Risk Free?

[betterToDo]

For the last decade I've been renting. Always, its been with a private landlord. We're about to move, and this time round, we've come across a property managed by a letting agency..... Wow. I've been stunned by the difference.

This letting agency is little more than the insurance industry's bitch

1) As part of our "administration fee" (I can't bear to repeat what it was), I discovered we're paying to insure the landlords rent.

2) The landlord is required to hold a policy which fully insures his contents (its furnished)

3) WE are required to hold a policy which not only insures our possessions (our choice?), but also insures the landlord's possessions against accidental damage.

4) The letting agency insists we are credit checked by a third party company, and they can't do it (I don't know if this is law, it probably is)

In the past, I've sat down with the landlord, we've gone through some statements, we've agreed a deposit, occasionally I've offered one or two months in advance as a gesture of goodwill, and thats been that. I've always ended up having a good relationship with them. Cost of moving in? Zero. I'll usually hold some basic contents insurance in case the place goes up in smoke, but thats all. The valuable things in life cannot be insured.

Here, it's all different. They'll trample through my privacy as they minimise every risk discarding all respect in the process. I asked if I could just show them my statements, and even offered to pay a large chunk up front to mitigate any risk, but no. If I want to rent the property, I have to jump through the hoops. That results in completely removing any good relationship with the client or any level of trust or respect, and instead presenting everything, at a premium, into the hands of insurance companies and referencing agencies, none of whom know me from adam, and therefore all my personal data has to leave my control into the hands of people who I really mistrust to act with any integrity.

I've kicked off at every stage, but they just think I'm being difficult, and are completely unable to be flexible in any way. They can't even comprehend what risk even means. They've completely lost sight of the importance of a good tenant/landlord relationship. I end up speaking to all sorts of different people. They even said they were expecting it to become law regarding the tenant insuring the landlord's fixtures. Why should this be law? They say lots of people try not to pay their rent, but whats that got to do with me? They said it was in my interest to insure my deposit. Surely that is my choice?

Give me back my responsibilities, and accept your own risks :angry:

The letting agent won't even trust me to setup the standing order to pay the rent - *they* insist on doing it, its "policy". I'm being treated with the automatic assumption I don't intend to pay any rent, or that I'm going to treat the property with anything other than respect. They're sucking out every last bit of risk they can possibly can, and I'm paying for the "benefit", lining the pockets of insurance companies with policies I don't even want or need. Neither they nor the landlord has any need to form a good relationship with me - its ok, they're "insured". By signing the contract, I am committing to paying the rent and looking after the property. How I go about managing any risk to being able to do that should surely be my business?

The sheer quantity of money being unnecessarily syphoned off from this arrangement and the amount of people and salaries being paid as a result is staggering.

I think there is a time and place for insurance (e.g. can't argue with third party for driving for example), but when it becomes enshrined by legislation or forced upon you, the moral hazard is enormous.

[The Knimbies who say No]

yeah, it's nuts. Although I always make sure any rental offer is:

asking rent-(letting agent fees/months of initial contract) so the LL can pick up the tab, not me. In this climate, it's accepted.

I think, from the other side, you have to appreciate just how badly some tenants behave though. That said, I ain't one of them and I am prepared to incur no costs by moving in somewhere.

[moesasji]

3) WE are required to hold a policy which not only insures our possessions (our choice?), but also insures the landlord's possessions against accidental damage.

That one is in fact classed as an "unfair" contract term by the office of fair traiding and hence can't be enforced, see: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf

*) For the rest I fully agree that letting agents are a pain and seem to do little else then extract a lot of money of both renter and landlord for just putting an advert online. I still find it strange that the "new" government did not chose to ensure fairness in this market.

[Reck B]

For the last decade I've been renting. Always, its been with a private landlord. We're about to move, and this time round, we've come across a property managed by a letting agency..... Wow. I've been stunned by the difference.

This letting agency is little more than the insurance industry's bitch

Snip..

Letting agents also sell your details to insurance companies and utility switching companies etc.

i took a call from a utility switching company a few days after moving in.

"Sir, we are working with your letting agents and have noticed that you are on the most expensive energy tariff

"No thanks - i'll do all of this myself"

"But sir, we have access to special rates"

"Really, I'd prefer to have a look out there and make this choice myself, thank you for your concern"

"Sir, you won't get the rates we can fi."

