Freeholder not allowing a claim

Mrs_pbradley936

rs65 wrote: »

I have a slight concern that tenants are also included in the definition. Is there a cross liability clause in the policy?

Not sure what that is BUT I think that the Freeholder is the landlord and the flat owners are regarded as "tenants" by virtue of the fact the flat owners pay the Freeholder ground rent.


I found this too:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/schedule/3

Bantex_2

ChumpusRex wrote: »

In the usual case, the freeholder's policy only covers the structure of the building and permanently attached fixtures, and liability relating from it.

The radiator (assuming it is a conventional water filled one) is a permanently attached fixture forming part of the building, so is covered by the policy.

A TV is not.

Most freeholder policies I have seen cover common areas, structure, and individual units (basically no further than where the plaster starts). Internal fixtures and fittings are generally the responsibility of the tenant. This is unless the central heating is part of a shared system with a common boiler.

rs65

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

Is their insurance unfit for purpose

Nothing you have said suggests it's not fit for purpose.

Try lodging the claim directly with the insurer.

Mrs_pbradley936

rs65 wrote: »

Nothing you have said suggests it's not fit for purpose.

Try lodging the claim directly with the insurer.

What I mean is if they never intend to indemnify a flat owner for a liability claim why are they taking a contribution for the premium?


What point is there in me or anyone else in the block contributing to a policy when it is known in advance that there is no cover.

TSx

The buildings/contents debate is irrelevant.

A buildings policy will usually cover liability arising as an owner of a property
A contents policy will usually cover liability arising as an occupier of a property

If a TV was badly fitted in a rented flat, and injured a visitor to a property, then I believe there would be a claim under the buildings liability policy. The fact a TV is a contents item is completely irrelevant.

As a side note, most block policies I've come across will cover any element of the buildings, including the interior of individual flats.

edit: OP, have you approached your contents insurer about this?

edit again: I've just re-read and it seems your getting bad advice on both sides. Contents/Buildings does not come into this. You need to start from the beginning but make clear that you want to claim under the liability section. Speak to your contents insurer directly and see what the say. They are likely to decline your claim and tell you you need to go through the buildings insurer but at least then you've ruled out the contents.

Mrs_pbradley936

TSx wrote: »

The buildings/contents debate is irrelevant.

A buildings policy will usually cover liability arising as an owner of a property
A contents policy will usually cover liability arising as an occupier of a property

If a TV was badly fitted in a rented flat, and injured a visitor to a property, then I believe there would be a claim under the buildings liability policy. The fact a TV is a contents item is completely irrelevant.

As a side note, most block policies I've come across will cover any element of the buildings, including the interior of individual flats.

edit: OP, have you approached your contents insurer about this?

edit again: I've just re-read and it seems your getting bad advice on both sides. Contents/Buildings does not come into this. You need to start from the beginning but make clear that you want to claim under the liability section. Speak to your contents insurer directly and see what the say. They are likely to decline your claim and tell you you need to go through the buildings insurer but at least then you've ruled out the contents.

I have spoken to the broker that arranges the contents and his advice is to pursue the matter with the buildings insurance involving the Financial Ombudsman if necessary.

Bantex_2

Is the contents policy just standard or is it a landlord policy?

rs65

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

What I mean is if they never intend to indemnify a flat owner for a liability claim why are they taking a contribution for the premium?


What point is there in me or anyone else in the block contributing to a policy when it is known in advance that there is no cover.

There is cover. From what you've said the insurer doesn't even know about the claim yet. You need to get the broker to accept that the buildings/contents debate is irrelevant. Easier to go direct to the insurer.