Household Insurance Definitions

[noddynoo]

If a policy said Household Main residence sole occupancy no lets how would you interpret that? WOuld you think it meant the 3 joint policy holders had to be resident for it to be valid?

[hc4361]

Yes. Is it buildings, contents or both? Why isn't the third person resident?

[noddynoo]

The third person is the freeholder who arranges the insurance for the building She says she lives there but its let and has been 3x this year

[hc4361]

She needs Landlords' Insurance which is usually more expensive.

It is common in this situation for the landlord to insure the building in her own name as landlord, and the tenant to insure their contents unless it is rented as 'fully furnished' where the landlord would insure both buildings and contents and the tenant have a cheaper possessions insurance.

[noddynoo]

She has never had landlords and its been let repeatedly She lives abroad and doesn't have to tolerate these people plus keeps telling us she is moving back in soon but neighbours say its been let years

[bhg481]

Some people let out part of their property. The policy in question will not cover that situation.THey are only looking to insure "conventional" households ie, those where a single family lives.

[noddynoo]

She lets her 1 bed out and we live upstairs in the 2 bed maisonette. It says no lets but maybe she has told them and it wasn't updated Herself and me and my husband are named on policy as sole occupants but she has never lived there

[hc4361]

I strongly recommend you take out contents insurance in the names of you and your husband only. If there is a burglary or fire you need to be covered.

[noddynoo]

what about buildings? We have paid £200 and could it be void with tenants?

[bhg481]

If you have a separate entrance, so that your part of the property cannot be accessed by anyone other than yourselves, I think that would be OK for contents cover. Insurers are wary of insuring contents when someone else has access. For instance, a student in a hall of residence might have problems because cleaners come into the building and leave doors open whilst they're cleaning, so people can get into the room.

[noddynoo]

so do you think the buildings insurance for the property is ok even though it says no lets and it is? I have contents of my own so thats ok If there is a fire with tenants and the insurance co haven't been iformed I would think policy null and void

[hc4361]

The building insurance is no concern of yours as you don't own the property. You should refuse to contribute in any way - it is for the landlord's benefit, not yours.

[noddynoo]

I do own it

[hc4361]

I was under the impression that you and your husband are the tenants and the owner lives abroad.

What is the actual situation?

[bhg481]

I'm not an expert; I was only interpreting the condition you specified. I think the best plan is to get in touch with the insurance company and explain the position. I would have thought it was the owner's job to insure the buildings and the tenants to insure their own belongings. If there is another tenant I would have thought that they should contribute to the buidings insurance if the owner says you are responsible.

[noddynoo]

Period house divided in 2. We bought upstairs 2 bed last summer leasehold (long). When we bought we asked who lives ds agent said freeholder she is away atm due back in a few weeks Once we moved in we realised freeholder had never lived there. But policy says we all do. I paid the demand in October and the only amendment to policy was to add mine and my husbands names no mention of tenants. Now we are worried the policy isn;t valid We pay two thirds of the policy but she organises it Sorry for the confusion I am so appreciative of your advice The insurance is organised via a friend of hers a broker and she told me that the insurance do know its let but the actual insurance company sent me a copy of the schedule and it says no lets sole occupancy

[bhg481]

I'm getting as confused as hc4361 now.

noddynoo //She lets her 1 bed out and we live upstairs in the 2 bed maisonette. It says no lets but maybe she has told them and it wasn't updated Herself and me and my husband are named on policy as sole occupants but she has never lived there //

Who is "she" and who is "we"?

[bhg481]

I think you need to see the broker and get it sorted out properly. For argument's sake, suppose you had a water leak which flooded downstairs; would they pay up. Bearing in mind that insurance companies' first loyalty is to their shareholders they can find excuses not to pay out, you need to get it in writing from the broker that you are covered.

[noddynoo]

She is freeholder owns basement but lets it under the policy we all share. We is me and my husband we own upstairs bought last summer . I am not sure how to explain it We split the insurance but she organises it. the insurance paperwork all says household no lets and she has said she lives there but she doesn;t and never has. I want to know if policy is valid if she isn;t living there as stated on the schedule

[woofgang]

You need to talk to the insurer. They are the only ones who can give you an answer.

[New Judge]

As I understand it the property is divided into two flats. One is occupied by Mr & Mrs Noddynoo, who have bought a lease. The other is occupied by somebody else. The freeholder (“she”) is not that somebody else. She lives abroad and has never lived in the other flat but she has told her insurers that she does.

Mr & Mrs Noddynoo contribute two thirds of the buildings insurance premium (which has three joint policyholders, the Noddynoos and “she” who lives abroad). Hope I’m following this OK.

In my view a false declaration has been made to obtain the buildings cover. “She”, as one of the joint policyholders, has declared that she lives in the property (in the other flat) and she does not. She is clearly an absent landlord who has sold a lease to Mr & Mrs Noddynoo for one flat and is renting out the other.

Noddynoo, you need to contact the insurers and acquaint them of the situation. It may be they are happy to continue with cover under the new circumstances or it may be they are not. One thing is fairly sure: if they are not informed and the building burns down leaving it a total loss you may find you will have no compensation for the lease you hold on a pile of rubble. Insurers very often make no extra charges or impose no new conditions when you inform them of changes (though I’m not sure that will happen here). They do, however, stick to the letter of the policy and the statements made in the proposal if faced with a payout of many tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds.

As a leaseholder you should have no need to be involved with the buildings insurance. You may come to an arrangement with the freeholder regarding payment but the property is not yours to insure.