2nd Home Insurance for Family Member

Rothwell_Rebel

We have a 2nd home that once upon a time we used to let out via a professional letting agency. 

The home is not mortgaged and my Son now lives in the home full time.  He is employed full time.

As it's our son, he doesn't pay rent, just the day-to-day bills.  Therefore;

1.  We cannot get 'Landlords Insurance' as we cannot provide a tenancy agreement. 

2.  We cannot get 'Home Insurance' as it is not my main residence. 

3.  My son cannot get 'Buildings Insurance' in his name as he doesn't own the property.

There must be countless people in this same situation like us here in the UK.  I'm baffled why trying to get insurance for this scenario is like pulling teeth(!).  NIGHTMARE!

DullGreyGuy

Rothwell_Rebel said:

3.  My son cannot get 'Buildings Insurance' in his name as he doesn't own the property.

There must be countless people in this same situation like us here in the UK.  I'm baffled why trying to get insurance for this scenario is like pulling teeth(!).  NIGHTMARE!

He doesn't need to own it, he must have an insurable interest in it. 

You can draw up a simple contract that he has the right to live in the property rent free in exchange for him being responsible for maintaining the property including insuring it. Technically with no payment at all it would need to be a deed (so signatures witnessed) but you can do the classic one time £1 payment to make it a contract. 

user1977

There are insurers who cover this sort of scenario, LV+ did so for me in recent years.

FlorayG

Give him a tenancy agreement. A friend of mine has one in a similar circumstance, it says she pays £1 a year. It's still legal ( although remember you then need to comply with legal obligations of a landlord)

user1977

FlorayG said:

Give him a tenancy agreement. A friend of mine has one in a similar circumstance, it says she pays £1 a year. It's still legal ( although remember you then need to comply with legal obligations of a landlord)

For what it's worth, my premium was lower as the "non-landlord" option, so it may be cheaper not to turn it into a proper tenancy - presumably the risk would be less than for an unrelated tenant.