claim rejected and Insurance cancelled due to non disclosure that house was rented out

A

AOH77A

Registered User
Messages
9
Hi, Looking for advice on whether it is worth lodging a claim with Financial Ombudsman.

I had a property insured with FBD for 18 years with no claims. For the last two years the house was rented out. I never informed the insurance company due to ignorance. I had a claim due to fire in shed in back garden. FBD cancelled my policy and declined to pay out on claim. They reimbursed my last two years premium.

I contacted FBD and explained that the nature of the occupancy had no material effect on the fire and requested they accept the claim. They refused.

I am having issues getting insurance now due to the cancellation on my record. Do you think the
Financial Ombudsman would be a viable option. Thanks
 
When renting out a house to tennants or on Airbnb you have to notify your insurance company otherwise if you make a claim like what you had, they will refuse to pay out due to non disclosure. It's plainly written in the terms and conditions.
 
It probably safe to assume that not disclosing the property was rented is significant. I have no experience but would be surprised if the Ombudsman finds in your favour.
 
You had owner occupier insurance, but you didn't live there. The requirements to disclose such material changes are clearly stated in every policy. Taking this any further will e a waste of time. FBD's policy booklet clearly calls out that you must notify them I'm surprised they refunded you the premiums.

B. You must notify us as soon as possible of any change which may affect this insurance. The whole policy or a section of it may be avoided or come to an end without you receiving any payment if you do not tell us of any changes that happen after the policy has started. In particular you must tell us:
...
3. if the private home is intended to be lent, let or sublet
Click to expand...
 
AOH77A said:
I contacted FBD and explained that the nature of the occupancy had no material effect on the fire and requested they accept the claim.
Click to expand...

if you are sure of this then i think ombudsman is worth a go as these kind of blanket exclusions could be deemed unfair contract term.
 
AOH77A said:
I contacted FBD and explained that the nature of the occupancy had no material effect on the fire and requested they accept the claim.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for someone who rents out their house and doesn't think to tell the insurer.

I would probably appeal the decision internally and point out that it was an oversight.

How did the fire happen? When you say "no material effect" - did it have any effect? Presumably, it was not spontaneous combustion.

Brendan
 
Thanks for all the replies. The oil boiler was in the shed. A loud bang was heard and shed went on fire. Would have happened regardless of who was in the house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AOH77A said:
I contacted FBD and explained that the nature of the occupancy had no material effect on the fire

/QUOTE]

Why did you even contact your insurance company over a fire in a shed? How much damage was caused, sometimes it's better just do minor repairs yourself rather than putting it through the insurance and risk increasing your annual premium.
Click to expand...
 
AOH77A said:
Thanks for all the replies. The oil boiler was in the shed. Aloud bang was heard and shed went on fire. Would have happened regardless of who was in the house.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact you failed to disclose that the house was rented makes your policy void and null. It is tough and it's a lesson for others to be very wary of.
 
I disagree - it will cost you nothing to lodge it w FSO, always worth a shot.

What will strengthen your case is a nice pack of documents showing the regular boiler service, annual property inspections etc.

GetCover do Landlord insurance might be worth checking.
 
AOH77A said:
The oil boiler was in the shed. A loud bang was heard and shed went on fire. Would have happened regardless of who was in the house.
Click to expand...

Hi AOH

I think it could be argued that someone living in the family home would pay more attention to maintenance than a landlord.

An owner occupier might well notice something amiss with the boiler than a tenant.

Brendan
 
I never informed the insurance company due to ignorance.

Sorry for your loss, but if you did not notify insurer of the change in occupancy, you are in trouble and they may not cover you.

On a similar line though, did you inform PRTB of the tenancy; Revenue of the rent and lender if any of the letting? No need to respond, but lest you forgot............................................
 
Might sound like a silly question - but how did the insurance company find out it was rented? If you told them while making the claim, why did you tell them? I appreciate it would have been dishonest and fraudulent to not have told them but had you not disclosed it how else would they have found out?
 
jim said:
If you told them while making the claim, why did you tell them? I appreciate it would have been dishonest and fraudulent to not have told them
Click to expand...

I presume that as the OP did not realise that there was a problem in not notifying them that the house was rented when he renewed the insurance, it wouldn't have occurred to him that there was a problem in making the claim.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I presume that as the OP did not realise that there was a problem in not notifying them that the house was rented when he renewed the insurance, it wouldn't have occurred to him that there was a problem in making the claim.

Brendan
Click to expand...

I dont think thats the case Brendan. Its not that the OP didnt realise there was a prob in not telling them its that he simply didnt tell them through ignorance. Its my understandin when renewing a policy the insurer will ask if the house is owner occupied and so if they did the OP chose not to tell them. If they didnt ask this question I would be surprised.

Also, when making the claim, why didnt the OP claim ignorance again in not disclosing that it was rented and therefore have gotten the claim paid in the same way that he got a lower premium?

So I am wondering in what circumstances did the insurance company find out the house was rented?
 
I was renewing the policy for 18 years, I just received the renewal letter and rang and paid the premium. I wasn't aware I needed to inform them of change of usage. They never asked me the question on renewal although it does state in the renewal small print that I should have informed them of any changes. Only realised this after the fact.
Fire brigade and guards were on the seen during fire, there was a lot of smoke damage in the house. Tenants were not there but immediately told them it was rental property. Same to insurance company, I wasn't trying to mislead anyone.
 
Apologies i wasnt suggesting that you did try to mislead anyone. Just wondering what circumstamces insurance company became aware of it been a rental. So you told them that voluntarily when making the claim...so if you had not volunteered that info to the gardai (and therefore the insur company) would your claim have been paid?
 
Thanks for the input Jim. I presume they would have paid out as the only reason the refused claim was non disclosure.
 
AOH77A said:
Thanks for the input Jim. I presume they would have paid out as the only reason the refused claim was non disclosure.
Click to expand...

So ironically non disclosure twice ( when renewing and when claiming) would have resulted in a pay out.
 
It's clear from this that you were not dishonest, just ignorant of the requirements.

I don't think that the insurance company should pay the claim.

But I do think that they should renew the policy on the buy to let basis to make sure your record is not damaged.

It's worth asking them to do this.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top