Household Insurance Definitions

noddynoo | 12:09 Sat 26th Mar 2016 | Insurance

25 Answers

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?

Checking Renewal Details

Who Is My Van Insured With

Answers

21 to 25 of 25

First Previous 1 2

New Judge

Best Answer

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...

14:05 Sat 26th Mar 2016

Go To Best Answer

noddynoo

Question Author

That is exactly it!!! Our issue is that when we bought we asked about the basement and were adamant we didn't want to buy above a BTL we were assured it wasn't and it is! She has taken out household insurance and when i queried it she said they knew it had tenants but in November when it was renewed it still said no lets and sole occupancy and that the only amendments since the policy was taken out was to add our names to it. She tells everyone she is coming back and lets on 6 month lets every time I am worried about fire yes!!! In November we had a leak our machine into her flat she dealt with it all and said it was nothing to do with us. I let her. Now we need to sell as I have been diagnosed with a health issue and we need no stairs I emailed her to ask if the premium had risen as we needed to fill out forms I thought it may have because of the leak she was very adamant I wasn't to contact them only her and this made me think she may be hiding something. The insurance was organised by a broker a friend of hers and so I can;t get a straight answer and am thinking of going direct to teh insurers to ask them Sorry for the essay but the new tenants moved in 4 days ago and are the worst yet!!!

Dogsbody2

All of the above advice is first-class, one we got to the bottom of the situation. However you've now put a sting in the tail - you want to sell the lease, which is presumably worth thousands, when you've been discussing with us a couple of hundred Buildings cover, apparently obtained under false misrepresentation by the freeholder.

Personally I'd be taking the longer term view that you now need to rid yourself of the lease, and I'm not sure it's worth kicking up about the Buildings insurance since you will have to answer truthfully the buyer's solicitors standard questions once you've got a buyer.

That's my angle on it, but interested o hear from NJ and others who have put in great contributions thus far.

noddynoo

Question Author

I'm not kicking up a fuss about the money or anything My concern is that the insurance is not valid and never has been since we have been here and I don't want to sell on to someone with insurance thats void because of tenants That is all

Dogsbody2

At the moment you can reasonably say you know of no issues with the lease and you have no disputes with landlord.

All I'm saying is that might not be the case once you find a buyer for the lease and your solicitor is negotiating sale of lease.

The bigger prize is in selling the lease with no hassle that could reduce its value. The won't care about the Buildings insurance once it's sold.

noddynoo

Question Author

ok I hear you I am very very scared of fire Sorry if my question seems daft

21 to 25 of 25

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?