Tenants insurance

G_M

Jacko_amz wrote: »

this is whats been asked:


If you could please ensure you provide us with a copy of your contents insurance covering accidental damage to the landlords fixtures and fittings before your move in date

This is an unjustified request/demand - the landlord should insure his own property.

See the advice in the other thread (linked by hazyjo above) in order to satisfy the LL/agent, get the tenancy, and then cancel.

Then just take out standard contents insurance for yourself.

hazyjo

G_M wrote: »

This is an unjustified request/demand - the landlord should insure his own property.

See the advice in the other thread (linked by hazyjo above) in order to satisfy the LL/agent, get the tenancy, and then cancel.

Then just take out standard contents insurance for yourself.

Might open a can of worms though if any major damage does occur and that OP has agreed to that in their contract. I'd be quoting the info from the other thread and saying it's an unjustified demand. It's not a responsibility I'd want to agree to as a tenant.


Jx

Guest101

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

Unfortunately I can't go into this as it's ongoing. I think we have reached resolution but it hasn't been completed yet. I know I could go to court to recover my losses but a court could say the tenant doesn't have the means to pay. If a tenant had insurance and had done what my tenant has done then they would in all likelihood be insurance blacklisted going forward and so wouldn't be able to do it to another landlord.

I like to see myself as a decent landlord and I afford my tenants all the privileges that they should have. I would like to see however a little more protection for landlords in extreme cases like mine coupled with a lot more protection for tenants from eviiction. I posted yesterday that I would support statutory 12 months notice for landlords to regain a property so long as it was being respected and rent being paid. In return I would like to see an easier system to evict tenants who seriously damage property or fail to pay rent for 3 consecutive months. I think that is a fair trade off

unfortunately you cant force someone to claim on their insurance.


Not having the means to pay would still mean they get a CCJ and be blacklisted for many things.


I think the problem with your point (and I agree in principle) is unscrupulous landlords who collect rent in cash and don't provide receipts would use this as a route to illegally evict. Courts are just too busy to cope

davidmcn

hazyjo wrote: »

Might open a can of worms though if any major damage does occur and that OP has agreed to that in their contract.

Either the damage is the tenant's liability or it isn't - the fact they have (or haven't) got insurance doesn't change that.

MyOnlyPost

Guest101 wrote: »

unfortunately you cant force someone to claim on their insurance.


Not having the means to pay would still mean they get a CCJ and be blacklisted for many things.


I think the problem with your point (and I agree in principle) is unscrupulous landlords who collect rent in cash and don't provide receipts would use this as a route to illegally evict. Courts are just too busy to cope

With something such as car insurance you report to your insurer and your insurance can claim on the other party if they are at fault, something similar could work with houses. It is all hypothetical though.

I agree about my other point, we don't live in a utopia and unfortunately we are forced to legislate for the worst in sociaety rather than the best. I am not a big fan of accidental landlords and those who don't consider the moral obligations of letting and would like to see harsher punishements including being banned for the worst offenders. Unfortunately the current system punishes the majority and protects the minority and recent legislation has been aimed at strenghtening tenants rights without doing anything for landlords.

hazyjo

davidmcn wrote: »

Either the damage is the tenant's liability or it isn't - the fact they have (or haven't) got insurance doesn't change that.

Agreed. But if they agree to that contract clause and provide evidence of insurance to back it up, I wonder how a judge would rule... (if something happened and if it went that far).


I was just referring to the advice of arranging, proving, then cancelling insurance.


Jx

MyOnlyPost

As a pure thought exercise is it really unjust and unfair of a lanlord to request that a tenant have some kind of insurance in place to cover damage caused by the tenant? (lets imagine that this type of cover was available) As the tenant you have the right to look elsewhere, you are not being forced into a property and as a landlord you are entitled to seek some kind of cover for the tenants liability It's not as though the tenant doesn't get a benefit from the policy. Therefore would it qualify as an unfair term in a contract?

You wouldn't expect to rent a car without having insurance in place after all. A car represents a greater public liability risk but a house represents a greater financial risk to property

davidmcn

hazyjo wrote: »

Agreed. But if they agree to that contract clause and provide evidence of insurance to back it up, I wonder how a judge would rule... (if something happened and if it went that far).

I was just referring to the advice of arranging, proving, then cancelling insurance.

Don't see what difference it makes. Courts aren't going to award more money because an insurer is picking up the bill (or was meant to be).

hazyjo

davidmcn wrote: »

Don't see what difference it makes. Courts aren't going to award more money because an insurer is picking up the bill (or was meant to be).

Maybe I'm not being clear.


I mean...


- Tenant signs contract saying they'll insure the property.
- Tenant cancels policy once he's in the rented house.
- Something major happens to the property.
- No insurance.
- Landlord sues tenant (was led to believe it was insured, and had evidence to say so, and tenant had agreed and proved to have done this).
- Judge says... tenant pays/is liable?


Not sure if your comment still applies? I think you're misunderstanding, or maybe I should just get me coat. It's been a long day...


Jx

davidmcn

hazyjo wrote: »

Maybe I'm not being clear.


I mean...


- Tenant signs contract saying they'll insure the property.
- Tenant cancels policy once he's in the rented house.
- Something major happens to the property.
- No insurance.
- Landlord sues tenant (was led to believe it was insured, and had evidence to say so, and tenant had agreed and proved to have done this).
- Judge says... tenant pays/is liable?

Not sure if your comment still applies? I think you're misunderstanding, or maybe I should just get me coat. It's been a long day...

I think you're maybe misunderstanding what risk the insurance is covering. It's to cover the tenant's liability for stuff which would have been the tenant's cost anyway e.g. if they negligently cause damage to the landlord's property. The landlord wants the tenant to get insurance so they don't need to worry about the tenant not having enough money to pay up.

The fact the tenant has cancelled the policy might be a breach of the tenancy agreement, but that just creates a possible reason to end the tenancy, it doesn't change the liability for costs if there is damage.