"LOOK. did i request this ******ing call, you ****? I know you'll be earning commision from getting me to switch. You have a vested interest in me moving away from X supplier to Y Supplier. I've told you twice, now remove my ******ing number from your ******ing list and never bother me again."

"phone goes dead"

[leicestersq]

For the last decade I've been renting. Always, its been with a private landlord. We're about to move, and this time round, we've come across a property managed by a letting agency..... Wow. I've been stunned by the difference.

This letting agency is little more than the insurance industry's bitch

1) As part of our "administration fee" (I can't bear to repeat what it was), I discovered we're paying to insure the landlords rent.

2) The landlord is required to hold a policy which fully insures his contents (its furnished)

3) WE are required to hold a policy which not only insures our possessions (our choice?), but also insures the landlord's possessions against accidental damage.

4) The letting agency insists we are credit checked by a third party company, and they can't do it (I don't know if this is law, it probably is)

In the past, I've sat down with the landlord, we've gone through some statements, we've agreed a deposit, occasionally I've offered one or two months in advance as a gesture of goodwill, and thats been that. I've always ended up having a good relationship with them. Cost of moving in? Zero. I'll usually hold some basic contents insurance in case the place goes up in smoke, but thats all. The valuable things in life cannot be insured.

Here, it's all different. They'll trample through my privacy as they minimise every risk discarding all respect in the process. I asked if I could just show them my statements, and even offered to pay a large chunk up front to mitigate any risk, but no. If I want to rent the property, I have to jump through the hoops. That results in completely removing any good relationship with the client or any level of trust or respect, and instead presenting everything, at a premium, into the hands of insurance companies and referencing agencies, none of whom know me from adam, and therefore all my personal data has to leave my control into the hands of people who I really mistrust to act with any integrity.

I've kicked off at every stage, but they just think I'm being difficult, and are completely unable to be flexible in any way. They can't even comprehend what risk even means. They've completely lost sight of the importance of a good tenant/landlord relationship. I end up speaking to all sorts of different people. They even said they were expecting it to become law regarding the tenant insuring the landlord's fixtures. Why should this be law? They say lots of people try not to pay their rent, but whats that got to do with me? They said it was in my interest to insure my deposit. Surely that is my choice?

Give me back my responsibilities, and accept your own risks :angry:

The letting agent won't even trust me to setup the standing order to pay the rent - *they* insist on doing it, its "policy". I'm being treated with the automatic assumption I don't intend to pay any rent, or that I'm going to treat the property with anything other than respect. They're sucking out every last bit of risk they can possibly can, and I'm paying for the "benefit", lining the pockets of insurance companies with policies I don't even want or need. Neither they nor the landlord has any need to form a good relationship with me - its ok, they're "insured". By signing the contract, I am committing to paying the rent and looking after the property. How I go about managing any risk to being able to do that should surely be my business?

The sheer quantity of money being unnecessarily syphoned off from this arrangement and the amount of people and salaries being paid as a result is staggering.

I think there is a time and place for insurance (e.g. can't argue with third party for driving for example), but when it becomes enshrined by legislation or forced upon you, the moral hazard is enormous.

Fraccy,

why are you getting so annoyed about all of this?

Tell them what you want changed, or you will walk away. If they dont change what you want, walk away.

Thats all you need to do.

There is so much power in walking away, so remind them of that power, and if necessary use it.

[betterToDo]

Fraccy,

why are you getting so annoyed about all of this?

Tell them what you want changed, or you will walk away. If they dont change what you want, walk away.

Thats all you need to do.

There is so much power in walking away, so remind them of that power, and if necessary use it.

A very good point. We were I fully admit naive, not having experienced a letting agency like this before, and expecting.. well.. what we were used to. I did threaten to walk away at the start over the admin fee (they initially asked £1000, not kidding), and got that slashed, but we were naive to move forward so quickly afterwards (the start date was very soon, we really wanted to live there etc etc, foolish I know), and didn't fully comprehend much of the other crap until it was too late. Never again.

[buzzardo]

For the last decade I've been renting. Always, its been with a private landlord. We're about to move, and this time round, we've come across a property managed by a letting agency..... Wow. I've been stunned by the difference.

Where are you? This sounds horribly like our experience with Southern Property (Mis)Management in Farnham... :angry:

We just ignore them now.

What is it about letting agents? All the ones we've come across in the last twelve years (rented when we first met, renting again now,) are a bunch of sour-faced turds, who are clearly too useless, rude and unpersonable to even make it to the heady ranks of "proper" EAs.

