THIS TRANSCRIPT IS ISSUED ON THE UNDERSTANDING 
THAT IT IS TAKEN FROM A LIVE PROGRAMME AS IT WAS 
BROADCAST.  THE NATURE OF LIVE BROADCASTING 
MEANS THAT NEITHER THE BBC NOR THE PARTICIPANTS 
IN THE PROGRAMME CAN GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY 
OF THE INFORMATION HERE.


MONEY BOX LIVE

Presenter:	VINCENT DUGGLEBY


TRANSMISSION:	5 DECEMBER 2005  1500-1530 GMT   BBC RADIO 4



DUGGLEBY:	Good afternoon.  Winter seems to have come a 
bit earlier than usual this year and that’s one reason why we’re talking 
about insurance on this Money Box Live.  08700 100 444 is the number 
to call.  Whenever there’s a spell of bad weather – ice and snow, storms 
or flooding – you can be sure of spectacular pictures on television and 
in the newspapers: rivers bursting their banks, houses knee deep in 
water, and recently the trail of abandoned cars on Bodmin Moor.  We 
try to imagine what it would be like in that situation and comfort 
ourselves in the knowledge that the insurance would take care of it.  
The question is whether it would take care of what you think it should, 
and here we get into the small print of a typical policy – what is covered 
and what isn’t.  For example, the difference between reinstatement and 
improvement, whether accidental damage is included, problems with 
falling trees, collapsing sheds and fences which are blown away.  In a 
car accident, there’s the question of who’s at fault, which may affect the 
no claims bonus of the innocent person, especially if the other driver 
turns out to be uninsured - something the government is now trying to 
crack down on.  A continuing worry for those who live in areas at 
significant risk of flooding is whether any insurance at all is available.  
And here there is some good news.  The Association of British Insurers 
have permitted member companies to provide existing companies with 
cover where there are plans to improve flood defences within 5 years.  
One of my guests this afternoon is Malcolm Tarling from the ABI.  And 
he’s joined by Graham Trudgill, Technical Services Manager with 
BIBA, the British Insurance Brokers Association.  And in Manchester 
we have Chris Collings, Development Director at Swinton Insurance.  
08700 100 444 and the first question is from Michael in Hay-on-Wye.

MICHAEL:	Hello.

DUGGLEBY:	Hello, Michael.

MICHAEL:	I’ve got a situation where my mother-in-law had 
to make a claim just nearly 2 years ago because of water damage into a 
collection of magazines that she had in a garage.  The water damage 
came from a bathroom.  And she was insured by Saga Insurance and the 
loss adjusters were Capital Insurance, and to begin with they claimed 
that the magazines weren’t covered by the policy.  Eventually they 
decided that they would drop that opposition.  Then they decided that 
they were worth nothing on the grounds that they didn’t have any 
marketable value – or rather they suggested that if we proved that they 
could, they would look further into the claim.  So we then provided 
them with evidence that they were worth more than what we thought 
they were and significantly more.  We discovered that actually these 
magazines were being sold at up to about £32 each.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay, well what did they offer you?

MICHAEL:	Well they offered us £128 and then they 
claimed that because my mother-in-law had obtained these magazines 
for sentimental reasons that they weren’t covered at all.  We argued 
through that.  

DUGGLEBY:	I don’t want a complete history of the case 
otherwise we’re going to be taking up the entire programme with this 
claim.  What is it you’re on about?  What is your concern?

MICHAEL:	At the moment they’ve offered us £3,000 …

DUGGLEBY:	Take it.  (Laughs)  I joke, but anyway …  Let’s 
get to the nub of this.  First of all, Malcolm, this is obviously contents, 
but the first question that occurred to me is contents in the garage and 
were they being looked after if they were valuable?

TARLING:	Most policies are likely to cover you in these 
circumstances.  There may be a lower limit on items which are stored 
outside the main home – for example in the garage.  There’s obviously 
quite a difference between what the insurance company originally 
offered and what you got them up to, Michael, so I think the golden rule 
is to provide at the outset with your insurance company evidence that 
substantiates what you believe the item is worth.  This is particularly 
important when you’ve got valuable items which you can’t necessarily 
go down to your local high street and replace.

DUGGLEBY:	This is what occurs to me, Chris; that in this sort 
of instance, this is almost … this is being claimed as a collector’s item, 
I suspect, which will possibly trigger a different aspect of the policy.

