We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Could a malicious damage insurance clause cause issues with a bridging loan?
Legacy_user
Posts: 0 Newbie
I've applied to receive a bridging loan on an investment buy to let property which is empty due to being part way through a light refurbishment.
The insurance doesn't cover malicious damage when it's unoccupied which means it's not insured against this type of damage currently. This seems to be a fairly standard clause for buy to let insurance.
Does anybody know if it's likely that the bank supplying the bridging loan will pick this up and is there a probability they will require malicious damage to be covered when the house is empty?
The insurance doesn't cover malicious damage when it's unoccupied which means it's not insured against this type of damage currently. This seems to be a fairly standard clause for buy to let insurance.
Does anybody know if it's likely that the bank supplying the bridging loan will pick this up and is there a probability they will require malicious damage to be covered when the house is empty?
0
Comments
-
Irrespective of the lender's attitude, would you personally not want your policy to cover malicious damage?
I'm about to start a renovation (sale not yet Complete) and am looking around at insurers, and I certainly would want that included.
(BTW - anyone recommend an insurer.....!?)0 -
Irrespective of the lender's attitude, would you personally not want your policy to cover malicious damage?
I'm about to start a renovation (sale not yet Complete) and am looking around at insurers, and I certainly would want that included.
(BTW - anyone recommend an insurer.....!?)
Indeed GM I do agree with your point about wanting this type of cover regardless of the lender's attitude however I needed to get cover hastily to avoid being without cover which resulted in my current cover which has the "malicious damage when unoccupied" exclusion clause.
It seems to be a fairly "standard clause" in buy to let insurance and I'm not sure where to get it from.
Likewise I'd also appreciate it if anybody can recommend an insuranceThis is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Their solicitor will probably check, yes. No idea what is a normal requirement though for this scenario - you'd need to check your lender's conditions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards