Military Man: Licence to Occupy Insurance

Rick_Andrews

Hello,

I am serving in the Royal Navy. A significant proportion of military families live in 'Service Family Accommodation (SFA)' provided by the MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation. For a monthly fee, directly out of our pay, we have a 'Licence to Occupy' agreement to live in these properties.

To live in a SFA house we are strongly recommended to have £20,000 of 'Licence to Occupy' insurance as we may be liable for the first £20,000 of damage to the building.

Many service families are seemingly caught out with having to purchase these insurance alongside Military Kit, Contents and other insurances with Military based insurance companies such as ForcesMutual, TalktoTrinity and ForcesPlan.

Here is the but....these policies are very expensive... Quiet simply can I not shop around to get normal (not military focused) Contents and Building cover as if I were a civilian tenant? I have a quote from Admiral Home Insurance that can provide me with better cover only instead of being 'Licence to Occupy Insurance' it is 'Tenant Liability Insurance', but at around £350-£400 cheaper per year. Oh, and Admiral seemed content that from a legal perspective I wasn't actually a 'Tenant' and that this insurance was GOOD to cover my £20,000 building liability to the MoD if I were to damage their property.

I am very tempted to get insurance with Admiral instead.

However, am I covered if I damage my 'kitchen' for example and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation want £20,000 to install a new one?

All help will be very gratefully received and, if advertised correctly thereafter, will potentially save hundreds of pounds to thousands of military families in active duty.

Please help

Thank you. Rick.

eddddy

Tenant's liability would normally cover accidental damage caused by a tenant to the landlord's fixtures and fittings - so that would include the landlord's kitchen.

So if the insurers regard you as a tenant, and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation as your landlord, I guess you'd be covered.

But... it would be far better to ask Admiral these questions via their messaging or by email or by phone (noting the date and time of your call, the name of the agent you spoke to, the number you called from etc).

Then, if they say "Yes" - but later refuse a claim, you can refer them back to the message/email/call where they agreed you'd be covered.

Rick_Andrews

eddddy,

Thank you for your quick reply, Admiral have noted on my account the discussion you advise below, it is a formal record of agreement and also the phone call was likewise recorded.

I think that tomorrow I will agree to the policy schedule and pay them their considerably smaller quote.

Thanks again.

Andy_L

To an extent you can shop around for for 'Licence to Occupy' insurance as there are a lot of companies that provide it.

Legally you are not a tenant so insurance designed for a tenant would not cover you. However if Admiral say, in writing, they will cover the £20k liability anyway than crack on, although make sure its a like-for-like comparison eg their liability insurance may only cover that liability and not include include your own contents cover

dacouch

I happen to have extensive knowledge of this.

Forces Insurance is more expensive as it is far superior cover to a normal policy. They also tend to get a lot more claims on the policy.

With regards to your question, your Admiral (As would most normal polices) will have a wording under the Tenancy Liability to the effect that it covers you for "damage you are legally liable for". This is in effect will only pay out if the Insurer deems a court of law would decide you were liable.

It is very possible to damage the property through an accident and a court would not deem you liable. Generally a court would look to see if you had been "Negligent" which is basically could the damage have been "reasonably" avoided. Many incidents of damage in a rented home are not through what a court would deem as being negligent. As such Admiral would not be liable to pay out.

Your Kit policy i designed to cover you properly, they will cover virtually all damage noted on your march out. They do not need to ascertain whether you would be liable in a court of law. If the QM says you need to pay for the damage, the Insurer will pay for the damage.

As you have said the Forces policy is considerably more expensive, you need to weigh up whether the extra cover for march out and the cover for your actual kit is worth it.

Bear in mind that if you cancel your kit insurance and then look to take it out again when you get a posting. They tend to exclude War Risks if you are posted to a war zone and are a new customer. If you are an existing customer there tends to be no exclusion

dacouch

If you are thinking about taking out a contents policy with £20000 of buildings cover with Admiral I strongly advise you do not do this as it will not cover you irrespective of what the person who is quoting you says

unforeseen

I spent 30+ years in MQs and only ever got standard content insurance. 'Specialist' forces insurance is a relatively new. It didn't exist for MQs in the 80s & 90s only for kit.

I wonder how many high ups in the DIO have some sort of interest in the specialist insurers?

Rick_Andrews

I thought that as well!

Rick_Andrews

Sorry for my delay in response - been at sea (in a tin tube)...

Thank you to everyone who has helped me here.

Regards,

dacouch

unforeseen wrote: »

I spent 30+ years in MQs and only ever got standard content insurance. 'Specialist' forces insurance is a relatively new. It didn't exist for MQs in the 80s & 90s only for kit.

I wonder how many high ups in the DIO have some sort of interest in the specialist insurers?

Kit Insurance with the option for March Out cover existed in the 80's, I sold it by the bucket load as a worked in a military town

unforeseen

Sounds like a Garrison town. Lots of easy pickings when you have a few battalions knocking around.

Never got that at RAF stations. You'd get an insurance salesman set up in the mess at lunchtime for a few days but after a while they stopped bothering. No great sales potential to enhance their commission.