Landlord doesn't have buy to let mortgage?

Thrugelmir

Road_Hog wrote: »

It does matter what ARLA says, it is what is in the insurance contract/terms & conditions that matters.

Insurance terms and conditions have been unchanged for many years.
The lender has an insurable interest in the policy as defined under the Act of 1906.

Werdnal

MissMoneyP is confusing EXISTING insurance, ie the householder's regular residential policy, requiring them to be resident and not letting, with LL insurance.

A specific LL policy covers letting to tenants, and I would very much doubt there is ever any specific clause requiring consent to let/BTL mortgage being in place.

However, it is true that naive LLs who do not know or choose to advise their EXISTING insurer of their intention to let, would find their cover void if they tried to make a claim.

Its the same as car insurance - your car is covered for you to drive it, but if you lend it to your mate and he wraps it around a tree, you're b****red!

Road_Hog

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. Tenants' should be avoiding landlords who don't have consent to let.

You seem to be avoiding the point.

You have suggested that LLs that don't have CTL (but have proper LL insurance) will have invalid insurance.

Please show some evidence and factual information to back up this statement.

Once again. If a LL has LL insurance, then he is covered unless the policy stipulates that he must have CTL, which I have not seen in any policy I have had - I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, just that it isn't automatic like MMP suggests.

dacouch

Road_Hog wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the point.

You have suggested that LLs that don't have CTL (but have proper LL insurance) will have invalid insurance.

Please show some evidence and factual information to back up this statement.

Once again. If a LL has LL insurance, then he is covered unless the policy stipulates that he must have CTL, which I have not seen in any policy I have had - I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, just that it isn't automatic like MMP suggests.

I think she will refer to an FAQ on the Endsleigh website who are a broker and I also think the "Insurer" she wrote to ask confirmation was Endsleigh.

Thrugelmir

Road_Hog wrote: »

You have suggested that LLs that don't have CTL (but have proper LL insurance) will have invalid insurance.

Without CTL being officially granted then the tenants have no right to occupy the property. If the property burns down or damage is caused , due to the tenants negligence. Then the claim can be declined. As the insurance cover is technically void.

The point at issue is occupancy. Not the insurance cover purchased.

Also there is the duty of disclosure by the applicant which applies to all insurance policies.

Any non-disclosure, misrepresentation or misdescription of any material fact which would have influenced our decision to provide your insurance could mean that your policy is void in the event of your making a claim.

kingstreet

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

When you sell those policies to people: as long as you're happy to put in writing that they are definately covered on a claim with landlords insurance even though they don't have consent let, I'm sure your clients will be happy too.

I've never sold landlord insurance to anyone. It isn't my market. I just sat trawling landlord insurance policy schedules one afternoon to answer a query on here. A bit like this one;-

http://www.directlineforbusiness.co.uk/pdf/landlord-insurance-policy-dlfb56.pdf

I'm not suggesting a landlord should proceed without a formal buy to let mortgage, or at least consent to let. That's a given. If they have the necessary consent and they also have the correct insurance product for the job they are doing, there is no written link in the policy documentation between landlord insurance and consent to let.

I'm not suggesting the ARLA link is wrong. I think it relates to letting a property using owner-occupier buildings insurance and it could clarify that.

dacouch

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Without CTL being officially granted then the tenants have no right to occupy the property. If the property burns down or damage is caused , due to the tenants negligence. Then the claim can be declined. As the insurance cover is technically void.

The point at issue is occupancy. Not the insurance cover purchased.

Also there is the duty of disclosure by the applicant which applies to all insurance policies.

Are you aware the Ombudsman would generally rule against an Insurer for voiding or declining if they have not asked a clear question about the subject. There is in effect no requirement to disclose any information to an Insurer unless they specifically ask about it.

Would be interested if you could find an Insurer that asks any type of question / makes a statement about CTL. Would also be interested if you can find an Insurer that has any type of warranty or exclusion about CTL

LittleVoice

How do you know the LL has a mortgage on the property?

kingstreet

LittleVoice wrote: »

How do you know the LL has a mortgage on the property?

Land Registry enquiry. Charges register would show any mortgage secured on the property.

pandaspot

Wow this has turned into an interesting debate . I also was interested due to a few cases in work where similar has happened. I work for housing benefit and we check land reg to check that ll is who is stated on the form, I have had quite a few where the tenants are in the same position. Obviously wouldn't effect the tenants benefit but interested to know what the implications are of not declaring to mortgage company etc.