COLLINGS:	It is and it’s difficult you know to present some 
evidence as to its value, and so it’s good that he’s been able to get that 
sort of valuation.  And I think, again, the message is clear as Malcolm 
said – that evidence of valuation …  Clearly you’ve got more than 
originally anticipated, so I think I’d be inclined to take the money.

DUGGLEBY:	Would you say that there’s a single item 
insurance if it’s deemed to be valuables and I suppose that could be 
triggered, could it?

COLLINGS:	If the newspapers are classed as single 
valuables, of course, and there’s some question over what …  I don’t 
understand why an insurer wouldn’t pay out because they’re only of 
sentimental value, which I think is nonsense.

DUGGLEBY:	I think the lesson here, Michael, is you’ve done 
the right thing, which is you know to negotiate with the insurance 
company.  I mean stick to your guns, but on the other hand you can’t 
push it too far and I mean there does come a time when they will want a 
pretty big degree of proof, which you seem to have done so far 
successfully.


MICHAEL:	Well I think we’ve done that, but the problem is 
that they valued the magazines at 60p each and we valued them at … or 
at least our original request was for £6 each, and yet we’ve proved that 
they’re worth £32 each.  So the difference …  And there’s 4,000, 
there’s over 4,000 magazines involved in this claim, so we’re talking 
about …

DUGGLEBY:	£12,000 as opposed to £3,000.

MICHAEL:	Yuh.

DUGGLEBY:	Well I think you’ve done well to get it to 
£3,000.  What do you think, Graham?

TRUDGILL:	I think arguments over quantum are always 
difficult.  It’s worth escalating it to the top of the insurance company 
for a view from their chief executive.  You can always speak to the 
Financial Ombudsman’s Service if you’re extremely unhappy about it, 
but you know it’s a very difficult subject and that’s a typical type of 
disagreement that you get with claims, is quantum.

DUGGLEBY:	And we must draw to a close, Malcolm, but I 
suspect that if you’re talking about magazines worth £32 each, I think if 
I was the insurance company I might just have wanted to have been told 
about that, wouldn’t you?

TARLING:	Well most policies are going to have a limit on 
the maximum amount they’ll pay for collections whether it’s a 
collection of photographs or in this case magazines, and it’s arguable 
that you may have been better off to get a specialised policy because 
there are policies out there that cover collections of valuables – 
everything from football playing cards through to in this case expensive 
magazines.  The good news, of course, is that these magazines were 
worth considerably more than you thought.

DUGGLEBY:	But if they’re wrecked, they’re not much good 
and you can’t replace them.

TARLING:	No and I just hope that you get the maximum 
amount you can from the policy.  And if you can’t, as Graham said 
maybe consider the Ombudsman. 

DUGGLEBY:	Anyway an interesting call, Michael, and I’m 
sure other listeners will draw some conclusions from your experience.  
John in Ilford, you’re next.

JOHN:		Good afternoon.

DUGGLEBY:	Good afternoon.

JOHN:		Very basically had a £40,000 new for old 
contents insurance policy was burgled and the claim is £19,000.  
£14,000 of that is jewellery, which was all listed - receipts, valuation.  
The insurance company are now saying well we’ll only pay 33% of 
what you’re asking for.  So should we have fought this or should we 
have over insured ourselves to cover what they’re saying – we’re only 
going to give you a third of what you’ve actually valued this jewellery 
at and what you’ve got receipts for? 

DUGGLEBY:	Can I just … £19,000 is the claim.  They’re 
offering you a third of that £19,000.  Is that right?

JOHN:		No, no.  £19,000 is the claim.

DUGGLEBY:	Right.

JOHN:		£14,000 of the £19,000 is in jewellery.  The rest 
of it is other bits and pieces which were stolen …

DUGGLEBY:	Right.  And they’re offering you a third of that 
…

JOHN:		… of the £14,000, yeah.  They’re offering a 
third of the £14,000.  They’re saying that is what the policy covers.  
And we said, “Well hang on a minute, this is a new for old policy.  Why 
didn’t you point this out to us?  Why didn’t the agent point this out to 
us when we were buying a new for old policy?  Should we have insured 
this for £120,000 so that … “  “No, it doesn’t work like that.”

DUGGLEBY:	Alright.  Well, Graham, can you help?

