No DSS!!!???

tim123456789

Naf wrote: »

Only if you won't rent to them because of the disability.

This ignores the point of indirect discrimination, of which this an example and which for disability is equally illegal.

tim

tim123456789

dtsazza wrote: »

That's true, though it doesn't necessarily have to be explicit in the policy wording.

For example, the policy might say something like "the landlord must take reasonable measures to...". If the insurer considers that a "no DSS" policy is a reasonable measure, then they would refuse to pay out - and if court test cases support such a judgement, then the policy does effectively legally state this. (I'm not saying that such a thing is necessarily the case in reality as I have no idea, but it certainly is possible.)

And it would be something that you'd only know for sure if you rang up to clarify.

I think that an insurer would have great difficulty justifying a "no DSS" clause in a landlords buildings policy to refuse to pay out for subsidence, or even for fire.

The idea that the average benefits claimant will materially increase the risk of total loss is ludicrous.

If it was we would have no DSS clauses in owner's building policies (and no pensioner would be able to insure their house), but we don't.

If this policy does exists, it is social engineering of the worst kind, IMHO.

tim

dacouch

tim123456789 wrote: »

I think that an insurer would have great difficulty justifying a "no DSS" clause in a landlords buildings policy to refuse to pay out for subsidence, or even for fire.

The idea that the average benefits claimant will materially increase the risk of total loss is ludicrous.

If it was we would have no DSS clauses in owner's building policies (and no pensioner would be able to insure their house), but we don't.

If this policy does exists, it is social engineering of the worst kind, IMHO.

tim

Plenty of Landlord Insurers in fact probably the majority will not accept clients whose tenants are DSS.

Assuming the Insurer had asked a clear question / assumption then the it's dealt with on the basis of my link eg Innocent then the claim gets paid.

Inadvertent then the Insurer rewrites the policy as they would have done had they known the information. If they would not have offered cover then again they would void the policy if they would they charge the appropriate premium / adjust excess / apply extra terms.

Intentional / Fraud the Insurer would void the policy, often retain the premium.

Insurers have traditionally received more claims from DSS tenanted properties so many of them either refuse to offer cover or charge a higher premium.

The issue about Home Owner Home Insurance is entirely different

ragecake

Thinking about the disability thing, and it wasn't an insurer thing, would it be wise of anyone to explain the reasons why they are on benefits if they are disabled, to maybe get some leeway with the landlord?

Obviously not the entire medical history, but enough to maybe prove that you are trustworthy and not of the same cut as the others that may of moved in and messed the places up.

jjj1980

Maybe I've missed it whilst reading through but I don't think I've spotted anyone mention that if the Landlord has a mortgage on the property, it could be a clause of the mortgage that doesn't allow benefit claimants.

There are quite a few lenders who have this clause in their BTL mortgages and Consent To Lease agreements.

If the lender finds out later, once a tenant is in place, they can demand full repayment of the outstanding mortgage.

tim123456789

dacouch wrote: »

Plenty of Landlord Insurers in fact probably the majority will not accept clients whose tenants are DSS.

The issue about Home Owner Home Insurance is entirely different

I'm not disputing the process, I'm disputing the claim that getting buildings cover for a property rented to HB tenants is restricted by insurers. (and especially that it's done without being stated as an exclusion in the full policy)

and the OO situation is entirtely relevant.

Because, there simply is no difference here. If HB tenants are going to materially affect the possibility of a claim on buildings cover in a rented property they are going to materially affect the possibility of claims in an OO property.

And singling tenants out just seem silly (and wrong). See my previous posts that not all HB tenants are the same here and putting them all in the same pot, is just rediculous.

And if there was a problem getting building cover on properties with HB tenants there would be no LLs prepared to rent to HB tenants, but there are.

Yorkie1

I may have misunderstood your post, Tim, but there are BTL insurance policies which specifically exclude cover where the tenants are on benefits.

I believe Direct Line is one.

If (and I recognise an assumption here) the insurance policies permitting tenants on benefits are more expensive, why should the LL not have the choice as to who he rents to, and therefore what his expenses levels are?

Sandhy

I'm pretty sure many agents have 'No DSS' and other exemptions as part of their standard blurb and on their template of particulars, so it's always worth being honest and asking politely.

Heliflyguy

Looks like if your unfortunate enough to loose your job and claim benefits then you automatically become a higher risk, not only more likely to burn the house down and/or smash it up but also start to drive badly and have loads of accidents as far as insurance company's are concerned.

Strange though the last time I claimed benefits I suddenly wanted to buy a blinged out saxo, get a couple of pitbulls and a massive trampoline for the back garden so maybe there is something to this.

newsgroup_monkey

Would an AST become invalid if you lost your job the day after you moved in and became reliant on benefits?