Ras Tenants and Insurance Cover.

Went looking for insurance prices on 3 bed semi rented through the RAS scheme,same tenant in place for the last few years always got good quotes till today,all the insurers except one or two declined to offer cover for RAS tenants.

Had a great price at €199 but on getting the guy on the phone to double check he came back and withdrew the quote.

Those that did offer cover were expensive.

Anyone else any experience of this?

Knuttell - in previous years did insurers ask whether tenants were SW tenants ?
And what were the quotes and for what cover this year ?

I was told long ago that SW tenanted properties would cost more which was one reason I never went after SW tenants ,not so much because of the quotes per se but because my broker said,statistically, there were more claims with SW tenants.

oldnick said:

Knuttell - in previous years did insurers ask whether tenants were SW tenants ?

Click to expand...

Generally they did ask and those that didn't I got them to double check,pointless needing to claim and being refused because of the type of tenancy.

Always mentioned the property was rented through RAS and never a problem till this year,pretty much all of them declined.

The explanation makes sense,some RAS schemes remove vetting of any kind by the landlord the County Council just fires who they like into the house,in a lot of cases they are problematic tenants,the property gets trashed and the Landlord claims...not anymore though,the insurers have had enough of this nonsense and refuse cover to all RAS schemes.

I have recently insured two rental properties with two different Ins Co's. I declared them as buy to let and answered all queries honestly. No queries as to whether they were SW tenants or otherwise and I had no problems. My view is that I purchase buy to let policies and that is it. I do my own letting and I have never had a claim TG. I know that accidents can happen so I have been lucky so far

I think the point is Dermot is that if you had declared that you had SW tenants then you may have found the insurance premium was higher.

I suspect an insurance company can't actually ask whether tenants are SW,travellers etc but if they know they may increase the premium. Maybe if Knuttell were to ask other companies without mentioning the tenants are SW he may get lower premiums.

oldnick said:

Maybe if Knuttell were to ask other companies without mentioning the tenants are SW he may get lower premiums.

Click to expand...

A lot of companies do not offer cover if the tenants are social welfare,you can skate rings around it and even lie about it when looking for cover however if there is a serious claim the first thing the assessor will look at is whether the tenants were private or S/W,once he finds out the truth,claim and insurance voided.

I answered all questions truthfully for my Buy Let Insurance and no question came up as to the employment status of my tenants so I see no issue. As I said before I do a pretty good check regardless of employment status for my own benefit and I have had no claims to date.

So is your insurance null and void if your tenants were working at the time you took out/renewed the policy (so if asked, you answered truthfully) and are now unemployed/sick/otherwise on SW?

gipimann said:

So is your insurance null and void if your tenants were working at the time you took out/renewed the policy (so if asked, you answered truthfully) and are now unemployed/sick/otherwise on SW?

Click to expand...

The question of Tenants employment was not raised if it were I would have answered the question and if there was a change would update if it were an issue

Have to say I work in insurance on the claims side of things. I've never heard of a issue been raised as to whether the tenants were SW or private... New one on me....

Knuttell said:

A lot of companies do not offer cover if the tenants are social welfare,you can skate rings around it and even lie about it when looking for cover however if there is a serious claim the first thing the assessor will look at is whether the tenants were private or S/W,once he finds out the truth,claim and insurance voided.

Click to expand...

Sounds ridiculous. Have you any evidence of this whatsoever?

I have NEVER been asked what sort of tenants I have by an insurance company.

RAS is different because the property could be empty for prolonged periods theoretically and there's nothing the LL can do about it. Empty properties cost more to insure.

murphaph said:

Sounds ridiculous. Have you any evidence of this whatsoever?

Click to expand...

Yeah you are of course right,who ever heard of insurance companies looking to weasel out of a claim.

have NEVER been asked what sort of tenants I have by an insurance company.

Click to expand...

Find that hard to believe.

all the insurers except one or two declined to offer cover for RAS tenants.

Click to expand...

What part of what I said in the opening post do you not understand?its not rocket science is it?

Actually Knuttell, as well as Murphaph I've never been asked what type of tenants I have. And Lucozade in the insurance business seems not to have heard that insurance companies ask whether the tenants are RA.

Perhaps when an insurance company asks "are there any other material facts etc etc " and one responds they're RAS then the quotes increase. I wonder how many LLs actually would tell the insurance company that one has RAS tenants- not because they're hiding the fact but because they don't think it's a material fact.

Did you actually have the question in writing?

Indeed, I wonder if ,legally, an insurance conpany could " weadle out of a claim" because one did not disclose one has RAS or any other type of tenants.

oldnick said:

Perhaps when an insurance company asks "are there any other material facts etc etc " and one responds they're RAS then the quotes increase. I wonder how many LLs actually would tell the insurance company that one has RAS tenants- not because they're hiding the fact but because they don't think it's a material fact.

Click to expand...

I have been asked that question pretty much by all insurance companies,those that didn't I got them to check,regardless of the question its pretty pointless having insurance with a company that does not take s/w tenants?

You are also correct when you mention the question on material facts,this has never been a problem in previous years,there was never a massive difference anyway between the 2 types of tenants/private and welfare so why hide it...til today when they pretty much all refused cover point blank for RAS tenants.

Is it a material fact??absolutely it is,when pretty much all the insurers tell you they will not offer cover for tenants in the RAS scheme,it doesn't get much more black and white than that.

oldnick said:

Indeed, I wonder if ,legally, an insurance conpany could " weadle out of a claim" because one did not disclose one has RAS or any other type of tenants.

Click to expand...

The only way you will ever know that answer is when the property is a smoldering ruin and you put in a claim,personally I really wouldn't like to be finding out at that stage that indeed they could weasel out of it because you were being "conservative" with the material facts...would you?