Tenants Contents Insurance

Meatballs

As in another thread you normally have a 14 day cooling off period when purchasing insurance and the like. So you can sign up, use as 'proof' and then cancel.

What's your situation now?

You have paid nothing? Have you got time to find somewhere else with a different LA or private LL?

You paid admin fees? They probably won't refund but should get it back through courts if they have refused to follow up the tenancy because you haven't completed due to an 'unfair' term. Pain in the !!! though.

Have you signed the tenancy agreement and they are witholding the keys? That's probably quite illegal?

Pott5y

Meatballs wrote: »

As in another thread you normally have a 14 day cooling off period when purchasing insurance and the like. So you can sign up, use as 'proof' and then cancel.

What's your situation now?

I am renting and my agreement runs out on 16th Nov. I have already notified my current Landlord that I will not be re-newing my contract and will be leaving

You have paid nothing? Have you got time to find somewhere else with a different LA or private LL?

You paid admin fees? They probably won't refund but should get it back through courts if they have refused to follow up the tenancy because you haven't completed due to an 'unfair' term. Pain in the !!! though.

Have you signed the tenancy agreement and they are witholding the keys? That's probably quite illegal?

I have paid the admin fee £200.00 and we really do like the property. Ideal location, accepts pets etc.

We have not yet signed any tenancy agreement.

I just really wanted to know whether there was any alternative to being ripped off by the so called Tenant Friendly Insurance Companies who seem to think they can charge a fortune for an insurance clause that most (obviously except letting agents) would deem completely unnecessary.

Perhaps the best option would be to sign up then cancel, but I feel that would be under hand and possibly fraudulant as far as the tenancy is concerned.

sonastin

Have you checked the details of your current policy to make sure that the LLs possessions are excluded? I'm surprised a normal domestic policy differentiates according to who owns the items within the property. Provided that there is sufficient cover for the particular items that they are talking about, it is possible that you are already covered for accidental damage?

Pott5y

I am actually looking into this as is my Insurance Broker. He is scratching his head as he seems to think this is very unreasonable. Why are they asking for this.

If there was nothing dodgy about it why do none of the major insurers stipulate it or cover it in their policies.

My policy doc does state that I am not covered for landlords fixture or fittings but we are unsure exactly which part of the policy that covers.

Just need to do some more research into this I suppose.

Thanks for all your help so far and I welcome any further advice or help anyone has to offer.

theartfullodger

Pott5y wrote: »

He is scratching his head as he seems to think this is very unreasonable. Why are they asking for this.

If there was nothing dodgy about it why do none of the major insurers stipulate it or cover it in their policies.

Because it is dodgy & LL/agent is a thieving crook & fraudulent shyster.. IMHO. Others may of course have different views...

Cheers!

Pott5y

It seems that my Insurance Broker might have found a company that is willing to underwrite this for us at a very competitive price.

Apparently more and more letting agents are starting to ask/insist on it (probably because it covers their 'bottoms' if anything happens) so he is hoping that he may have found an oppurtunity to offer this at a price competetive to the mainstream insurers prices for normal contents with accidental cover.

In my opinion this is what the deposit was for, but I now think that as deposits have to be placed under a deposit protection scheme it is now not so easy for the landlords to just withold deposits for damage etc so now they are looking for insurance protection from the tenant.

I am not saying that I agree with it but I can see that if the landlords contents insurance will not cover for accidental damage by the tenant to any of their contents or fixtures and fittings do they not have a right to ask the tenant to make sure they are covered to protect their property in someway.

I know in most instances the tenants will pay for any damage caused etc, but I am sure there are always 'the few' who are irresponsible and therefore make everything more complicated for everyone. That is just the way of life these days unfortunately.

Pott5y

Infuriating I know. Another way to extort money from us poor old tenants. :mad:

But....

On the positive front I have just spoken to a customer advisor at More Than and they include this tenancy clause within their policy now. Up to £11,500 cover of accidental damage to anything you are responsible/liable for including landlords fixtures and fittings and contents. They also cover up to £6000 for covering any improvements that you make ie, built in wardrobes etc.

My cover now comes in at less than £150.00. Fantastic. :D

Thanks for all the advice :T:T:T:T

<sebb>

This recent practice of LAs insisting on tenants insuring the LL possessions really grates me.

As has already been pointed out, trading standards view is that this is unfair.

The problem is, tenants find that they won't be allowed the property if they decline, and may even possibly lose their holding deposit (another practice I detest and something CAB wants to see resolved see http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/let_down and http://www.studenthousing.lon.ac.uk/problems/holding-deposits-campaign.html)

If more tenants were willing to stand up to LAs then they wouldn't be able to get away with it anymore.

I also don't understand what they think they can do to stop people simply cancelling the insurance after they have shown the necessary "proof" to the LA, or simply not renewing it at a later date.

theartfullodger

See the OFT's guidance on unfair terms in tenancys.. (Google OFT356..)
http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/publications/publication-categories/guidance/unfair-terms-consumer/oft356
Page 52 etc etc... clause 4.4...

compulsory insurance – we object in particular to terms requiring tenants to purchase specific insurance, or insurance provided by an insurer specified by the landlord or agent. This may provide the landlord or agent with additional income by way of commission at the expense of the tenant having to pay higher premiums than on the open market. In such circumstances this is effectively a disguised addition to rent and, in the absence of market forces, the tenant will have no protection against unreasonable premium increases (see also our views below on compulsory contents insurance).

I think this means that, whilst OFT recommendations are not "law", conversely the tenancy clause is "unenforceable" and if it came to court chances are judge will tell Landlord to f*** off.. however, Judge's are their own masters & it depends...

Interesting the bit about "disguised addition to rent" as presumably if T insures LLs stuff, LL has a lower insurance premium ... and T is lining LL's pocket even more than usual...

And I thought I knew all the dodges...

Might be interesting to (after you are in & a tenant & "safe"(-ish)), ask the Landlord/agent what the rent would be without that clause...

Cheers!

Artful

Crinz

Strange that the LL's insurance policy doesnt cover accidental damage casued by tenants. I would ssume he only has buildings cover then.
The LL policy that my company offers comes in 2 flavours:

unfurnished: Covers accidental damage to carpets, white good, bathroom suites etc (5k limit)
furnished: 40k cover for landlords furnishings


Sounds like he should look for a better policy