Direct Line landlord's insurance -anyone else had problems?

Gin_and_Milk

Hi,
I was wondering if anyone else has had problems with Direct Line landlord's insurance. We put a claim in before Christmas, as our tenant reported a leak in the ceiling. Everything seemed to be going fine until the assessor asked whether or not our tenant was on housing benefit. Now at the time the agreement was signed, she wasn't. She has since had a baby and is now in receipt of HB. Because of this DL are saying they probably won't pay out as we didn't inform them of a change in circumstances when the policy was up for renewal. The fact that we didn't know is, apparently irrelevant, but as she's always paid her rent etc, we had no reason to be suspicious nor ask about her circumstances. The quote for repair is £495.00 and DL have even said they have no reason to think the claim is fraudulent and that it has actually been approved! Apart from panicking that we are going to have to pay for the repairs ourselves, we're also worried that our policy is void and that no-one else will take us on due to an outstanding claim. We're also worried that should there be a fire, etc we won't be covered at all and we'll have nothing but debt even though we took out the policy in good faith. Has anyone else had similar problems. I've looked at the policy but can't find any mention of HB. It did list a 24hr emergency claims number which we used when the tenant contacted us. It was a Sunday night and there was a message to say they were closed and to phone back the following morning!
Would that in itself be classed as being missold a policy?
Thanks

FlameCloud

The information about HB will be on the assumptions part of the application form/renewal. That said, who is the contract with? Their website currently says-

Your properties are not occupied as or let to:

• halfway houses
• bedsits
• housing associations
• Local Authorities
• students
• asylum seekers

If the person living at the property has the contract directly with yourself and the authority is not named on it I do not think there assumptions are strong enough to warrant a voidance of the policy.

Gin_and_Milk

Thanks Flame Cloud
The contract is between us and the tenant. DL phoned back after my last post and said it's been passed to the large and complex claims department. It's a small claim which has already been approved, and you'd think that given the amount of people who have suffered with floods they'd have more urgent matters to deal with. They still stand by the fact we should have told them when the policy was renewed. Thing is I'm not psychic so I couldn't.

FlameCloud

Your renewal would have said to inform them if anything was different - have you still got it?

In order to void, DL would have to show that they would not have accepted had they known. Given it is not in their assumptions and as far as I can see is not asked on their proposal form I cannot see how they would support this at the FOS.

The only two really relevant points from above are the housing association and local authority. The property is not let to them, so they would have to show that it was occupied as either of those two- again I don't think they are.

Gin_and_Milk

Thanks again I shall have a look at the renewal etc. At no point did they ask if the tenant was on HB when we took out the policy. Our worry now is if something serious were to happen, say the house burned down then we have no cover whatsoever. They have told us we should have an answer by the end of the week. If they say no we shall definitely complain to the FOS

dacouch

I seem to remember DL had a disclaimer in effect saying at least one of the adults must be in full time work eg if one tenant was receiving some kind of benefit it was ok providing there was a working tenant.

Gin_and_Milk

From the top of my head it says employment but it doesn't say that it has to be full time In fact it doesn't mention how many hours someone works either now I come to mention it.

rs65

The assumption says:-

At least one of the individuals who have signed the tenancy agreement must be either employed, retired or in receipt of a disability benefit at the point of signing the tenancy agreement.

I would expect any duty of disclosure to be to inform them if anything has changed at the date the next tenancy is signed.

The change of status of your tenant does not, in my view, warrant disclosure to DL at renewal. The above assumption would remain valid at renewal.

OP, might be worth double checking that they were in employment when you took out the policy.

rs65

Gin_and_Milk wrote: »

Would that in itself be classed as being missold a policy?

DL are a direct insurer. They don't advise you so I don't see how it could be mis-sold.

Gin_and_Milk

She was working when she became our tenant and signed the agreement. As my husband explained to DL we had no reason to suspect anything had changed and the tenancy is a rolling one, so are we supposed keep asking her every two minutes about her circumstances? After all she is entitled to a private life without her landlords wanting to know her financial affairs all the time. We were honest and upfront with DL (part of me wishes we'd lied); but they've even said they've approved the claim and they're confident it's not fraudulent so why they're quibbling over this for the sake of £495 is beyond me.
Thanks for all of your replies though.