Tenants Liability Cover

[The Selfish Gene]

SO Tenants Liability Cover

feels like a con to me

scenario

person agrees to rent a house, goes through all the appropriate checks and balances, get's accepted.

Then an email arrives stating the amount to be paid upfront (deposit and first month rent)

The documents needed to bring with for ID

and - proof of your tenants liability cover - that is NOT the same as contents insurance and is an additional insurance (con) - and you can't sign for the house without it.

How about fk off?

Which has been my advice thus far to the situation.

If the landlord is worried that damage done won't be covered by the deposit, then one would suggest they take out and pay for the extra insurance themselves.

I currently rent a few houses and wouldn't dream of asking for this insurance.

Is this a new thing?

[Marcellus]

Is the Property in the UK or France?

If France it’s the law that all tenants must have tenants liability insurance, cost is usually pretty low.

[The Selfish Gene]

Marcellus said:

Is the Property in the UK or France?

If France it’s the law that all tenants must have tenants liability insurance, cost is usually pretty low.

it's in the UK - and the tenant was quoted 180 over the year.

Which is a low amount, but the way it was done (with a link to their recommended insurer) was very distasteful

[anonymous-user]

The Selfish Gene said:

it's in the UK - and the tenant was quoted 180 over the year.

Which is a low amount, but the way it was done (with a link to their recommended insurer) was very distasteful

Just another way of pumping the tenant for a few extra quid.

[nikaiyo2]

It’s a good thing, that I insist on, after a couple of bad experiences with various deposits schemes that seem to look for any reason to not pay the landlord.

I do not look to rinse tenants of their deposits, the Insurance means if they ruin the carpet I don’t have to worry, nor does the tenant.

The fact that it is really costly from the letting agent does not make it a bad thing, like the dealer rip off GAP insurance does not make it a bad product.
Any insurer that offers tenant contents cover normally offers this as an “extra,” it’s literally a couple of £ a month.

It has also made me realise how many tenants think the landlord provides insurance cover for their property...

[Paul Drawmer]

When I worked for a large rural insurance company, their contents cover included tenants liability as standard.

[spikeyhead]

When renting, I turn up to put a final signature on the documents, pay the deposit and first months rent as agreed and then before handing over the keys the letting agents insisted that I sign to say I will insure the building, and unless I sign I don't get the keys. As the removal lorry is on the way I have no choice but to sign.

Fortunately, the letting agents are too stupid to realize that M. Mouse on the dotted line wasn't what they really needed.

[dazwalsh]

Its another scam from agents to rinse as much money from tenants as possible, no doubt with a few hundred percent markup.

I actually do very well out of tenants coming to me from agents and being pleasantly suprised that i only charge the cost price of credit checks and deposit protection (30 quid). Some of the horror stories of fees would make your stomach turn.

Tenant fees ban cant come soon enough. Ive heard the full details of the plan and it is very much welcomed.

[nikaiyo2]

dazwalsh said:

Its another scam from agents to rinse as much money from tenants as possible, no doubt with a few hundred percent markup.

I actually do very well out of tenants coming to me from agents and being pleasantly suprised that i only charge the cost price of credit checks and deposit protection (30 quid). Some of the horror stories of fees would make your stomach turn.

Tenant fees ban cant come soon enough. Ive heard the full details of the plan and it is very much welcomed.

This is not a fee, it is an insurance sold to a tenant. I have no problem with tenants not having it, but they don't live in one of my properties without.

It is actually a good product and protects the tenant for very little, if bought sensibly.

spikeyhead said:

When renting, I turn up to put a final signature on the documents, pay the deposit and first months rent as agreed and then before handing over the keys the letting agents insisted that I sign to say I will insure the building, and unless I sign I don't get the keys. As the removal lorry is on the way I have no choice but to sign.

Fortunately, the letting agents are too stupid to realize that M. Mouse on the dotted line wasn't what they really needed.

You are not being asked to insure the building, I cant imagine you have EVER actually been asked to insure the building as you dont have an insurable interest in it.

You are being asked to insure your potential liabilities for damage you may cause during the tenancy. I know if i was renting I would be happy to pay £2.50 a month to make sure I had no issues on check out.

[anonymous-user]

nikaiyo2 said:

This is not a fee, it is an insurance sold to a tenant. I have no problem with tenants not having it, but they don't live in one of my properties without.

It is actually a good product and protects the tenant for very little, if bought sensibly.

You are being asked to insure your potential liabilities for damage you may cause during the tenancy. I know if i was renting I would be happy to pay £2.50 a month to make sure I had no issues on check out.

The issue is not with the concept of Tenant's Liability Cover it's the manner of an introduction to a policy that is an order of magnitude more expensive than in needs to be so the agent/landlord can earn a significant commission.

[bristolracer]

Nice little earner if the house is an HMO, each tenant having to have it.

[Schmoopy]

Its yet another cost the tenant doesn't have a choice about though.
As for not taking it out, I have rented houses in the past I don't need to insure myself against being a fkwit and smashing the place up, because i know i am not going to do that. I happen to have contents insurance that covers accidental damage to carpets etc, I also have replaced carpets, repainted, fixed fences etc as and when they've needed through wear and tear as its my home . If i spilled red wine across the carpet, id sort it, or expect to lose some of my deposit for it.

