Definition of sub-let by insurers?

jjlandlord

dacouch wrote: »

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.

But that's clearly not what the schedule states...

We know that the day a large claim reaches them, suddenly the exact wording will become important.

TSx

You can only sub-let if you let the property from someone else in the first place.

I can't find a definitive reference, but as a leaseholder, you essentially own the property for the duration of your lease - you are not renting (letting) it from the freeholder.

I would always suggest speaking to the insurers for confirmation but the intention of the statement is quite clear,

jjlandlord

TSx wrote: »

I can't find a definitive reference, but as a leaseholder, you essentially own the property for the duration of your lease - you are not renting (letting) it from the freeholder.

You won't find a reference because that's not the case. A leaseholder has a lease, and is thus a tenant of the freeholder.