Just read my tenancy agreement - advice?

missile

tbs624 wrote: »

CafeNervosa - welcome to MSE Don't be put off asking further questions.

Come on guys - see that red and whote alert to the left - there are a couple of you being a tad sharp with a newbie IMO and its not necessary..

Missile - I'm pretty sure that the majority of posters on here have friends to ask about all sorts of stuff. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't also/alternatively ask on here

I was trying to be helpful and I believe others were too. :A

OP was asking very basic questions. I suggested there are many other important issues she needs to be aware of, which she should discuss with family and friends ........ in addition to asking on this forum.

G_M

The point being made about leaving the heating thermostat set at, say, 5 degrees, so that the boiler only powers up if and when the temperature drops that low, is sensible, but only relevant where there is a boiler.

We know now that the OP has storage heaters, which complicates things a bit, since (I believe) they have to be set either on/off at night (though can be set to only heat up minimally).

The answer is to turn off all but one of them, and leave that one on at minimum - it will radiate enough background heat to take the freezing chill off the whole flat if you leave the internal doors open.

G_M

hugoshavez wrote: »

OK.

So, standard contents cover won't include a tenant's liability section? Like on page 25 here?

http://www.directline.com/home-insurance/policy-documents.htm

Or, coincidentally enough, page 25 here?

http://www.aviva.co.uk/library/pdfs/home/NHDHG6080.pdf

It's a letting agent's myth that tenants need specifically written, overpriced "tenant's" insurance, usually sold on comission by the agent. You shouldn't mistakenly propogate it. Not on a moneysaving site.:money:

I stand (potentially) corrected. Though am bemused by the apparantly contradictory caveat:

But not:
a) loss or damage by any paying guest or tenant; or...

"

hugoshavez

I stand (potentially) corrected. Though am bemused by the apparantly contradictory caveat:

Quote:
But not:
a) loss or damage by any paying guest or tenant; or...

"

Then you're more gracious than some. The term you quote is a specific exclusion from cover under the theft and malicious damage contingencies.

It means that the policyholder will not be able to claim if their lodger or tenant steals or causes damage deliberately.

Of course, whether the policyholder is a homeowner or a tenant, they would not be able to claim for theft or damage that they had caused deliberately.

Kynthia

tbs624 wrote: »

I agree with the latter part of the sentence but many people manage just fine without contents insurance.:)

Obviously just my opinion that people should have contents insurance. However I think tenants are at particular risk of not having any when not having made a concious and planned decision not to do so. This is because they don't need to get buildings insurance so mostly they just don't think about it. Or the ones that do just think they don't have anything worth stealing. However many don't realise how much it would cost to replace everything they own if there was a fire. Also a water leak caused by the flat above can be damage a lot of belongings and isn't covered by the other flat's insurance if the owner wasn't at fault.