Who arbitrates this? Do you go down as having a claim against you if a landlord fancies getting a new carpet as it needs it due to wear and tear?

Surely this insurance negates the need to have a deposit?

[The Selfish Gene]

nikaiyo2 said:

It’s a good thing, that I insist on, after a couple of bad experiences with various deposits schemes that seem to look for any reason to not pay the landlord.

I do not look to rinse tenants of their deposits, the Insurance means if they ruin the carpet I don’t have to worry, nor does the tenant.

The fact that it is really costly from the letting agent does not make it a bad thing, like the dealer rip off GAP insurance does not make it a bad product.
Any insurer that offers tenant contents cover normally offers this as an “extra,” it’s literally a couple of £ a month.

It has also made me realise how many tenants think the landlord provides insurance cover for their property...

so to be clear - I'm a landlord myself, and I would never ask for this.

If the landlord is worried the deposit doesn't meet the requirements, they need to be less precious, but the deposit up or take the insurance out themselves.

I see no reason why the tenant should.

This tenant is going to take it out to get signed up, then cancel it in the cooling off period.

It's not correct, and it won't be paid.

[spikeyhead]

nikaiyo2 said:

spikeyhead said:

When renting, I turn up to put a final signature on the documents, pay the deposit and first months rent as agreed and then before handing over the keys the letting agents insisted that I sign to say I will insure the building, and unless I sign I don't get the keys. As the removal lorry is on the way I have no choice but to sign.

Fortunately, the letting agents are too stupid to realize that M. Mouse on the dotted line wasn't what they really needed.

You are not being asked to insure the building, I cant imagine you have EVER actually been asked to insure the building as you dont have an insurable interest in it.

You are being asked to insure your potential liabilities for damage you may cause during the tenancy. I know if i was renting I would be happy to pay £2.50 a month to make sure I had no issues on check out.

I can assure you that I was asked to insure the building. I was not asked to insure against potential liabilities for damage that I may cause, but to insure a building in which I had no insurable interest. Hence why I signed "M. Mouse"

[nikaiyo2]

The Selfish Gene said:

so to be clear - I'm a landlord myself, and I would never ask for this.

If the landlord is worried the deposit doesn't meet the requirements, they need to be less precious, but the deposit up or take the insurance out themselves.

I see no reason why the tenant should.

This tenant is going to take it out to get signed up, then cancel it in the cooling off period.

It's not correct, and it won't be paid.

You make a point. I don’t take deposits any longer, as it’s not worth it.

I could arrange it, it costs £80ish a year, so will end up being £15 pcm on the rent, by the time I factor in time, potential excess etc and the fact no business busy something then sells it on for the same price.

One reason the tenant should do it is because it is vastly cheaper to include it with contents insurance. Literally nothing or a couple of £ a month. A lot of tenants seem to think their property is insured by the landlord, when it almost never is, for obvious reasons.

The main reason is it protects the tenant as much as the landlord. In the same way insurance in your own home covers you when bad things happen.

I had an incident last year where a “model” tenant caused about £1000 of very obviously accidental damage, largely down to weird non standard sized doors, with insurance it was no problem at all.
I know I certainly felt a lot more comfortable claiming that £1000 from admiral than the nice lads deposit.

It is a clause in my tenancy agreement that this insurance is in place throughout the tenancy.

[royceybaby]

nikaiyo2 said:

It is a clause in my tenancy agreement that this insurance is in place throughout the tenancy.

But if it was cancelled in the cool-off period, wouldn't you be out of luck gaining any compensation? Even worse than with an protected deposit scheme? Your only option would be small claims, but I guess that would be in your favour as it was breach of contract.

Just curious, doesn't bother or effect me either way.

[anonymous-user]

royceybaby said:

But if it was cancelled in the cool-off period, wouldn't you be out of luck gaining any compensation? Even worse than with an protected deposit scheme? Your only option would be small claims, but I guess that would be in your favour as it was breach of contract.

Just curious, doesn't bother or effect me either way.

If the insurance was purchased in a face to face transaction then there is no cooling off period

Plus of the landlord is that concerned they can buy their own cover for it.

[The Selfish Gene]

nikaiyo2 said:

You make a point. I don’t take deposits any longer, as it’s not worth it.

I could arrange it, it costs £80ish a year, so will end up being £15 pcm on the rent, by the time I factor in time, potential excess etc and the fact no business busy something then sells it on for the same price.

One reason the tenant should do it is because it is vastly cheaper to include it with contents insurance. Literally nothing or a couple of £ a month. A lot of tenants seem to think their property is insured by the landlord, when it almost never is, for obvious reasons.

The main reason is it protects the tenant as much as the landlord. In the same way insurance in your own home covers you when bad things happen.

I had an incident last year where a “model” tenant caused about £1000 of very obviously accidental damage, largely down to weird non standard sized doors, with insurance it was no problem at all.
I know I certainly felt a lot more comfortable claiming that £1000 from admiral than the nice lads deposit.

It is a clause in my tenancy agreement that this insurance is in place throughout the tenancy.

some people don't believe in contents insurance either.

I don't agree though - no way will this insurance be taken out for this property. If the landlord wants to cover their property then they are free to.