Bit like recruitment advertising agencies, in a way - all the sh!t sinks to the bottom...

B

[crashpope]

Tell them to ****** off, and tell the landlord why you declined to rent the property.

[Meat Puppet]

Tell them to ****** off, and tell the landlord why you declined to rent the property.

This works. Also do some research and find the professional landlords in your area with multiple properties and tell them next time a property becomes available you will pay a year up front. Dress nicely and bring the family along so they don't think you are a drug dealer (even if you are). You could get a tremendous deal. Many landlords I have met hate these leeches just as much as we renters do.

From experience renting is far easier in America, but there if you miss the rent you might have some 300 lb behemoth with a baseball bat around who will chuck you onto the streets at midnight.

[200p]

Letting agents also sell your details to insurance companies and utility switching companies etc.

i took a call from a utility switching company a few days after moving in.

"Sir, we are working with your letting agents and have noticed that you are on the most expensive energy tariff

"No thanks - i'll do all of this myself"

"But sir, we have access to special rates"

"Really, I'd prefer to have a look out there and make this choice myself, thank you for your concern"

"Sir, you won't get the rates we can fi."

"LOOK. did i request this ******ing call, you ****? I know you'll be earning commision from getting me to switch. You have a vested interest in me moving away from X supplier to Y Supplier. I've told you twice, now remove my ******ing number from your ******ing list and never bother me again."

"phone goes dead"

They are trained to extract three separate "NO"s before giving up a lead. Just calmly say no three times. You didn't quite get there!

Did you know? Canvassing needs to churn through 14 people, for just 1 successful lead. Pure numbers game.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Money Spinner

[spiral]

They're sucking out every last bit of risk they can possibly can

This is what all businesses strive for. Many people on here castigate amateur landlords and praise professional landlords that run their portfolios as a proper business, so you cant blame them when they employ good business principles.

You cant have it both ways.

[Zngland]

For the last decade I've been renting. Always, its been with a private landlord. We're about to move, and this time round, we've come across a property managed by a letting agency..... Wow. I've been stunned by the difference.

This letting agency is little more than the insurance industry's bitch

1) As part of our "administration fee" (I can't bear to repeat what it was), I discovered we're paying to insure the landlords rent.

2) The landlord is required to hold a policy which fully insures his contents (its furnished)

3) WE are required to hold a policy which not only insures our possessions (our choice?), but also insures the landlord's possessions against accidental damage.

4) The letting agency insists we are credit checked by a third party company, and they can't do it (I don't know if this is law, it probably is)

In the past, I've sat down with the landlord, we've gone through some statements, we've agreed a deposit, occasionally I've offered one or two months in advance as a gesture of goodwill, and thats been that. I've always ended up having a good relationship with them. Cost of moving in? Zero. I'll usually hold some basic contents insurance in case the place goes up in smoke, but thats all. The valuable things in life cannot be insured.

Here, it's all different. They'll trample through my privacy as they minimise every risk discarding all respect in the process. I asked if I could just show them my statements, and even offered to pay a large chunk up front to mitigate any risk, but no. If I want to rent the property, I have to jump through the hoops. That results in completely removing any good relationship with the client or any level of trust or respect, and instead presenting everything, at a premium, into the hands of insurance companies and referencing agencies, none of whom know me from adam, and therefore all my personal data has to leave my control into the hands of people who I really mistrust to act with any integrity.

I've kicked off at every stage, but they just think I'm being difficult, and are completely unable to be flexible in any way. They can't even comprehend what risk even means. They've completely lost sight of the importance of a good tenant/landlord relationship. I end up speaking to all sorts of different people. They even said they were expecting it to become law regarding the tenant insuring the landlord's fixtures. Why should this be law? They say lots of people try not to pay their rent, but whats that got to do with me? They said it was in my interest to insure my deposit. Surely that is my choice?

Give me back my responsibilities, and accept your own risks :angry:

The letting agent won't even trust me to setup the standing order to pay the rent - *they* insist on doing it, its "policy". I'm being treated with the automatic assumption I don't intend to pay any rent, or that I'm going to treat the property with anything other than respect. They're sucking out every last bit of risk they can possibly can, and I'm paying for the "benefit", lining the pockets of insurance companies with policies I don't even want or need. Neither they nor the landlord has any need to form a good relationship with me - its ok, they're "insured". By signing the contract, I am committing to paying the rent and looking after the property. How I go about managing any risk to being able to do that should surely be my business?