TRUDGILL:	It might be that there’s a valuables limit on the 
policy and this has been exceeded, but it’s very difficult to see why they 
would do that.  If it’s all listed, then you would expect for it to be paid.  
You’ve got all the receipts.  If you haven’t got receipts, sometimes 
photos will suffice.  So, yes …

JOHN:		We got a valuation list from a jeweller’s, which 
it was all valued about 2 years ago and it’s all completely listed.

TRUDGILL;	Yeah, well what exactly was their specific 
reason for saying that you’re only getting a third?

JOHN:		They say the policy says, if you look at the 
back, that we will only pay 33% of the value of any jewellery claim.  If 
we were claiming for £9,000, they’d pay us £3,000; if we were claiming 
for £21,000, they’d pay us £7,000.

DUGGLEBY:	Chris, have you heard of that sort of exclusion?

COLLINGS:	Not at all and I would think that there must be 
some other clause which that’s relating to.  I can’t …

DUGGLEBY:	No, shaking of heads here.  Malcolm?

TARLING:	It is puzzling.  As Chris said, it’s probably 
because … The only thing we can think of is that there’s a single item 
limit for jewellery at the specific percentage of the overall sum insured 
and you’ve got all your receipts and everything’s listed, so there 
shouldn’t be a problem in claiming the maximum you’re entitled to 
claim for but I’ve never come across this maximum percentage will 
only be paid in respect of jewellery.  It’s normally that jewellery will 
have a … there’ll be a single item limit on the policy relating to 
jewellery, so it may be for example a third of your overall sum insured 
will be paid for in jewellery.

DUGGLEBY:	What about the receipts though?  Have you 
managed to find those or not?

JOHN:		Yes, we’ve got receipts for them, we’ve got the 
…  Some of it was bought abroad in Turkey.  I mean it was like gold 
and diamond bracelets.  Got all the receipts for that and it was all … 
when we brought that back, we had it all valued 2 or 3 years ago from a 
local jeweller and it’s all listed anyway.

DUGGLEBY:	I just wonder whether this is a case for the 
Ombudsman if it really is …

JOHN:		Well we thought that.  And also someone turned 
up one day and said “I am … we’re from the insurance company.  
We’ve come to assist you with your claim”.  And I said to the wife, 
“Well who are they?”  And it was a woman and she produced a card 
and I said, “Well they don’t appear to be anything to do with the 
insurance company.  It looks as though they’ve sent them round to try 
and knock the claim down and do they get a percentage of what they 
save the insurance company paying us out?”

DUGGLEBY:	Well that could be a loss adjuster or a loss 
assessor, but I mean the insurance company should notify you if a loss 
adjustor’s going to call.

TARLING:	It’s likely to be a loss adjuster and they don’t 
actually get paid a percentage by which they adjust the claim.  They’re 
paid a fixed sum.  It wouldn’t be a loss assessor.  You would employ a 
loss assessor if you wanted them to fight your corner.  But loss 
adjusters are employed by the company and they’re basically there to 
help you with the claim, not to knock the claim down.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay.  Moving on now, Jane in Bathgate.  Your 
call.

JANE:		Oh good afternoon.  My son has a car or had a 
car.  He was in an accident recently and the person that damaged the car 
from the back, the car was a write off.  The assessors said that the car 
was worth £2,400.  My son owes £3,300 on a loan, which was for 
£4,000 18 months ago when it first started.  Therefore he’s out of 
pocket by £900.  How does he stand?  Has he got any way of trying to 
make any claim for that loss because obviously he’s lost his car and 
he’s also going to have to find the £900 which he still owes?

DUGGLEBY:	Indeed.  That’s a very interesting question when 
you’ve got a hire purchase or other loan agreement.  Chris Collings, can 
you help with that one?

COLLINGS:	Yeah, there are policies that you can take out.  
This is very common.

DUGGLEBY:	This one obviously isn’t one of them, I suspect.

COLLINGS:	No and you know the insurance company are 
only required to actually pay the value of the car, and the fact that you 
may owe extra money on that because of high interest or whatever you 
know really is not the responsibility of the insurer.  And the insurer will 
pay the market value and you can do your best to try and get that up, 
but without an additional policy either provided by the loan company or 
you can take a separate one called GAP, which is a Guaranteed Asset 
Protection policy - without that, it does leave you in a difficult position.

