Tennant House Insurance, is it required?

john432

Going to be renting a room through Haart Letting Agency, they are wanting me to take out house insurance,  They are offering Tenants liability cover up to £10,000 for accidental damage to the Landlords items and property that you may be legally liable for, than plus cover for my own possessions.
Is this compulsory?  as a tenant renting onw room?
Thanks

davidmcn

No, just a nice little money-earner for them.

Emmia

If you did want insurance - then I'd shop around as the policy being sold by the agent is unlikely to be best value.

Sandtree

davidmcn said:

No, just a nice little money-earner for them.

Have you seen their tenancy agreement?

Its not common but I have seen one or two tenancy agreements that require that you hold a minimum level of liability cover for the landlords property.  This is normally part of any standard Home Contents insurance (though obviously check before buying) however it sounds like you are only renting one room in a shared property? If this is the case then your options will be more limited but worth speaking to insurance/broking company aimed at students who normally deal with this type of setup.

TELLIT01

The landlord may require you to have insurance to cover any potential damage, and presumably the letting agent would simply refuse to given the tenancy to anybody refusing to show proof of insurance.  The cover being offered by the letting agency may or may not be good value, but alternative options should be looked at first.

davidmcn

Sandtree said:

davidmcn said:

No, just a nice little money-earner for them.

Have you seen their tenancy agreement?

Oh sure, a particular landlord might try to make it compulsory, but it isn't something generally required, which I presume is what the OP was asking. And if they are requiring it, I'm sure that's more because they make money on the premiums rather than because they actually want to somehow reduce the risk of uninsured damage caused by tenants.

Sandtree

davidmcn said:
Oh sure, a particular landlord might try to make it compulsory, but it isn't something generally required, which I presume is what the OP was asking. And if they are requiring it, I'm sure that's more because they make money on the premiums rather than because they actually want to somehow reduce the risk of uninsured damage caused by tenants.

Personally would more likely point the finger at the letting agent (Haart), especially as they are the one offering to provide the insurance.  Unless its a large professional landlord most just use the agents standard terms in my experience.