Tenants insurance

hazyjo

davidmcn wrote: »

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.

That's prob it. Depends what it covers I suppose. 'F&Fs' I would presume are pretty much everything in the property other than the walls. If the building collapsed/caught fire and they didn't have cover, would the tenant be expected to pay for everything from a new kitchen to lightbulbs?


(Like I said, it's been a long day and I slept for 30 mins at lunch so feel a bit out of body today!)




Jx

davidmcn

hazyjo wrote: »

If the building collapsed/caught fire and they didn't have cover, would the tenant be expected to pay for everything from a new kitchen to lightbulbs?

Only if the collapse/fire was their fault!

Guest101

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

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

Lets not go with the car route as it's a legal obligation, rather than contractual.


There is no way to force the tenant to claim on the insurance, and you as a 3rd party cannot claim on it. Having insurance would be prudent from a tenants perspective, but the LL can insure himself - surely that is the sensible approach?

MyOnlyPost

Guest101 wrote: »

Having insurance would be prudent from a tenants perspective, but the LL can insure himself - surely that is the sensible approach?

Yes I agree but that doesn't make the term unfair is what I was getting at. An unfair term would be forcing the tenant to pay for something from which he gains no benefit, such as referencing, which is more widely acknowledged as an acceptable cost.

Jacko_amz

Oh dear i seem to have started a debate!

I am happy to pay for such insurance if i could find it! I will be getting contents insurance any way so if there is one that has accidental damage for LL F&F's then i will get it

Tax_Slave

Yes I know this was in Switzerland ....
But when we rented for three years in Switzerland you had to have insurance wise ;

- Landlord would insure building against fire , flood etc
- Tennant would have to insure for liability on damage to fixtures such as ; dropping a wine bottle on a ceramic sink and breaking it , damaging the kitchen worktop , damaging walls etc
- Tennant he option on insuring contents belonging to them ...aka tv , cloths or whatever might be lost in a fire , flood or theft.

Unless you had this third party liability insurance you could not rent.

Also you had to insure for third party injury liability i.e. You push your shopping trolley into someone and injure them etc

kinger101

Jacko_amz wrote: »

Oh dear i seem to have started a debate!

I am happy to pay for such insurance if i could find it! I will be getting contents insurance any way so if there is one that has accidental damage for LL F&F's then i will get it

It's easy enough to find;

http://www.gocompare.com/tenants-insurance/

As I recall, the addition of LL F&Fs was a pretty trivial amount compared to the whole premium.

kinger101

Tax_Slave wrote: »

Also you had to insure for third party injury liability i.e. You push your shopping trolley into someone and injure them etc

A classic Swiss way of settling scores.

saajan_12

Seems perfectly fair / reasonable, it's the same idea as 3rd party liability insurance: the liability for damages still lies with tenant but it can reduce hassle for the LL in recovering any costs over the deposit (tenant is arguably less likely to object if an insurance co is paying and insurance co is more likely to pay up without bailiffs etc).

The tenant and LL can negotiate a clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the tenant to take out ad maintain such insurance. The difficulty is of course in enforcing such a clause, as the tenant may cancel the insurance early / fail to renew, but that applies to lots of terms in agreements. Doesn't make it unfair / unreasonable though.

itchyfeet123

kinger101 wrote: »

It's easy enough to find;

http://www.gocompare.com/tenants-insurance/

As I recall, the addition of LL F&Fs was a pretty trivial amount compared to the whole premium.

I just went through that form (I'm looking for contents insurance at the moment) and there was no option to add LL's fixtures/furnishings. On the first page it asks if the rental property is furnished or unfurnished. It also explicitly states that only the named policy holder's belongings are covered.

Seems perfectly fair / reasonable, it's the same idea as 3rd party liability insurance: the liability for damages still lies with tenant but it can reduce hassle for the LL in recovering any costs over the deposit (tenant is arguably less likely to object if an insurance co is paying and insurance co is more likely to pay up without bailiffs etc).

By that logic, do you think tenants should have liability insurance for the building itself? In the US, for example, renter's insurance does exactly that, covering both the tenant's or tenants' belongings as well as their liability for, say, burning down a house. Here, I think it's pretty clear that the tenant has no responsibility to insure the structure itself. Of course, the LL's insurer may chase a tenant, who may then wish s/he had his/her own insurance.

I do think the request is an odd one, given the insurance market set up in general. From a quick browse on the internet, LL insurance seems to routinely cover fixtures and fittings. Based on the OP's experience and what I saw in the link above, contents insurance available to tenants does not, and may not even be possible to add. To me, it seems like the LL is trying to save on premiums by not covering or undervaluing the fixtures and fittings in his/her own insurance.