DUGGLEBY:	Because obviously the amount of money you’re 
going to get from the insurance company, £2,400, Graham, is not going 
to be enough to buy a new car, so I mean he’s got a double whammy.  
He’s got not enough money to buy a new car and he’s got another loan, 
so I mean the logic here is he’ll have to take out yet another loan to put 
himself back in the position he was.

TRUDGILL:	Well theoretically the insurance company will 
pay at the market value of the car, so that would be the same money 
that the car’s actually worth, so he should be able to get theoretically an 
identical car.  So he’s still paying a loan on that same type of car, the 
same mileage and value and everything else, so he shouldn’t really lose 
out.  Hopefully the loan company will just carry on.  He can pay them 
and just continue with his new car.

DUGGLEBY:	So this is a case where would you, Malcolm, 
recommend saying look, I don’t want the money; I actually want the 
same car as I had.  You go and get me one?

TARLING:	Yes, in practice that’s very, very difficult to do. 
You’re never going to replace like for like unless your new car’s 
written off and you get an equivalent new car, which can happen.  I 
mean really what they should be doing is, as Graham said, giving him a 
cash amount that would allow him to go down the road and buy a 
similar make and model from the local garage.  And the key point here 
is that if the amount that’s being offered doesn’t tally with the market 
value of the vehicle, then you can argue.  And people frequently do and 
they get the valuation readjusted if they can prove that their value of the 
vehicle is worth more than what the insurance company is saying.

DUGGLEBY:	And that would be one of these … perhaps these 
motoring guides that are published?

TRUDGILL:	Yeah, you can use a Parkers Guide, but 
certainly if you go through an insurance broker they can help you 
negotiate with the insurer and get a higher pay out for you.

DUGGLEBY:	While we’re on the subject of cars, I want to 
take an e-mail from Michael who’s talking about a Sat Nav unit.  That’s 
a nice piece of technological jargon, but I gather it’s something which 
enables you to drive from a to b without consulting a map.  Anyway, he 
says he was in a crash and his Sat Nav was ruined and he needed to buy 
another one, and now the insurance company’s arguing that he 
shouldn’t have done that without their permission, Malcolm.

TARLING:	Yeah, the golden rule, I think, is don’t go and 
spend other people’s money.  In this case, don’t go and spend the 
insurance company’s money without talking to them first.

DUGGLEBY:	Yeah, but he needed his Sat Nav otherwise he 
wouldn’t have got to where he was trying to go.

TARLING:	Well, again, talk to the insurance company 
before you do anything because interestingly this is a bit like the iPod 
case we had earlier.  This is one of these cases where technology seems 
to be bounding on apace and the insurance companies are trying to keep 
up with it.  So policies may give you some limited cover for items like 
Sat Navigation systems that are not necessarily standard for the car.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay, we’ve got Jane now, I think.  No, we’ve 
had Jane.  We’ve got Roma (ph) now in Enfield.  Roma?

ROMA:		Oh good afternoon.  My query is about new for 
old.  I have a three and a half year old laptop computer where the screen 
is damaged and it’s going to cost about £350 to repair the screen and 
the insurance company is debating whether to repair it or get new for 
old.  It cost £980 new and you know it’s obviously quite out of date 
now.

DUGGLEBY:	When was it bought?

ROMA:		In 2002.

DUGGLEBY:	Oh gosh – yes that’s an antique virtually, yeah.

ROMA:		It’s a Time computer as well.

DUGGLEBY:	Yes.  Well this is an interesting one.  Well let’s 
start off you with Michael … Malcolm, I’m sorry.  When an insurance 
company … He says actually interestingly enough the insurance 
company was debating as to whether to do this because obviously I 
suppose it is a slightly difficult decision.  I suspect the computer 
wouldn’t cost £900 now.  It would probably only cost about £500.

TARLING:	Yeah, the insurance company have the option.  
They always have the option under the contents policies to repair or 
replace or reinstate, and if you’ve got a new for old policy the insurers 
understand that computer technology moves on very, very quickly 
indeed and they’re going to look around and see what the equivalent 
model would be to replace.

