Unoccupied houses: clarify policy continuation and property care

A house is temporarily unused, and its owner wants suitable building cover to continue. Your brokerage faces a concrete decision: what agreement can the insurer confirm for the actual circumstances, and can its requirements be met locally? Discuss both together. Suitable contractual cover is particularly useful when the necessary property care is arranged too. The general question about vacancy becomes an understandable choice between options actually available for this house.

Describe actual use precisely

First ask what is happening in the house. Is the whole building unused or just one dwelling? Is it regularly occupied, visited occasionally or no longer used? Do not let these descriptions merge unnoticed. A short visit differs from continuing residential occupation. You need actual information for the policy assessment. Establish when the situation began and what change is expected next. Separate planned and existing facts. If outbuildings are separately affected, include their actual use in the enquiry.

A temporary gap between uses may differ from a house with no foreseeable further purpose. Ask about the currently known objective. An uncertain new tenancy remains a plan, not a confirmed moving-in date. Identify rooms still in use clearly. The insurer’s answer should concern the actual building. A general label such as holiday home or vacancy could otherwise suggest a different situation from the one described.

Read the actual rule for non-use

A21 of the GDV model conditions VGB 2022, value 1914, June 2026 names non-use of the building or most of it as a possible particular circumstance increasing risk. This is a non-binding example. Find the rule actually agreed in the policy. A self-chosen number of vacant days does not replace checking it. Nor does a general product description establish how this insurer treats the particular situation.

Review the schedule, conditions and endorsements together. An earlier special agreement may apply to this period or describe another situation. Ask the responsible insurer under the appropriate authority where unclear. State the confirmed facts and uncertain duration. The owner then obtains an answer for their house. You establish actual continuation or another specific arrangement rather than merely noting that vacancy can be insurable somewhere.

Coordinate relevant changes promptly

Section 23 VVG provides the statutory framework. Among other matters, it distinguishes risk increases made or permitted by the policyholder from changes recognised later or occurring independently. Section 27 VVG contains exceptions for insignificant increases or those regarded as included. Examine the facts instead of treating every absence identically. For a planned relevant change, coordinate before creating or permitting it. Handle changes already occurring according to the applicable notification requirements.

Record exactly what the insurer answered. Does its response concern a wholly unused house or one vacant flat in an occupied building? Which period and prerequisites belong to it? Notification and a confirmed contractual agreement are different stages. Mark a pending decision as open. The owner can see which existing rule is evidenced and where you are obtaining a binding response before treating a proposal as secured.

Connect requirements with local possibilities

A20 of the GDV model contains additional safety duties for unused buildings or parts and the cold season, including inspections and particular requirements for water-bearing installations. Read the actual wording rather than turning it into your own general care instructions. Ask what is binding for the described circumstances if unclear. Responsible specialist contractors clarify technical implementation. Your office does not remotely confirm that the building already meets these prerequisites.

Discuss who can actually perform the agreed tasks. Is a suitable person available and aware of what the task concerns? Can a substitute cover their absence? These questions test whether the insurance choice is workable. Imagined care should not enter the comparison as an existing arrangement. Resolve responsibilities before recommending and identify the requirement still to organise in practice.

Also clarify access. A named caretaker can perform the task only if their responsibility and necessary access are settled. Ask who may arrange qualified support if a problem is found. This organisational coordination differs from technical execution. For the comparison, what counts is whether the required care can be delivered in the actual circumstances. Merely naming a person does not settle that question.

If a property-care service agreement already exists, the owner should check its actual scope. Does it cover the whole house or a different service? Which tasks are expressly agreed, and which insurer requirement may remain outside? Record that discrepancy as a concrete task. A service invoice alone does not establish suitable scope. Any necessary addition must have an established content before it supports the insurance decision as secured care.

Do not invent inspection intervals as policy rules

If an inspection requirement needs interpretation, ask what it means for this house. The GDV model, for example, uses a frequency formulation dependent on circumstances. That does not establish that a visit at a self-selected weekly interval always suffices. The owner needs a clear answer tied to their contract. Describe the actual situation and planned care when obtaining it. The agreement and any necessary professional clarification then underpin the organisational decision.

Assess existing technology only according to its confirmed significance. If the owner reports an existing monitoring system, that does not answer every contractual care question. Ask whether and how the insurer accounts for it. Do not promise replacement of inspections based merely on a device name. Qualified professionals address uncertain technical suitability or operation. You then connect confirmed information with the actual agreement without designing a property-security system yourself.

Compare continuation and alternatives fairly

Confirmed continuation may involve additional conditions or different terms. Sections 24 to 26 VVG address cancellation, premium changes and benefit consequences after increased risk, each under its own prerequisites. Describe the arrangement actually offered. An automatic loss of all benefits would oversimplify the legal and contractual assessment. Qualified legal professionals assess any existing dispute individually. The current insurance choice may independently contain specific new questions.

When comparing another available solution, use the same description of non-use. Put its requirements and confirmed benefits alongside the premium. A cheaper offer with tasks the owner cannot reliably arrange differs from a workable option. Ask about the practical consequence of every material condition. Explain available choices without assuming every insurer will accept the house or assess a particular care arrangement identically.

Treat a longer duration as a specific change

If occupation is delayed, establish which duration the previous response covered. Assess extension under the actual agreement. Do not assume a solution confirmed for a stated period continues indefinitely. Describe the new plan and resolve the affected item. Revisit other answered points only if their foundation also changes. Follow-up stays focused, and the owner understands why that additional information is needed.

The same applies when individual parts change use. Actual residential occupation restarting differs from regular visits by a caretaker. Record the new position clearly and ask about appropriate continuation. If use is merely planned, the transition remains provisional. Accurate timing prevents an earlier or later situation silently becoming the current contractual basis. Your recommendation follows confirmed facts and the inception actually offered.

Examine a fictional gap between tenancies

The following example is entirely fictional. An owner expects eight weeks of non-use between tenancies. This duration is an assumption, not a statutory or tariff allowance. Clarify the actual condition with the insurer and discuss confirmed requirements with the owner. A suitable caretaker is proposed but not yet appointed. One specific issue remains: who can perform the tasks attached to the offered continuation? The next decision needs that answer.

Later in the fictional case, moving in is delayed to twelve weeks. Compare the changed duration with the confirmed agreement. The arranged caretaker remains available in this example; a new date alone does not require inventing the entire arrangement again. Instead, clarify whether the longer period changes conditions or tasks. The owner sees a limited reassessment of an actual planning change. Recommend continuation for the new sequence once the insurer’s answer and practical feasibility align.

Conclude through agreement and feasibility

Ask the owner to explain the use assessed, the insurer’s response and who performs the associated tasks. If something remains open, identify its effect on the choice and the next appropriate action. Your internal note supports individual advice and documentation under section 61 VVG. It is an organisational aid, not technical safety confirmation. Your value lies in connecting available cover to the house’s real situation and enabling a clear decision.

Reach owners with particular occupancy questions

Register your business on the residential building insurance enquiry page. Access leads to webRichtung Customer; the price appears before a binding order. The enquiry opens contact. You personally clarify use, the existing policy and proposed care afterwards. Present the advice you actually offer and agree the appropriate next step.

Sources and context

Germany; complete originals accessed on 18 October 2026. Sources are the complete GDV model VGB 2022, value 1914, June 2026, particularly A20/A21, and complete sections 23–28 and 61 VVG. The model is non-binding. Individual acceptance, safety duties and consequences require assessment of the actual contract and facts. No technical safeguarding instructions, execution approval, general vacancy period or individual cover confirmation. Proposed notes are your own organisational aids.