What insurer should pay for having to vacate house?

makeorbrake

In a claims situation with an insurer whereby they insist that I move out of my home for 4-6 weeks. They agree to cover the cost of this on the following basis =>

"In accordance with policy conditions we confirm you will be entitled to
alternative accommodation on a like for like basis while your property is
uninhabitable."


The house is a 4 bed semi D in a regional town with one occupant at present. What standard can I hold them to in this regard? i.e. it could cost X to cover a months rent on a similar property in an ongoing rental scenario. However, this is a short term accommodation need - so are we talking about Hotel rates??

Sue Pa Key Pa

You're entitled to like for like, as the policy says. So as near as is practicable, a 4 bed semi detached dwelling and you would be responsible for all the usual running costs.

makeorbrake

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're entitled to like for like, as the policy says. So as near as is practicable, a 4 bed semi detached dwelling and you would be responsible for all the usual running costs.

Ok, but it's the 'as near as is practicable' I'm trying to nail down. If there is no availability of short let for the equivalent (only long let), am I looking at hotel rates?

Sue Pa Key Pa

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but it's the 'as near as is practicable' I'm trying to nail down. If there is no availability of short let for the equivalent (only long let), am I looking at hotel rates?

Can I ask which insurer's wording you are quoting there? I ask this because most insurers offer the 'cost' of renting alternative accommodation, yet that wording could suggest that the insurer would have to provide it

But to answer your main question, No, you wouldn't be entitled to hotel rates as these would be dearer than rent and incorporate running costs. There would be nothing stopping you from agreeing with your insurer to add your own money to the rental figure and stay in a hotel if you want.

What damage was caused to your home can you say?

makeorbrake

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Can I ask which insurer's wording you are quoting there? I ask this because most insurers offer the 'cost' of renting alternative accommodation, yet that wording could suggest that the insurer would have to provide it

But to answer your main question, No, you wouldn't be entitled to hotel rates as these would be dearer than rent and incorporate running costs. There would be nothing stopping you from agreeing with your insurer to add your own money to the rental figure and stay in a hotel if you want.

What damage was caused to your home can you say?

It's a structural insurer - and you;re quite right. It is worded in such a way as they have to provide it. This is only one of the facets of the whole thing that needs to be sorted out - so who knows whether it will end up with them providing it or a cash settlement. Could go either way.

Sue Pa Key Pa

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's a structural insurer - and you;re quite right. It is worded in such a way as they have to provide it. This is only one of the facets of the whole thing that needs to be sorted out - so who knows whether it will end up with them providing it or a cash settlement. Could go either way.

Ah, I have a clearer picture now. I presumed it was standard house insurance. The way it's worded, it could be up to them to find a similar property. If they can't get one, they may have to find a superior property for the short term period, or agree to hotel accommodation. If they can only find an inferior property for you, ask for a cash amount representing the difference between the rent paid and examples of rent for the correct type of property available in a different area

The whole of the policy wording for that section must be read in its entirety, is there any more to it?

makeorbrake

Thanks for the feedback. I'll dig the policy out and see if there's any further detail referencing this specifically.