Tenant's Contents Insurance

clouise

Is it normal / legal to include Tenant's Contents Insurance as a requirement of a lease for a flat? I feel like I'm being bamboozled to get insurance that I don't want at £13.46 per month. Presumably the letting agents (Accord Lets) is getting commission from Axa insurance for every new customer that they sign up. This doesn't feel like decent business practice to me. Any thoughts? Should I report this to a consumer watchdog?

Of course, if i pull out of signing the lease at this point, I'll lose £400 holding fee, so guess they've got me by the short and curlies.

flappy_mcwarbucks

Yes they do have you by the s&c.

Ask them if the insurance covers your possessions, or just the landlords. I have a sneeky suspicion that your possessions wont be covered if the worst should happen, but the landlord will be the one profiting out of it.

jjlandlord

They cannot enforce a requirement that you get contents insurance.

Certainly if you do take a policy out, choose the one you want, not the one they "suggest".

If you think they'll cause trouble, best is to take one online so that you can show them, then cancel it within 14 days (iirc).

clouise wrote: »

Of course, if i pull out of signing the lease at this point, I'll lose £400 holding fee, so guess they've got me by the short and curlies.

Well, if they did not mention this "requirement" at the time you agreed to let and paid the hold deposit, I would argue that they are now trying to change the agreement. As such they should have no basis to retain the deposit should you refuse the new agreement. (Could be easier said than done, though...)

Jeffrey_Shaw

jjlandlord wrote: »

They cannot enforce a requirement that you get contents insurance.

Sure they can. If T enters into an obligation to insure own contents but doesn't insure, L could treat this as a breach and serve a section 8 Notice [ground 12].

jjlandlord

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

Sure they can. If T enters into an obligation to insure own contents but doesn't insure, L could treat this as a breach and serve a section 8 Notice [ground 12].

Well, OK they can try to enforce. Then what?

What is the realistic probability that a court evicts based on that? Personally I think 0.
Especially that the OFT considers such clauses unreasonable at best (not binding on judge I know, but still a further element to bolster tenant's defence).

Jeffrey_Shaw

L serves Notice; T holds firm; L takes T to Court.
Can Court say that T committed no breach? No, it cannot.

jjlandlord

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

L serves Notice; T holds firm; L takes T to Court.
Can Court say that T committed no breach? No, it cannot.

But what would the court do about it?
I'm convinced it would not evict.

But back to square one: Why would a landlord even sue?
Such clauses about tenants contents insurances are only there to enable the agent to get his commission by forcing the tenant to get the insurance through a preferred supplier (which is not enforceable at all).

Jeffrey_Shaw

L would sue only if T fails to vacate after the s.8 Notice period expires.
Would L sue? I've no idea; ask him/her!
[L = landlord. T = tenant]

FTBFun

You can get tenant's contents insurance through other parties much cheaper than this. I used to have mine through Endsleigh, for example. I would follow jjlandlord's advice in post 3.

olly300

Jeffrey_Shaw wrote: »

Sure they can. If T enters into an obligation to insure own contents but doesn't insure, L could treat this as a breach and serve a section 8 Notice [ground 12].

In England and Wales it is regarded as an unfair contract term and will be unenforceable in a court. Contracts involving property are different from normal contracts are there is a Landlord and Tenant Act (amended a lot of times) covering them.

Have a look at the Office of Fair Trading's website as they produced a document on unfair terms in tenancy agreements.

As a landlord you are suppose to insure the items you own hence landlord's insurance policies. The tenant has no insurable interest in your items because they don't own them.

You are suppose to use the tenants deposit as a security in case they damage your items.

If they damage too many of them you can take them to court (not much point if they have no job) and I'm sure a landlord on here did that an got an attachment of earnings order.

Jeffrey_Shaw

olly300 wrote: »

In England and Wales it is regarded as an unfair contract term and will be unenforceable in a court. Contracts involving property are different from normal contracts are there is a Landlord and Tenant Act (amended a lot of times) covering them.

Have a look at the Office of Fair Trading's website as they produced a document on unfair terms in tenancy agreements.

A misunderstanding, maybe? The Unfair Terms Regs. are law; they bind Courts. The OFT guidelines aren't (because, not surpriisingly, these are just guidelines) and don't.