Tenant contents insurance - does it have to include Landlords items?

rexmedorum

Dubber wrote: »

Yup, the LA do get commission - it actually advertises this on said companies website, they get 25% commission. Will try Endsleigh if they offer this sort of policy.

Unfortunately we can't just say we'll sort it out as the agency information says a suitable certificate of insurance must be shown at check in!

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf
see pages 48, 50 and especially page 107!!
This is an unfair term. Consider whether you would get it anyway but if it's hard or very expensive you could try pointing this out, though you may upset them.

Dubber_2

Thanks for posting that, some very interesting information in there. I will just get the same contents insurance I had before I think. I don't believe it covered the landlords property but I do think that is their responsibility. These are the parts I picked out:

pg 53 - 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).


pg 54 unnecessary insurance requirements - we consider that whether tenants wish to insure their own personal belongings is a matter for them and that it is unreasonable for the landlord to make this a contractual requirement.

I also like the below one as the agency are trying to get us to pay a fee to be kept by them and deducted from if we fail to keep an appointment with them.

3.59 Unbalanced Penalties - Even though a penalty is not excessive it may still be unbalanced if it is imposed only on the tenant where the breach could also be committed by the landlord. For instance, we would object to a term requiring tenants to meet the landlord's costs if they fail to keep an appointment where no such sanction is applied to the landlord. Fairness is more likely when terms put both parties on an equal footing on matters of equal importance to them.


In theory we could request a fee from the agents, to be held in case they fail to keep an appointment with us, at which point a day/morning/afternoon's salary could be deducted from it (loss of monies by tenant of having to take a day/morning/afternoon off work). Bet they'd love that!

rexmedorum

Dubber wrote: »

In theory we could request a fee from the agents, to be held in case they fail to keep an appointment with us, at which point a day/morning/afternoon's salary could be deducted from it (loss of monies by tenant of having to take a day/morning/afternoon off work). Bet they'd love that!

wonder if that would apply to the landlords 'agents'? If so you may be due compensation from the landlord if his handyman fails to turn up, which would be quite interesting.
But indeed one way compensation would be unfair and we don't even need the OFT to realise this!

Also:

Page 107:
Unfair term
Insurance, this is not negotiable. The tenant will be required to take out our (ie: the agent's) insurance against accidental damage to the landlord's fixtures and fittings.

Way of revising term
The tenant is advised to take out insurance for the tenant's contents.

chewmylegoff

expect it is only the LA who says that it is necessary, because they get a kickback. the deposit is there to cover damage to the LL's property.

if they insist, and you have to do this to get the property, you could always take the policy out then cancel it the next day. insurance policies have mandatory 14 day cooling off periods during which they can be cancelled. however, if you do this you may get hit with an admin fee - check the small print.

Dubber_2

They wouldn't get a kickback whatever happened as they aren't insisting we take their insurance (although they are HEAVILY recommending it), what they are insisting on is that we insure both our property (which I would have done anyway) and accidental damage to the landlords property (not covered in a normal contents policy). If they pushed it then I'd just get the endsleigh policy (more expensive than the quote I did elsewhere for just my contents so I'd prefer not to).

rexmedorum

Dubber wrote: »

as they aren't insisting we take their insurance (although they are HEAVILY recommending it)

Only reason they're not forcing you is they know it's illegal