Letting Agent: Compulsory contents insurance?

all_change

izzybusy23 wrote: »

At the end of the day I am renting and would always pay for any damage to landlords fixtures and fittings from my accidental cover from my own personal contents insurance. That feels only right to me.

There is no question of us trying to avoid paying for any damage that we cause.

What we are trying to establish is whether we can be forced to insure against our accidental damage of the landlord's fixtures and fittings, given that landlord contents policies can include this clause.

We feel (and would like to establish whether it is correct) that we have the right to choose whether to insure this detail or not, much the same as we can choose whether or not to insure our own possessions, knowing the possible risks.

all_change

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Hmmm makes sense, but how would your insures know whats yours and what is your landlords possessions??

Are you renting fully furnished then? If unfurnished then I can't really see how the LL can expect any kind of insurance, unless they are referring to things like kitchen cupboards, bath fitments etc?

We are renting unfurnished. The landlord provides carpets, curtains, white goods, a fitted kitchen, a fitted bathroom etc.

The examples given by the LA were things like if we ruin a kitchen worktop, or ruin a carpet, then we would be covered by the specific clause they are trying to make us get.

olly300

Notlob wrote: »

Surely, the deposit is used for issues at the end of the tenancy, not during. If you break something, you must pay for repair or replacement, which is the reason why tenants are wise to take out insurance.

IMHO if the tenancy agreement has a clause that tenants must insure LL possessions then you are contractually obliged to do so. I agree it would be unfair to dictate who you insure with.

Notlob

The OFT states this is an unfair term. A judge would base any recommendations on the OFT's stance.

Endsleigh and a few other insurance companies give limited accidental damage insurance for landlords' contents, but with the excess unless you caused hundred of pounds of damage then there is no point claiming.

A landlord has to insure their own contents because they own them. A tenant's contents insurance policy will only cover the tenant's contents because the tenant doesn't own their landlords' contents. It's up to the tenant whether they are going to insure both the landlords' and their own contents for accidental damage. They cannot be forced to do so.

Incidently insurance policies are written in such a way that landlords' and employers' contents are not covered unless specifically stated, other third party damage is. (I had to point this out to an employer and read the small print of lots policies.)

If the OP caused so much damage the deposit didn't cover it, it would be up to the landlord to chase the tenant through the courts to get the money back. If a tenant does that much damage whether the tenant has insurance or not, the tenant is likely to forget about the contract and do a disappearing act - this is unfortunate for landlords and why lots of landlords take large deposits.

all_change

Many thanks for your info so far.

olly300 wrote: »

The OFT states this is an unfair term. A judge would base any recommendations on the OFT's stance.

Does it still count as an unfair term if it is written outside the tenancy agreement, on a separate document to be signed by tenant and landlord , making the insurance a condition of the tenancy?

olly300

all_change wrote: »

Many thanks for your info so far.
[/color]
Does it still count as an unfair term if it is written outside the tenancy agreement, on a separate document to be signed by tenant and landlord , making the insurance a condition of the tenancy?

:eek::mad::eek:

This is very dodgy behaviour.

I suggest you phone shelter immediately 0808 800 4444 and contract your trading standards on the phone aswell.

I'm certain the separate piece of paper would still count as part of your tenancy agreement because tenancy agreements can be completely verbal, and I know in other contracts separate bits of paper still make up part of the contract if names can be read clearly from them.

all_change

olly300 wrote: »

:eek::mad::eek:
I suggest you phone shelter immediately 0808 800 4444 and contract your trading standards on the phone aswell.

Already have done both, am waiting to hear back. Hoping to get as much clear info as possible so that we are armed with the right information.

olly300 wrote: »

I'm certain the separate piece of paper would still count as part of your tenancy agreement because tenancy agreements can be completely verbal, and I know in other contracts separate bits of paper still make up part of the contract if names can be read clearly from them.

Didn't know that, very interesting, thanks.

The LA staff certainly tried to brush it off saying something like "the FSA won't let us make you get our own insurance any more, but if you have contents insurance that'll be fine". By following that advice, we would certainly not fulfil the document that we are expected to sign.

Notlob

There are dedicated insurance policies out there that deal with tenant protection, one of which is protecting the LL possessions.

Olly, why is unfair that the tenant is required to take out contents insurance to cover the landlords possession?

What if the tenant left the door open and came home to find items had been stolen. or a visitor took something. Would the LL policy cover this event when he /she has no control over this eventuality?

Notlob

lynzpower

What if the tenant left the door open and came home to find items had been stolen. or a visitor took something. Would the LL policy cover this event when he /she has no control over this eventuality?

I dont think ANY policy would cough up in these scenarios.

Notlob

I dont think ANY policy would cough up in these scenarios.

Ok, I accept that but it would if someone broke in.

Notlob

RabbitMad

Notlob,

Reading the OFT Guidance on unfair terms there is a section on compulsary insurance. This is why Olly is saying it is unfair.

Having read the document it doesn't cover the specific insurance mentioned (ie accidental damage to LL's property) but one could decide that it does apply and therefore is unfair.

Personally what I think the OP should do is take out the insurance - show the documentation to the LL and then cancel using the 14 day cancellation period that all policies come with.

I think that a better approach for the LL would be to include the cost of insurance in the rent, but presumable they haven't as they want the rent to look cheaper.