Being forced to take an insurance to rent

doodling

Hi,

I can't see that there is any breach of contract.

The requirement to buy insurance is highly likely to be unlawful and therefore unenforceable as it is effectively an additional fee relating to the tenancy, no matter who it is payable to.  If the landlord wanted to insure his possessions against accidental damage then he could have done so and included the costs in the rent.

The tenant is not required to insure the landlords property.  They may choose to do so but it is not compulsory.  In general the deposit is intended to provide a level of "insurance" for the landlord.

In the OP's situation (i.e. where the tenancy has already started) I would simply decline to take out any insurance and see what happens.  There is a risk that the landlord might issue a S21 once the fixed term comes to an end but then that risk is always present.

SpiderLegs

Sandtree said:

SpiderLegs said:

Well you signed the tenancy agreement so you can’t really argue that you weren't told about it

But regardless, they can’t force you to take out insurance (and for something which you have no insurable interest in).

The OP has an insurable interest in damage they cause to the LL's property as their tenancy agreement will create a legal liability.

Yes the OP can insure themselves against damage that they are liable for if they so wish.

Which is different to trying to insure someone else’s property against any accidental damage.

SpiderLegs

Uriziel said:

SpiderLegs said:

Well you signed the tenancy agreement so you can’t really argue that you weren't told about it

But regardless, they can’t force you to take out insurance (and for something which you have no insurable interest in).

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tenant-fees-act

The aim of the Act is to reduce the costs that tenants can face at the outset, and throughout, a tenancy. Tenants will be able to see, at a glance, what a given property will cost them in the advertised rent with no hidden costs.

Could you please head over to Rightmove and show not only me but the entire country how you view rent and insurance cost 'at a glance' before viewing the property, paying the holding deposit which is everything that happens before you see the contract?

This is very clearly a breach of this act.

I’m not really sure what you are saying. What do you want me to do? 

Get the instance if you want, don’t get it if you don’t want. Get it and then cancel it if you fancy being sneaky. Whether it’s legal or not isn't going to make any difference to your situation. 

Sandtree

doodling said:

Hi,

I can't see that there is any breach of contract.

The requirement to buy insurance is highly likely to be unlawful and therefore unenforceable as it is effectively an additional fee relating to the tenancy, no matter who it is payable to.  If the landlord wanted to insure his possessions against accidental damage then he could have done so and included the costs in the rent.

The tenant is not required to insure the landlords property.  They may choose to do so but it is not compulsory.  In general the deposit is intended to provide a level of "insurance" for the landlord.

In the OP's situation (i.e. where the tenancy has already started) I would simply decline to take out any insurance and see what happens.  There is a risk that the landlord might issue a S21 once the fixed term comes to an end but then that risk is always present.

Being forced to take the insurance offered by the letting agent is likely to be unenforceable but I doubt the requirement to have some insurance of a comparable level isnt, just like the case in the minority of leasehold properties.

As to the deposit... most deposits are 1.5 months rent and with the median private rent in the UK being circa £700/month that equates to £1,050... doesnt take that much to cause much more damage than that, especially in a furnished property. Plus you'll have those that dont pay all their rent so the £1,050 goes even less far against damage they've caused.

SpiderLegs said:

Sandtree said:

SpiderLegs said:

Well you signed the tenancy agreement so you can’t really argue that you weren't told about it

But regardless, they can’t force you to take out insurance (and for something which you have no insurable interest in).

The OP has an insurable interest in damage they cause to the LL's property as their tenancy agreement will create a legal liability.

Yes the OP can insure themselves against damage that they are liable for if they so wish.

Which is different to trying to insure someone else’s property against any accidental damage.