DUGGLEBY:	The thing about that, bringing in Chris from 
Swinton, I mean when you’re recommending people to take out a 
particular policy or put items onto the policy, as we all know it’s 
whatever number of RAMs there are in the thing.  I mean it’s twice as 
many RAMs as there were 5 years ago or four times as many RAMs.  
So the same product, same price, but about ten times the specification.  
How do you cope with that generally when you’re trying to insure 
something sensibly because, after all, all you want is to get your item 
back?

COLLINGS:	Well I mean that’s exactly what Roma should 
expect.  He’s got a new for old policy and Roma should at the very least 
end up with a new computer – either being, as Malcolm said, a repaired 
and replaced screen or a new computer provided by the insurer, so he’s 
back in the same position as he started.  That’s the least he can expect. 

DUGGLEBY:	That’s one of the fundamentals, isn’t it – putting 
you back in the position that you would have been had the accident not 
taken place? 

COLLINGS:	Yeah.

DUGGLEBY:	But I can accept the fact that it is difficult with 
some of these new technological devices simply because a) you can’t 
get the same model and b) in theory if you spend the same money in 
cash terms, you get a much better thing.  So it’s a dilemma, isn’t it, 
really?

COLLINGS:	It’s one of the challenges for the insurance 
industry, keeping up with that sort of technology, whether that be Sat 
Navs or laptop computers, I-pods and they’ve got to keep up with that, 
yeah. 

DUGGLEBY:	Indeed.  Right, Mohan in Lincolnshire, your call 
now?

MOHAN:		Good afternoon.  I had a …  Well a bus crashed 
into me in March 2004 and I’m still waiting for them to pay out on the 
actual accident.  They’ve admitted liability.  The insurance company 
paid for my car, but they seem to want me to die or something before 
they’re paying out.

DUGGLEBY:	Now the bus company’s admitted liability and 
it’s been going on for 18 months?

MOHAN:		Nearly a year.

DUGGLEBY:	Nearly a year.  And you’re represented are you 
by … ?

MOHAN:		I’m represented by Irwin Mitchell’s who are 
employed Zurich Car Insurance.

DUGGLEBY:	Well you know obviously in this case …  
Perhaps just let’s start with you, Malcolm, because a lot of people will 
not be aware of the procedures when there is a personal injury and 
when the claim takes place because there’s many parties involved – 
doctors, lawyers.

TARLING:	Indeed.  The key factor in any personal injury 
claim – if you’re claiming against somebody else, you have to establish 
that they owe you a duty of care, as we all do, and crucially you have to 
establish that they were negligent in causing the accident.  Now in your 
case, Mohan, it seems that you’ve overcome that hurdle, that first 
important hurdle in that the company concerned have admitted liability.  
The delay is probably because of establishing how much you’re entitled 
to, the extent of your injuries, and that can involve, as Vincent said, 
doctors and lawyers, independent representatives.  But the answer to 
your question is that insurers want to settle these claims obviously as 
quickly as possible.


DUGGLEBY:	I think also Graham, in this case when you’ve 
got something where the extent of the injuries or the long-term 
consequences, it would be arguable as to whether perhaps a lump sum 
was appropriate, possibly some form of income or there’d be questions 
of re-employment and things like that?

TRUDGILL:	Exactly.  They have to really establish over a 
period of time is this person likely to make a full recovery or a partial 
recovery, just how bad is it?  I have personal experience.  My own 
sister had an incident three and a half years ago and that’s not going to 
court till next year even though liability was established.  So the 
question is can they go back to work again?  If they can, will it be the 
same job?  Will it be something that’s not as good as it was before?  

MOHAN:		The thing is I’m a professional musician and 
I’ve sung in lots of choirs and whatever and it’s affected my work quite 
severely actually.  I can’t pay for things like physiotherapy or whatever 
to improve my state of life actually.  But they seem to be dragging it on.  
They’ve questioned the specialist’s report.  They’re doing all kinds of 
things which seem to delay everything.

TRUDGILL:	Indeed.  I think ultimately it’s up to your 
solicitor who’s representing you to push, push, push as much as 
possible and your broker to help you.  Get everyone involved on your 
side.  Certainly with the claim I’ve been involved in with my own 
family, the insurer keeps coming back with additional questions, 
different medical reports, wanting new information which seems to 
delay matters.  But it’s going to cost them a lot of money at the end of 
the day.  They have to make sure that they’ve made the right decision.  
So as long as you can turn things round as quickly as possible and keep 
pushing, then hopefully you can get it solved sooner rather than later.

