Definition of sub-let by insurers?

franklee

anselld wrote: »

The wording is totally ambiguous, i.e. is it ...

(rented out) or (let as holiday homes or holiday rentals)

... or is it ...

(rented out or let) as (holiday homes or holiday rentals)

Ha yes that's just what I was pondering. Maybe there is default bracketing in insurance legal speak. OTOH I thought things these days are meant to be in plain English as otherwise how can the average customer know what the heck they've signed up to?

If it was maths then we could look up the lack of bracketing rules :rotfl:

G_M

and people say I'm pedantic when I pick up on gramatical 'errors'.....

jjlandlord

You are assuming that the document is well drafted, which, IMHO it isn't.
Even if it was, sometimes it is clearer and avoids arguments to spell things in more details than necessary.

In any case, if the idea is to let under an AST, clearly that's not possible.

anselld

jjlandlord wrote: »

In any case, if the idea is to let under an AST, clearly that's not possible.

Not "clearly" enough to prevent the property in question being advertised as an "excellent buy-to-let" property.

Not going to be my problem though as I decided to apply the bargepole in the end.

anselld

G_M wrote: »

and people say I'm pedantic when I pick up on gramatical 'errors'.....

Surely not! ... but are you allowed to start a sentence with and?

G_M

or spell 'grammatical' 'gramatical'? Though of course that's not a gremmaticle error.

dacouch

The intention of the wording is to allow normal AST to professionals but to prevent letting to DWP & use as a B&B etc etc.

These are the standard bogies Insurers do not like.

The addition of the subletting wording is to ensure the flat owner knows who is renting the flat so that they can conform to the policy terms re no DWP & B&B etc etc.

Insurers of blocks of flats are aware that a significant proportion of the flats will be BTL so it's very very unusual for an Insurer to have an issue with a normal BTL eg no DHS or any of the other exclusions they have listed.

I would suggest that if you're concerned about the wording you ask the Insurers or brokers involved to confirm in writing they have no issue with your BTL

TSx

From an insurance perspective, dealing with claims and policies I would interpret that clause as meaning you can't let to someone who will in turn be letting the property out (e.g Northwood Lettings) - which makes sense as it's essentially saying you need to be able to determine who the tenant will be.

jjlandlord

dacouch wrote: »

The addition of the subletting wording is to ensure the flat owner knows who is renting the flat so that they can conform to the policy terms re no DWP & B&B etc etc.
...
I would suggest that if you're concerned about the wording you ask the Insurers or brokers involved to confirm in writing they have no issue with your BTL.

Err, the wording says "no sublet"... couldn't be clearer.

If they confirm in writing that "no sublet" means "BTL is OK" anselld will start hearing the Twilight Zone theme.

dacouch

jjlandlord wrote: »

Err, the wording says "no sublet"... couldn't be clearer.

If they confirm in writing that "no sublet" means "BTL is OK" anselld will start hearing the Twilight Zone theme.

I explained it in my post.

The Insurer will be happy with the flat owner directly renting the flat out as long as it's not to any of the listed excluded tenants or excluded uses.

The Insurer will 99.999% likely to confirm that the OP is ok to directly rent the property out as per my previous sentance