Archive for May, 2011
For the purposes of buying insurance the difference between a condominium, and a townhouse, all have to do with the way the ownership of the dwelling is structured. People think of condominiums as being large block shaped structures that has interiors divided into individual residences, and they think a townhouse is rows of houses that are semi-detached from each other, but having at least one common wall with the other home next to it.
Townhouses are taxed as individual properties, but condominiums are taxed individually, and part of the shared property can also be taxed. When an owner purchases condo insurance, they buy a policy that is similar to a renter’s insurance policy. Their biggest concern is their own personal property, and the interiors of their individual units.
The home owners association that the condominium dwellers join when they buy their homes has a master policy on the main structure of the building covering the roof, and framing, and exterior walls. They sometimes include the original details that came with the individual units like the drywall, the cabinetry, the floor coverings, and so on. They carry liability insurance that will cover the pool areas, the elevators, the stair wells, and other common shared areas. A townhouse shares at least one wall with another townhouse, so sometimes they also have a master insurance policy covering their exteriors, and roofs. When no master policy is in effect the owners of townhouses purchase insurance policies that are similar to single dwelling residences.
The general basic needs between condo insurance, and townhouse insurance is the same, but the differences between the two can be dramatic. Make certain when you speak with an insurance agent that they understand which type of dwelling you are insuring. A paperwork mistake could result in your claim not being honored by your company in the event that a disaster happened.
Posted in 
It was disappointing to log onto Hallard insurances website and clicking on the link “best company to work for” and finding that the information was about an award from 2006.
Hollard Insurance was voted the best company to work for in September 2006. This was based on a survey mainly about employee perceptions counting 80% of the overall score.
There is nothing wrong with Hollard Insurance being proud of their achievements but with any bit of information given to the public or potential customers. There’s always room for questions in the minds of the very same people that Hollard Insurance is trying to sell their business to.
The question that arises when reading the article is, what has happened in the last three years and who is the best company to work for today? Different people appreciate aspects within a company and although the award may not have been evaluated amongst insurance companies, a mistake such as the above mentioned may question why Hollard Insuarance has not achieved further than 2006 award and if they have done so, why not mention the awards?
After a year under the Coalition government, ministers are being charged with breaking a series of promises in relation to women’s pension funds. Pensioners groups, along with some Liberal Democrat MP’s have reacted angrily to the government’s announcement that they would be increasing the State Pension Age for women, despite making pledges not to do so until 2020.
Currently, the pension age for women is being altered to 65 to match that of men, and had originally been expected to increase to 66 for both at some point between 2024 and 2026. New rules in the Pension Bill will lead to that number rising much quicker; by 2018 both genders will be working until 65, and 66 up to 2020. Take no pain for we here take care of all your pension calculations.
In May 2010, the Coalition published an agreement, which stated; ‘We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.’ Ministers, angry over these broken promises, worry that the poorest in society, and the unemployed would be hit the hardest. Liberal Democrat backbencher Annette Brooke comments that they could face real financial hardship as ‘they struggle to manage without state pensions and benefits they were absolutely relying on.’ Many people would have serious problems keeping up contributions with so little notice about the available time frame. Ms Brooke sees this as an opportunity for the Coalition Government to be counted, and make things right with those most badly affected by the changes; they could make a strong statement about their belief in equality for all citizens.
Director of Saga, Ros Altmann, accepts that there will eventually be some changes in retirement ages, but is in agreement about the unfairness of the situation. Ms Altmann commented on the many ‘furious’ women who are worried about how they will manage in the coming years, saying; ‘They may have made careful plans for retirement, only to have the Government pull the rug from under their feet.’ She cites the more vulnerable women as being those who have taken early retirement, who may be ill or caring for another person. Women who have already retired don’t have the option of adding more to their pension funds, as Ms Altmann pointed out, it is not just a question of them working for longer. Your financial future can be secure only with a pension retirement age calculator.
The timing is particularly poor, as men won’t see an increase before 2018, whereas half a million women will see their pension age rise by well over the year increase that men will see, within that same time frame.