DUGGLEBY:	Any thoughts from you, Chris in Manchester?

COLLINGS:	Well I think I agree with Malcolm and Graham.  
And of course you know a typical RTA, road traffic accident injury 
would normally be a whiplash or a neck injury and those normally go 
through … on average we see them going through in about 6 or 9 
months.  Very few of them go to court.  The insurers have protocols 
where they’ve got agreed payments.  It sounds like, you know from this 
incident, that there’s some dispute or at least some agreement yet to be 
reached on the amounts involved and 12 months is probably not 
untypical.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay.  Moving on now to Catherine in 
Yarmouth.

CATHERINE:	Hi.  This is to do with work that was done to the 
property in 1992.  It was for major subsidence work.  Now since those 
works have been done, over the following years the walls have been 
getting continually and continually damper.  I did contact the insurance 
company about this.  They said that they could see no connection with 
the work that was done in 1992 and if I felt there was a connection I 
had to get a damp proof expert in to do a report.  He did the report.  He 
found out that the pointing done to the outside of the property was 
totally incorrect, that it actually drew moisture into the walls.  Also that 
the rain was hitting purely onto a concrete slab where there was no 
drain off.

DUGGLEBY:	Can I again interrupt you?  I’m afraid I had to 
do that.  You’re giving us a complete sort of blow-by-blow account.  
What is your question?

CATHERINE:	They’re just saying no.  Even after the report, 
they’re saying no we’re having nothing to do with it.

DUGGLEBY:	Right.  The picture here appears to be that the 
original claim, Malcolm, was met, but the consequential damage, which 
appears to have been caused, doesn’t seem to be covered by the policy.

TARLING:	Well what you’ve got to do, Catherine – and 
you seem to be on the way to trying to do this – is to establish that the 
repairs that were originally carried out were not of sufficient quality and 
it’s given rise to problems.  If you can do that, then you may have a 
claim you can go back to the insurer with.  If not, I would suggest you 
talk to the Financial Ombudsman’s Service to see if they can adjudicate 
in this particular case.  It’s a tricky one because you know you’ve got to 
be able to establish that the damage now, the damage that’s been caused 
over the last couple of years has gone back to this original work.

DUGGLEBY:	Graham, do you … When you come to the point 
of no return, as it were, you say here is my evidence, here is my report, 
here is what my surveyor says.  You then say to the insurance company 
do you or do you not agree and if the insurance company says no, we 
don’t agree, then is it a letter of deadlock or something that’s issued in 
those circumstances – for the benefit of people generally who just have 
come to the end of the road?

TRUDGILL:	Sure.  Well ultimately with a broker, they would 
try to twist the insurer’s arm, so to speak, and represent you and take it 
as high up as possible.  You should write to the chief executive of that 
insurance company and obviously take it to them.  If there’s that 
deadlock, they won’t agree, the Financial Ombudsman’s Service is in 
place and they have the powers.  Their decisions are binding on the 
insurer.  They’re not binding on you, but they are binding on the 
insurer.  So if they say no that damp proof expert was correct, then they 
will have to pay.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay.  Again on the subject of housing, this one 
is for flooding insurance for a house in Vauxhall in South London.  
James has e-mailed us and he says, ‘It’s been insured in the past with a 
variety of companies, but I’ve just recently been turned down by two or 
three and I’m just a bit worried that I might have my insurance 
altogether rejected in the future’.  Now Malcolm, I mentioned at the 
beginning you’ve got a policy on this.

TARLING:	Yeah, the members of the ABI do follow an 
agreement whereby they will continue to provide flood insurance to 
people who are vulnerable to flooding providing that there are flood 
defences in place that provide a minimum standard of protection.

DUGGLEBY:	This is the Thames barrier.

TARLING:	Well in this case the Thames barrier, which I 
think gives a reasonably good standard of protection – or at least I hope 
it does as somebody who’s protected by it.  The other point though is it 
could be due to flooding of a different nature such as sewer flooding or 
inadequate drains.  That’s a very big problem in many parts of the 
country.

DUGGLEBY:	So it might be a specific problem for that area, 
not the general problem of flooding in South London?

TARLING:	It’s quite possible that that is the case.  But 
again what I would do is I would contact an insurance broker or brokers 
and shop around and see what the attitudes of other companies are.