The sheer quantity of money being unnecessarily syphoned off from this arrangement and the amount of people and salaries being paid as a result is staggering.

I think there is a time and place for insurance (e.g. can't argue with third party for driving for example), but when it becomes enshrined by legislation or forced upon you, the moral hazard is enormous.

lots of tenants see landlords as the enemy, they are not ,

their house / investment is something to be respected.

Too many renters are "home trashing "axxxxxxxs.

etc etc etc insurance lawyers sort it out £££££

[EUBanana]

Similar experiences though it wasn't nearly as bad as yours. Didn't have to pay any mandatory insurance. Did have to go through the whole rigmarole regarding utilities and then trying to get me to change. Setting up the standing order was a frickin' nightmare, and the contract had to be signed by about a gazillion people. On every page. With private landlords directly I've gotten away with a handshake at times, I've never, ever had to do anything like signing that massive form every other sentence.

Had to stump up quite an eyewatering sum in fees upon moving in as well. This kinda cankered as the letting agency staff were amazingly incompetent. Couldn't even use a frickin' printer sort of incompetent. Clearly they don't even deserve the minimum wage.

The actual rent is perhaps slightly over the market rate but only slightly. Avid dealhunters would likely have done a bit better.

Time was very limited - I was enduring a hellacious commute until I could move - so I didn't really have a whole lot of choice in the matter, also the property in question was absolutely ideal and was the only one I could find in the right part of town. But if I have any say in it at all, I'll never use a letting agency again.

[betterToDo]

lots of tenants see landlords as the enemy, they are not ,

their house / investment is something to be respected.

Too many renters are "home trashing "axxxxxxxs.

etc etc etc insurance lawyers sort it out £££££

But I don't see the private landlord as the enemy at all. In this case, I met him by chance very briefly when I was shown round, he seemed decent, but he lives abroad hence the agency.

My last two landlords (4 years and 3 years respectively) have been great, got on famously, never argued, always paid on time, I respect the property and always return it clean, they've always fixed stuff for me etc. I go the extra yard for them where I can because I like them, and they treat me with respect. I miss it already.

My point was this letting agency are totally destroying all that, trying to swindle fees at every turn, demanding insurance and third party companies to do everything (and taking a cut on top) etc etc. It leaves a very nasty taste. Anyway, the property is worth hassle, I just think its sad. Maybe there are decent letting agents out there somewhere?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Fraccy

[betterToDo]

Where are you? This sounds horribly like our experience with Southern Property (Mis)Management in Farnham

This is about Parkers in Reading. They're HomeLet's bitch.

To the person who mentioned the OFT, that's very interesting, and yes they are indeed breaking the OFT guidance:

4.8 - unnecessary insurance requirements - we consider that whether tenants wish to insure their own personal belongings is a matter for them and that it is unreasonable for the landlord to make this a contractual requirement.

Does that mean anything though? Will they even care about breaking it, they must already know they are?

Edited July 17, 2010 by Fraccy

[betterToDo]

Just for completeness and for anyone else who takes issue with a similar thing, I spoke to Consumer Direct (arm of the OFT) about the agent making the type of insurance the tenant has a contractual requirement. They confirmed the term is considered unfair, and advised if they continue to insist, I can agree to it but get it in writing that it is done under protest, which forms the basis for a complaint.

It is just a setup to do everything possible to get you to buy the policy they thrust under your nose, without actually stipulating in the contract you buy from a particular insurer (which is against the law). By coincidence HomeLet then cold-called me trying to sell me their policy. They admitted it is them that insist on the contract clause with about 3000 agents (HomeLet's bitches). Its not the worst scam in the world, but it is certainly unethical. Nothing wrong with advising you get contents insurance (and I already have a basic policy), but insisting, and happening to insist it be the most expensive type of policy is not very pleasant.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Letting Agents fees can be expected to rise to the moon.

Most lettings agents are part of an estate agents operation.

With no houses selling, estate agents are making jack schit.

They are ramping up letting agents fees to subsidise the loss making estate agent business.

[rxe]

As a landlord, letting agencies are an absolute pain in the **** - but a necessary evil as they seem to find the tenants. They gouge you every which way, and they seem to gouge the tenant as well. I have a simple rule when we get a new tenant: I give them my number and tell them to call me first. Generally this solves the worst of the idiocy from the agent.

