Is my freeholder being reasonable?

whateverIsaywill

Hi - I live in the first floor flat of a Victorian Conversion. My freeholder owns the downstairs flat and rents it out.

I've looked at the buildings insurance schedule and I've been charged 50% - but in the schedule there's insurance for things like "commercial loss of rent" and "business interruption". But that's surely because he's choosing to rent out the downstairs flat as a commercial venture and as such the buildings insurance is higher than it otherwise would be if both flats were owner occupied.
Is it reasonable for me to question this?

Thanks so much to anyone who replies.

marcia_

 I would be challenging that. You shouldn't be paying insurance against his business losses. 

whateverIsaywill

@marcia_ Thank you so much - that's what I thought - it makes logical sense.

eddddy

On the question of 'loss of rent', you might be getting 'alternative accommodation' cover instead - which is equivalent.

For example, if the building burns down and is uninhabitable for some months while it's being rebuilt...

• The insurer pays the guy downstairs, say, £1000 per month as loss of rent
• The insurer pays your rent of, say, £1000 per month for alternative accommodation

So you both get the same level of benefit.