Contents insurance for rented property

leitmotif

Hi all,

For a new property (rented) into which we will be moving in a week's time, the contract we have received states we must have contents insurance to cover the landlord's stuff. As it's unfurnished and doesn't have fridge, freezer or washing machine, this would amount to carpets, curtains, wallpaper, worktops in kitchen, cooker, boiler, bath, toilet... I suppose. Anyway, we've never had contents insurance as we've never seen any need for it. We have cash in the bank and are careful, non-smokers, etc. etc.

Assuming that we won't be taking out contents insurance for us, should we be taking out contents insurance for our landlord's stuff? I don't mean contractually - obviously if we sign the contract we'll have to abide by that clause. But legally - shouldn't the landlord be taking out his own insurance, or is that just buildings insurance? I'd much rather pay for any damage out our savings, but the contract states that if you do not take out contents insurance you have to put £100K in an account in the landlord's name to cover for any damage.

kitschkitty

Landlords do have buildings insurance. Contents insurance also covers the locks on your doors.

To be fair everyone should have contents insurance if I were a landlord I'd be concerned by tenants who didn't have contents insurance, if they didn't value their possessions, they'd probably value (i.e look after) mine even less.

Being careful, is no reason to discount contents insurance, outside forces could all too easily leave you with nothing, but if you have tens of even hundreds of thousands in the bank you're willing to spend to rebuild your life if the worst happens it is of course your choice.

foggytown

Kitschkitty - the question isn't about the OP's contents being insured, it's about the OP insuring the landlord's contents.

The first issue that comes to mind is that of "insurable interest". In other words, do you have a legitimate financial interest in the matter being insured, in this case the landlord's contents. I'm not certain that a clause in the rental agreement which obligates you to take out the insurance actually creates that insurable interest. (Wiser heads in here may know better.) If there is also a clause making you responsible for any damage to the landlord's contents then that may be enough, although it seems more a third party than first party exposure.

dacouch

OP you may find this document helpful

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf


Have a read of 4.14 (Indemnities to Risk)

also 357,319 and 410

There is loads of other useful information in the document about your tenancy agreement you may find helpful

This document also states that the Landlord / Letting Agent cannot insist a tenant takes insurance out through them

olly300

OP if you are in England and Wales you don't have to insure the landlords contents. The landlord should have their own insurance for those items.

Kitschkitty there is no point scaring the OP, but OP contents insurance covers flooding and fire as well as theft. I don't know where you live but I know lots of people who had floods from pipes bursting while they were away in winter last year. This rendered their white goods useless and their insurance premiums where lower than the value of one of their white goods.

leitmotif

Thanks all. Some very useful advice, particularly the link to the OFT stuff. Have saved that and had a good look through it - extremely handy! I spoke to the letting agent and had this clause removed. He agreed that it wasn't particularly fair.

dacouch

On another forum I'm a member of, a someone posted that the landlord had inserted a clause making the tenant liable for his policy excess for building claims. The OFT document has a section on this as well.

The Unfair Contracts Law is a great piece of law and stops grossly unfair contract terms.

If you get a chance pass on the information and the OFT document to any other tenants you know as it could help them

leitmotif

Will do, thanks dacouch. It won't stop parties trying to insert unfair clauses, but as long as people read small print and remain critical, they'll be working along the right lines.