Mortgage and renting my house

katejo

nollag2006 wrote: »

Sounds like he had regular home insurance, rather than LL insurance.

I have regular home insurance and 1 lodger. I have always checked with my insurer that they allow a lodger. However, if i were to discover and report a theft from my house, the insurer would not pay out if there were no clear sign of a break in to the house. They choose to assume that the lodger must be the guilty party.

dacouch

katejo wrote: »

I have regular home insurance and 1 lodger. I have always checked with my insurer that they allow a lodger. However, if i were to discover and report a theft from my house, the insurer would not pay out if there were no clear sign of a break in to the house. They choose to assume that the lodger must be the guilty party.

There's a big difference between a lodger and a rented out property to an Insurer.

Insurers normally allow homes with lodgers to be covered under a standard Home Insurance. As you mention they normally exclude theft unless there are signs of a violent or forcible entry as lodgers homes with lodgers have a prevalence for items going missing without there being a break in.

A few Insurers also exclude liability for the lodger, but give you the option to buy back liability for the lodger.

dacouch

Backmasker wrote: »

In 2009 a macerator in the house I was renting broke and pushed waste out of the upstairs toilet . This brought down the hallway and living room ceilings.

Our landlord did not have permission to rent out the property and the buildings insurance refused to pay for the work. As a result the landlord needed to find funds of around £4000.00 which he did not have. This left my family and I with only the use of two rooms until we found another home.

The local council took action against the landlord and ordered a huge amount of work was carried out on the property.

As another poster mentioned, it sounds like he had a normal policy especially with him having to carry out lots of other work or he had not disclosed something else.

Another explanation could be the Insurers definition of escape of water, theres a small chance they would not define the macerator as being part of the pipe work or tanks and refused it due to this.

If he had a proper landlords policy, then he if he had argued with the Insurers they would have had to pay as assuming he had a consent to let clause (I doubt it) the macerator pushing waste out and causing damage is in no why influenced by whether or not you have consent to let.