[BLT]

They're sucking out every last bit of risk they can possibly can

This is what all businesses strive for. Many people on here castigate amateur landlords and praise professional landlords that run their portfolios as a proper business, so you cant blame them when they employ good business principles.

You cant have it both ways.

The problem is that they arn't though!

I have erm, a bit of a confession here, I was involved in the pricing of a BTL product for a major insurer and it's one of the biggest scams going. It will be the next thing to hit the headlines after the PPI scandal.

heres are the facts, the payout rates on BTL policies is 2%, the insurance industry standard for home insurance is 60-70% on standard residental policies.

rent guarantee is the biggest scam, this is rarely paid out, at the company I was at, we had 50,000 policies, over the past 5 years we had 125,000 policies, we had approx 10,000 claims for for rent guarantee, we only ever paid out 6 policies for less than £10k out of £20,000,000 worth of premiums!

Why is that ? because simply if a LL does his job properly he should never be out of pocket on the rent, i.e. serving the proper notices. if you dont follow the correct procedures, thus are out of pocket because of it, the insurance will refuse to pay.

In fact think about it, if the insurance company don't make it next to impossible to pay rent guarantee, then it creates a moral hazard for the LL not to chase upon arrears

Accidental damage is never paid out, why ? because you can sue your tenant (deduct from deposit for that), hence why Im guessing the OP is being asked to insure the LL possessions, which is another problem IIRC it's a fundamental principal of insurance that you can't insure someone else or their belongings.

Contrary to what many BTL'ers think, Malicous damage by the tenant is not covered, why ? simple, you know who done the MD so sue them/deduct from deposit.

basically the whole T+C's of the policy means that there is a way the insurance company can wriggle out of paying.

We had it almost 100% watertight, and now heres the biggest scandal as it's a product we didn't ever intend on payout, we outsourced the claims procedure to a third party who basically went off a script of how to refuse a payout. Only very rarely did someone get paid out and trust me those that did, had wait a very long time and work very hard to get the payout.

Yes, Im sh!t, but the upside was seeing all of these BTL'ers being screwed over, either through worthess premiums or even better when they had a tenant who had done 10k's worth of damage and the LL didnt get a bean. In fact BTL insurance tends to make LL's more relaxed thus increasing the chances of being out of pocket and it's usually the preserve of the amateur LL.

The best bit about these policies is that LL's think that by taking a policy they are covering every angle that the almost risk free properdee business can be made 100% risk free, which is why they are so popular. Only, only if they knew

[betterToDo]

The problem is that they arn't though!

...

What a disgrace, but I don't know why I rather enjoyed hearing that

[happily renting]

WE are required to hold a policy which not only insures our possessions (our choice?), but also insures the landlord's possessions against accidental damage.

There was a similar requirement in our rental agreement when we moved in. We paid as we loved the place and didn't think we had a choice, though it was an almost useless policy.

We paid without complaining for a number of years, a small annoyance on writing the cheque and then forgotten until the next time, until one year the premium almost doubled. Rang the agents and said we wanted to drop the insurance altogether, making the argument that undoubtedly the landlord (a large trust) had their own insurance anyway*; if we damaged the property, that's what a security deposit is for; and we couldn't see why it was anybody's business whether or not we insured our own possessions. They allowed us to drop it.

They've said from the beginning that we're supposed to pay our rent by standing order. We've ignored this from the beginning.

Last year they suddenly wanted a recurring £50 administrative fee for - well, for nothing. For just doing business with them. It's a Countrywide thing (the agents had been bought by them). We complained to the landlord/trust. Because of our complaint the landlord decreed that none of their tenants would be paying the fee.

They also introduced a new agreement. We went through this line by line crossing out anything we didn't like, such as agreeing to keep our kitchen utensils clean, washing the windows once a month, etc. It may have been boilerplate but it was irritating; they could see that we keep the place in good order. There was some back and forth on our alterations to the 'agreement' - you're supposed to agree with an agreement before you sign, it, right? - but in the end we wore them down.

They leave us alone now.

* I can see that this may have been invalid, given what BLT has posted about accidental damage never being paid out, but it seemed weird and wrong to me to be paying to insure somebody else's stuff.

