Hi. I did get the name of the person I spoke to. My conversation was specifically about asking whether the incident had been recorded as a 'claim'. She unequivocally stated that it was not. It was recorded as investigation of a crack that turned out to be outside the scope of the policy, being assessed as caused by thermal movement. I also noted the date and time of the phone call. She also stated that it would not show up as a claim on the database that all insurance companies have access to. She said we can definitely say we have made no claims if we go to another insurer, which we've now done.

Hi, just thought I ought to let you know the result: We managed to get insurance from another company easily in the end! Turns out our Loss Adjuster visit was NOT recorded as a 'claim' as one of the phone operatives had previously told me. Therefore we were able to say we have no claims, and didn't bother to mention the tie bar at all. It's very good that we've had the crack diagnosed as thermal movement by a specialist. Means we don't need to mention it at all, since it isn't covered by insurance. Thanks again for your help, just wish we hadn't paid over the odds for insurance the last several years unneccessarily.

Right, will do, thank you!

Thank you again. I will proceed as you suggest. I'll let you know what the outcome is of my looking for a new insurer. Ah, one final thing. My partner and I don't think we did actually get any letter from the insurer after the Loss adjuster had reported to them. Because we got the report direct from the Loss adjuster I think we then didn't think to chase up anything from the insurer, and then forgot about it generally. If they didn't send us anything will they have to provide me with something free of charge if I ask for it? And is this letter called anything in particular I need to ask for (such as 'claim outcome')?

Thanks again for your time! Yes, that is something I've read too, about bombing, so may be the reason it is there. So, you would not be worried that we would not have a valid policy if we don't specifically mention the tie bar, is that correct? I have noticed that there is no specific question about tie bars. I wonder then why buildings surveyors insist we specifically mention it? Can I ask - is your background in something very closely involved with/related to all this? Hope that doesn't sound rude.

Thank you very much for your advice. I will try Legal & General as you suggest. I don't remember if we tried them last time, but as I recall it we tried a lot of companies. If they don't want us I will try Home Protect - thanks for these tips. I take your point about the phone staff, but in each case they put us on hold saying they would speak to their underwriters, which took about 5 minutes, and who I assumed would know what tie bars are, at least if they are turning us down on that basis. I don't think I made it sound bad, I simply stated that we had a tie bar, because the surveyor said that we needed to or we might be invalidating any cover we got. Do you believe his assertion here to be correct? I have read it on other sites (I would provide a link to one but I see I am not allowed at the moment). We are well clued up about tie bars now. I've read just about everything I can find on the subject; though I might add that really, there isn't a great deal out there that is useful. We have since had specialists and others look at the house, and we are not overly worried about the crack, and are monitoring it for the time being. The original buildings survey does not say there is any evidence of subsidence. Incidentally the specialists have not been able to either date the tie bar, or come to a good conclusion about why it is there, as there isn't any sign of roof spread and all walls are plumb. The house is circa 1884. Would you be surprised that insurance companies simply refuse to take on houses with tie bars? That is certainly how it seemed 6 years ago. (We've always worried that we might have trouble selling it when it comes to it. I have also read that insurance companies put in more and more exclusions all the time...) And do you have any advice about what to say when phoning up for quotes, please? Many thanks again.

Hi, I'd be so grateful if anyone can advise me in relation to this. I will explain as briefly as possible the relevant details of the situation, and set out a few questions I have. In 2009 we bought our small semi-detached house. We almost were not able to, owing to the fact that we were only just able to find an insurer who would take us on when we declared the existence in the building of a tie bar (as our Buildings Surveyor instructed we must do). We phoned loads of insurers and all put us on hold while speaking to their underwriter, only to come back saying 'Sorry, we don't insure buildings with tie bars'. Finally, and close to giving up, we found an insurer. We've been with this one insurer for 6 years now. No problems ever, until last December I noticed that what had been a hairline crack ascending the side of our house (from the tie bar) when we bought it had grown somewhat, to be up to 3 mm wide in places. It has very gradually widened over the years as cracks do, but seemed to have widened more quickly just recently. This prompted me to remove the thick insulating wallpaper from the corresponding inside wall, which revealed a more worrying crack of about 5 mm. (The previous owner of the house was employed in the home energy efficiency business, so we didn't think it necessarily suspicious when buying that some of the walls had a covering that could easily hide cracks. Also in one room we did remove the covering when we moved in, and the walls had no cracks at all.) On discussion with my partner we thought we had better inform our insurance company of our discovery. First question: Was it not necessary to do this? I phoned them and explained this all to the person I initially spoke to, who said 'You need to be speaking to the Claims department'. I explained that I didn't know if we were wanting to make a claim, that I just thought we were required to inform them of the situation, and I did say that were concerned about it, as one would be. They repeated 'You need to speak to Claims', and put me through. I then explained the whole thing again and was told in a rather reassuring way that 'We will send someone out to look at it'. No one told me, and I didn't know, that I was 'making a claim', by agreeing to this. Perhaps this was simply my ignorance having never had to report anything to a Home insurance company before. A loss adjuster visit was arranged, and his subsequent technical report, entitled 'Subsidence Claim' stated his belief that the crack was owing to thermal movement, and, quote, "we do not consider that the damage is the result of subsidence of the site (or any other insured peril) and as such does not fall within the scope of policy cover." This was in January. Now we have just received our policy renewal documents to discover that our premium has gone up another £150, making it now over £700. For the average house the size of ours, inclusive of Contents cover, we would expect to pay about £200-250 per year, this house is now proving very expensive to insure and we can barely afford it. We are concerned that there are no other insurers who we can turn to, as this was our experience 6 years ago. Also, that there may be no benefit even if there were, since they all have access, I'm told, to a database that will show that we have made a 'Subsidence claim'. I presume this would be very off-putting to an insurer, even despite the fact that the loss adjuster found that there was no subsidence. I have recently tried contacting a couple of Brokers to see if they can find us insurance. So far neither have replied. I suppose I am after any kind of advice that might be useful, but specifically is it correct for us to be said to have 'made a claim' on the policy, when I only intended to inform the insurer of our situation? And can they justify putting up our premium (and do they even have to justify it?) given that the cause of the crack apparently "does not fall within the scope of the policy cover". It feels like - given our lack of alternatives - they can basically hold us to ransom. Many thanks for any help!