We havent seen the exact wording in the tenancy agreement to see word for word what it states but LL Liability cover in home insurance is exactly that, covering your accidental damage to the landlords property. Most "accidents" are not considered such under the tort of negligence but even outside that the tenancy agreement can create a liability for any damage caused by the tenant even without negligence. 

youth_leader

I was in such a tizz when I rented for the first time I didn't dispute this, I also got a call from the rental agency's insurance broker, and did sign up.  £20 per month for a two bed cottage, I'm now paying less for a three bed bungalow.

breaking_free

PM sent. Check your inbox

doodling

Hi,

Sandtree said:

doodling said:

Hi,

I can't see that there is any breach of contract.

The requirement to buy insurance is highly likely to be unlawful and therefore unenforceable as it is effectively an additional fee relating to the tenancy, no matter who it is payable to.  If the landlord wanted to insure his possessions against accidental damage then he could have done so and included the costs in the rent.

The tenant is not required to insure the landlords property.  They may choose to do so but it is not compulsory.  In general the deposit is intended to provide a level of "insurance" for the landlord.

In the OP's situation (i.e. where the tenancy has already started) I would simply decline to take out any insurance and see what happens.  There is a risk that the landlord might issue a S21 once the fixed term comes to an end but then that risk is always present.

Being forced to take the insurance offered by the letting agent is likely to be unenforceable but I doubt the requirement to have some insurance of a comparable level isnt, just like the case in the minority of leasehold properties.

As to the deposit... most deposits are 1.5 months rent and with the median private rent in the UK being circa £700/month that equates to £1,050... doesnt take that much to cause much more damage than that, especially in a furnished property. Plus you'll have those that dont pay all their rent so the £1,050 goes even less far against damage they've caused.

One of the challenges of running a property rental business.  I can't see how a general insurance clause would be enforceable.  Also note that it would be the tenant who is insured and therefore any claims would be at their discretion so that is of no help to the landlord.  The moment you require insurance in favour of the landlord then I think you run into tenancy fees issues.

SpiderLegs said:

Sandtree said:

SpiderLegs said:

Well you signed the tenancy agreement so you can’t really argue that you weren't told about it

But regardless, they can’t force you to take out insurance (and for something which you have no insurable interest in).

The OP has an insurable interest in damage they cause to the LL's property as their tenancy agreement will create a legal liability.

Yes the OP can insure themselves against damage that they are liable for if they so wish.

Which is different to trying to insure someone else’s property against any accidental damage.

We havent seen the exact wording in the tenancy agreement to see word for word what it states but LL Liability cover in home insurance is exactly that, covering your accidental damage to the landlords property. Most "accidents" are not considered such under the tort of negligence but even outside that the tenancy agreement can create a liability for any damage caused by the tenant even without negligence. 

It is up to the tenant whether they want to insure themselves, not the landlord.  If the tenant is insured then the landlord is in no better a financial position than if they were not - the landlord has no right to claim on the tenants insurance.  In fact, there is more likelihood that an insured tenant will be legally represented than an uninsured one so much more chance that they will not pay for damage that does not arise through negligence.

Uriziel

Sandtree said:

We havent seen the exact wording in the tenancy agreement to see word for word what it states but LL Liability cover in home insurance is exactly that, covering your accidental damage to the landlords property. Most "accidents" are not considered such under the tort of negligence but even outside that the tenancy agreement can create a liability for any damage caused by the tenant even without negligence. 

A lot of people are talking about the exact wording so here is exactly what it says regarding the insurance.

To hold adequate insurance to protect against accidental damage caused by the Tenant to the Landlords Fixtures and Fittings at the Premises as described in the Check-in Inventory and Schedule of Condition. The Tenant should also consider insuring their own possessions.

Sandtree

doodling said:

Hi,

Sandtree said:

doodling said:

Hi,

I can't see that there is any breach of contract.

The requirement to buy insurance is highly likely to be unlawful and therefore unenforceable as it is effectively an additional fee relating to the tenancy, no matter who it is payable to.  If the landlord wanted to insure his possessions against accidental damage then he could have done so and included the costs in the rent.

The tenant is not required to insure the landlords property.  They may choose to do so but it is not compulsory.  In general the deposit is intended to provide a level of "insurance" for the landlord.

