is not very expensive, it's as much a thinking it through thing, it's not really about the money.Unless you are on the breadline, then home insurance is one of the last things I would be cancelling. Where would you live if your house burned down? That is the main risk we are covering when we pay. It is a few hundred a year and 100% worth it for piece of mind. Flex the excess if you need to reduce it but don't get rid of it entirely.
How far down your list have you come to get to this? Assume all bank fees, utility bills, discretionary spending all looked at first?
It’s bonkers.The mortgage is paid and I fully understand the financial risk from fire, robbery, etc. I am prepared to take these on myself
Reckless irresponsibility should never be encouraged.It's no harm to do these exercises and to challenge assumptions.
Health insurance is close to top of my list to keep.How far down your list have you come to get to this?
Have looked at the policy, but haven't talked to my insurer or a broker. The policy does not clarify whether house insurance works as a standalone thing, you cover all risks, or if there is 3rd party liability for other people's property. My guess is the insurance companies would not want to or even know how to answer these questions, as it probably can only be answered in a court.Have a look at your current or a recent home insurance policy booklet to see what's covered and what's not under the sorts of headings that you mention above. That should clarify matters. And/or talk to a broker.
Have to agree with @misemoi 100% though. Foregoing home insurance (at least buildings insurance) for the sake of probably a few hundred euros would be very foolhardy in almost all cases.
HiIt’s bonkers.
Only extremely rich people should do this. As in liquid assets always to hand worth comfortably more than their house.
I understand and appreciate the sense of security insurance brings.If it was a choice between eating 3 meals a day or forgoing a meal in order to pay house insurance then I'd do it.
Please read my replies above, while I may be considered reckless with my own financial security and I admit this is not a huge factor for me, in fact I'm trying to determine what responsibilty I have for others, e.g. my neighbours and make decisions accordingly.Reckless irresponsibility should never be encouraged.
Thanks for that, I haven't looked into it, but my feeling on this was that it would be almost as expensive as standard insurance, but I do see that it provides better value for money, as I feel I'm less likely to be making a claim. But the 3rd party question and who is really liable still stands. Thanks.Pretty sure you can buy a basic policy without all the advertised bells and whistles features.
Fire cover only with Public Liability.
Thanks, maybe shocking but I have cancelled this, in fact some years ago and am still happy with this decision and I agonised over it at the time (probably for a few years as I knew I was not getting good value). But I think what you might be saying is; health is a higher priority for you than money and you're looking to use an expensive financial product so that you can ultimately protect your health. I'm asking; what financial protection am I getting from my house insurance, I don't care too much about my own personal situation, but I don't want to have a huge liability to others.Health insurance is close to top of my list to keep.
I don't understand what this means.Have looked at the policy, but haven't talked to my insurer or a broker. The policy does not clarify whether house insurance works as a standalone thing, you cover all risks, or if there is 3rd party liability for other people's property.
But the 3rd party question and who is really liable still stands
Please read my replies above, while I may be considered reckless with my own financial security and I admit this is not a huge factor for me, in fact I'm trying to determine what responsibilty I have for others, e.g. my neighbours and make decisions accordingly.
HiYou mean if you had no fire insurance cover, fire starts in your gaff, and your house was burnt to the ground, along with the one attached to yours, would you be liable for the rebuilding cost of the neighbours house too? Yes.
Plus, you'd have all the costs of the neighbours being rehoused somewhere else while it's being rebuilt. And, if any of them were injured or died, that's your liability too.
HiThe problem with this attitude is any impression out there that house insurance is somehow optional stands to wreak devastating and life-changing financial consequences on anyone sufficiently optimistic, naive or desperate to pay any heed to it. And the downstream results of any such devastation inevitably falls upon others.
Thank you, fair point, but public liabilty would be to persons only and would not cover property damage to an adjoining house. Plus my guess on this stuff if when you try to go away from a standard policy you lose value for money because you will probably be charged even more for less.How much would you actually save just having public liability? I have a public liability insurance for a professional activity (very basic, low risk...), it costs nearly half what my house insurance costs.
Hi, thanks.You need public liability, think you can only get that with house In surance. If a slate falls off your roof and hits passerby or a neighbour's child falls down stairs, you could be sued.
I don't understand what this means.
What exactly are you trying to achieve here?
It sounds nuts so far.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?