Edited July 18, 2010 by happily renting

[munro]

As far as I can see from the OP, my experience is that this is completely normal. I had to get someone I work for to stand personally as rent guarantor for my last flat because of the stupidity of the referencing agency. I'm a freelancer, so I gave them the contact details for a cast-iron contract. I earn far more than needed to cover the rent. I checked with the people I gave as reference that they would supply it when asked. The only problem is, the agency phoned up and asked for a reference. Now the people I work for are very rich and they don't discuss their business over the phone. Result; the agency decline my reference, which means that the insurance policy on the landlord's rent can't be activated. This has taken so long that I'm about to be homeless with all my stuff in the back of a rented van. At the last minute I had to get someone else I work for to stand as a personal guarantor as a favour to me.

i

Now I'm 46 years old, have an excellent credit rating, and could have paid the whole six months in cash up front if I'd had any reason to trust the LL. But I have no reason to trust the LL whatsoever as all the credit checking is a one-way process. I was told by the letting agent that someone could stand as guarantor who earned at least £20k pa. The rent was £6240 pa; so how did they expect someone earning £20k pa to pay up to cover me if I didn't pay? The whole thing was a total farce. When the letting agent asked for their fees I said I should get a discount because of their incompetence. Oh no, computer says no. Pay up or you don't get the flat.

Complete and utter t*ss*rs. At the moment I'm trying to work out how to buy an over-priced house in no small measure because I don't want to have to deal with the stupid, stupid w*nk*rs who "trade" as letting agents ever again. There might be 10% rogue tenants but in my experience there's 90% rogue LLs and LAs.

[corevalue]

They also introduced a new agreement. We went through this line by line crossing out anything we didn't like, such as agreeing to keep our kitchen utensils clean, washing the windows once a month, etc. It may have been boilerplate but it was irritating; they could see that we keep the place in good order. There was some back and forth on our alterations to the 'agreement' - you're supposed to agree with an agreement before you sign, it, right? - but in the end we wore them down.

They leave us alone now.

People should be more prepared to read through the small print of rental agreements and strike out anything they are not happy with. Very often it is just boilerplate which doesn't reflect the conditions of the individual property. Years ago, when leasing a commercial builidng on a new industrial estate, just being converted from farm units, we found a clause in the agreement that could be interpreted as the tenants being liable to pay (cash, when demanded) for the infrastructure of the next and larger phase of development. We took it back to our solicitor, who it appeared had not read the thing in the first place, and said we should strike it out.

Next thing we know, the landlord appears, absolutely apologetic for wasting our time and mnoney - saying that he'd ripped a new orifice into his solicitor for putting the clause(s) in the document in the first place - there was more than one glaring error. His lawyer had simply copied a piece of cover-all boilerplate and charged him plenty, and had not followed the original instruction properly.

[betterToDo]

Complete and utter t*ss*rs. At the moment I'm trying to work out how to buy an over-priced house in no small measure because I don't want to have to deal with the stupid, stupid w*nk*rs who "trade" as letting agents ever again. There might be 10% rogue tenants but in my experience there's 90% rogue LLs and LAs.

I think I've had more luck than you with landlords in the past, though I've heard the stories.

My worry is that continued lobbying from the insurance industry will get increasing amounts of this crap not only considered as normal, but also enshrined in legislation.

Its just exhausting when they're trying to screw you at every turn it's made life a misery recently. It would be nice if there were a search term on the property sites that let you filter out these managed properties. Search technology needs to be leveraged in the right direction. If people like HomeLet like to collect information on me and sell it, it'd be nice if we collected information on them too. I'd definitely uncheck the "Managed by HomeLet Fluffer" option for starters.

[BLT]

Heres a typical policy with it's killer clauses

http://www.gicentre.co.uk/pdfs/BTL%20KF%202010.07.col.pdf

WHAT IS NOT COVERED

Malicious acts and theft caused

by tenants.

Loss or damage resulting directly

from the home being used for any

illegal purpose.

The costs of replacing any undamaged

or unbroken item or parts of items

forming part of a set, suite or other

article of uniform nature, colour or

design if damage occurs within a

clearly identifiable area or to a specific

part and it is not possible to match

replacements

High risk property such as TVs,

pictures, works of art and clocks

Benefit will not be paid for legal

expenses where:

i) There are insufficient prospects

of success.

Benefit will not be paid for rent

guarantee for:

i) Any claim which would be excluded

under the legal expenses cover.

"insufficient prospects" is the real favourite, landlords if any of you are reading this, have a good think about this, if you have "sufficient prospects" of success would you need the cover.

essentially you are not covered for anything your tenant does, the only recourse you have is to sue the tenant,to do so you need "sufficient prospects", do you honestly think if you have had the tenant from hell you will have sufficient prospects of success ?