In the OP's situation (i.e. where the tenancy has already started) I would simply decline to take out any insurance and see what happens.  There is a risk that the landlord might issue a S21 once the fixed term comes to an end but then that risk is always present.

Being forced to take the insurance offered by the letting agent is likely to be unenforceable but I doubt the requirement to have some insurance of a comparable level isnt, just like the case in the minority of leasehold properties.

As to the deposit... most deposits are 1.5 months rent and with the median private rent in the UK being circa £700/month that equates to £1,050... doesnt take that much to cause much more damage than that, especially in a furnished property. Plus you'll have those that dont pay all their rent so the £1,050 goes even less far against damage they've caused.

One of the challenges of running a property rental business.  I can't see how a general insurance clause would be enforceable.  Also note that it would be the tenant who is insured and therefore any claims would be at their discretion so that is of no help to the landlord.  The moment you require insurance in favour of the landlord then I think you run into tenancy fees issues.

SpiderLegs said:

Sandtree said:

SpiderLegs said:

Well you signed the tenancy agreement so you can’t really argue that you weren't told about it

But regardless, they can’t force you to take out insurance (and for something which you have no insurable interest in).

The OP has an insurable interest in damage they cause to the LL's property as their tenancy agreement will create a legal liability.

Yes the OP can insure themselves against damage that they are liable for if they so wish.

Which is different to trying to insure someone else’s property against any accidental damage.

We havent seen the exact wording in the tenancy agreement to see word for word what it states but LL Liability cover in home insurance is exactly that, covering your accidental damage to the landlords property. Most "accidents" are not considered such under the tort of negligence but even outside that the tenancy agreement can create a liability for any damage caused by the tenant even without negligence. 

It is up to the tenant whether they want to insure themselves, not the landlord.  If the tenant is insured then the landlord is in no better a financial position than if they were not - the landlord has no right to claim on the tenants insurance.  In fact, there is more likelihood that an insured tenant will be legally represented than an uninsured one so much more chance that they will not pay for damage that does not arise through negligence.

Absolutely, EL and Motor are the only two classes with direct access by the claimant however that doesnt stop there being a legal requirement in certain circumstances for PL to be held by business (eg horseriding schools) in addition to many cases where there is a contractual obligation for a person to have PL (eg renting a market stall).

Its somewhat a double edge sword, whilst in theory an insured tenant could be lawyered up the reality is that the policy limits are typically £5k and as such are  small track amounts and so legal fees are irrecoverable. Unless there is concern of precedent an insurer wont pay substantial legal fees which are lost win or lose to defend claims too heavily.

The reality however is that an uninsured person is much more likely to go to ground, declare they cannot afford the damages above the deposit value etc than an insured person, afterall its not their money. You see the same trend in comparing hit and run accidents -v- where parties stop, proportion of uninsured cases are much higher in the first.

Hedgepigs

Uriziel said:

Sandtree said:

We havent seen the exact wording in the tenancy agreement to see word for word what it states but LL Liability cover in home insurance is exactly that, covering your accidental damage to the landlords property. Most "accidents" are not considered such under the tort of negligence but even outside that the tenancy agreement can create a liability for any damage caused by the tenant even without negligence. 

A lot of people are talking about the exact wording so here is exactly what it says regarding the insurance.

To hold adequate insurance to protect against accidental damage caused by the Tenant to the Landlords Fixtures and Fittings at the Premises as described in the Check-in Inventory and Schedule of Condition. The Tenant should also consider insuring their own possessions.

OK so you are a tenant rather than a lodger (it wasn't clear in your original post) so it would be a lot if hassle to get you out for breach of this. Certainly don't just buy whatever the agent is peddling you. 

HOWEVER it is likely a good idea to get some contents and liability insurance regardless. Use comparison websites and sites like top cashback have good deals so you can get pretty cheaply for the year (I have never paid more than around £5 a month).