DUGGLEBY:	Okey doke.  Right and Paul, now you’re ringing 
us about subsidence again.

PAUL:		Good afternoon.

DUGGLEBY:	Good afternoon.

PAUL:	I bought a property with subsidence.  I had the 
work done and I’m paying a premium through specialist insurers.  And 
I’m wondering how long this is going to go on because I know with a 
new build you get a 10 year guarantee from the NSCB and then it’s 
taken over by insurance, I assume.  I just wonder how long I will be sort 
of blacklisted really with having the property?

DUGGLEBY:	Because you’ve got a property that has had a 
claim for subsidence?

PAUL:		You see it’s nearly 10 years ago and the 
property has been fine.

DUGGLEBY:	It’s rather like a conviction – is there a point 
when it is spent?  Chris Collings, can you help with that?

COLLINGS:	Yes, it’s very easy to get locked into an insurer 
and that sounds like what’s happened here.  And I think you know to 
shop around you’re asking a new insurer to look at a risk where they 
already know there’s a problem, that there’s a subsidence problem in 
there, and it’s very difficult for the new insurer to take on that risk 
without having previously been involved in the claim.
DUGGLEBY:	Okay, but what are you going to do about it?

COLLINGS:	Well what they can do about it is probably go 
and get an independent survey.  There are some costs obviously which 
he’ll be responsible for, but that could save you a lot of money in the 
long-term.  If you took that to a broker, a broker would be able to 
actually use that independent survey to approach several insurers and 
hopefully you’d save some money.

DUGGLEBY:	So you could in fact, picking up with Graham, 
you could say well I’ve got this report that says it’s all okay, no 
problems, and clean sheet?

TRUDGILL:	Absolutely.  Take it to your broker, as Chris 
said.  They won’t just have one particular insurer who’s cherry picking.  
They’ll take it around the whole market and should be able to get you 
someone who’s suitable for you.  They have to ask what was the cause 
originally and has that now been cured - if it was a large tree next to the 
house or something like that?  So if the cause has been cured, then it 
should all now be resolved.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay, time for one more call and this one is 
Alison in Wokingham.

ALISON:		Hello.  My call is about an exclusion that I’ve 
just discovered to my policy after I’ve made a claim.  We came home 
from a holiday to find some damp, mould growing up the wall, and we 
now have been told that ‘chase and fix’ is not a part of our policy.  So I 
asked Norwich Union, our insurers, to point out where in my schedule 
or in the booklet that this was covered and they said in writing that they 
couldn’t possibly list all the things we’re not covered for in booklets or 
schedules.

DUGGLEBY:	And this is damp on the walls?

ALISON:		It is damp on the wall that’s been traced to a 
leak in our kitchen.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay, well it sounds to me, Malcolm, as though 
it should be covered, leaking pipes.

TARLING:	It depends.  What policies do these days is to set 
out quite clearly, they must set out quite clearly a list of risks that 
you’re covered for.  In other words, you’re covered for … from one to 
ten or however many risks are set out in the policy.  If it’s not listed, 
you’re not covered.  Anything that occurs over a period of time, such as 
a leak, is very often not covered because the insurance is designed to 
cover you for sudden accidental acts rather than events that occur over a 
period of time.  But the key point here is you need to look at the policy 
and see whether or not the particular risk you’re claiming for is 
specifically mentioned as an insurable event.

DUGGLEBY:	As we often say, an insurance policy is not a 
maintenance contract.

TARLING:	Yeah, I’m afraid that’s right, yes.

DUGGLEBY:	Okay, well thank you very much indeed.  That’s 
Malcolm Tarling from the ABI, Graham Trudgill is from the British 
Insurance Brokers Association, and Chris Collings was in our 
Manchester studio from Swinton Insurance.  Remember the information 
line is open for your calls on 0800 044 044.  You can check our 
website, bbc.co.uk/moneybox and there’ll be a transcript of the 
programme for you to read in the next two or three days.  Paul Lewis 
will be here with Money Box at noon on Saturday and he’ll also be 
taking your calls on Money Box Live next Monday afternoon.  But 
right now, if you are so inclined, you can hear the Chancellor Gordon 
Brown deliver his pre-budget statement on Five Live or stay with Radio 
4 and get full coverage in PM at five o’clock.  I’ll be back in the New 
Year.