RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

I took out a Landlord insurance last year with Direct Line before I had any Tenants in. I have since rented the house out to a lady friend of my girlfriend who has problems whereby she can't work and is claiming employment and support allowance as well as having to have her children living with her to help with the rent.
Although she's been a bit of a moaner she's been a great tenant always paying on time and the house and garden are kept really tidy.
I rang direct line to renew my policy which was for buildings only and came out at £156 they then asked about my tenant and whether or not she was working. I told them her circumstances ( not that I could understand why that mattered ) and they've decided to decline to insure me WHAAAAAT! it also turns out that I haven't been insured for the whole year,thank god nothing bad happened and Ive convinced them that I should get a full refund of last years fees which theyve agreed to pay me ( quite surprised really ) . But the problem is now when I ring for quotes I've got to declare that I've been refused insurance otherwise it would be another get out clause for them. As soon as I mention this you can hear pound signs whirring around.
To cut a long story short the cheapest quote i've had is £364 but I do get £75 of M & S vouchers with it whooppee a new onesy is on the cards!
I do think its a rip off and would like to say its discriminating against the unemployed but its not even her that has to pay it!
Bollocks the rent is going up and she won't be able to afford it and she and her kids will be thrown out into the street to live like gypsies but I will have a clear conscience knowing it was really Direct Lines fault for her hardship.
Just needed to get that off me chest! Thanks for listening.

Sounds a bit discriminatory ! How can a person be more of a risk simply because they are not working?
You said yourself the tenant made an effort in maintaining the garden ect, simply does not add up. More licensed thievery

fatboy wrote:Sounds a bit discriminatory ! How can a person be more of a risk simply because they are not working?
You said yourself the tenant made an effort in maintaining the garden ect, simply does not add up. More licensed thievery

I guess the statistics they choose to look out suggest they are more of a risk.

The fact is though, they don't look at all factors.

It's a conundrum. The principle of insurance is spreading the risk so that someone who has a need to claim can have their issue covered (and not have to fund the loss themselves) - by those that don't have to claim - although any of them might have a need to.

But some would say that if we all paid the same it wouldn't be fair as they might be less of a risk than others.

So the insurance industry try to tailor according to risk. If they could effectively assess an individual's risk we'd be back to square 1 as we'd all be paying for our own losses (and people couldn't afford to).

So they fudge these risks and only include some of them. This, of course, is not fair as they will only consider a small group of risk factors that don't really give a fair reflection of anyone.

It's all a fudge.


In a different context, it's what leads to stupid, unaffordable motor insurance premiums for young drivers .... which is almost certainly a factor in the number of uninsured drivers.

TBH we'd all be better off with less reliance on these "risk factors" and some of us paying a bit more to get some better balance in what everyone pays.

I'm very sure that direct line have some evidence to support their view of the risk from unemployed house occupants. Do you thin ktey would refuse to take your money if they didnt have good reason? I've never noticed them being shy about oney before now.

I guess you could run insurance on the basis of the same premium for everybody but even then you would find companies trying to select the best risks and simply refusing those that were poor risks. And like any business they have the right to chose who they do business with.

lazarus wrote:I'm very sure that direct line have some evidence to support their view of the risk from unemployed house occupants. Do you thin ktey would refuse to take your money if they didnt have good reason? I've never noticed them being shy about oney before now.

I guess you could run insurance on the basis of the same premium for everybody but even then you would find companies trying to select the best risks and simply refusing those that were poor risks. And like any business they have the right to chose who they do business with.

They certainly do and it won't be me in future!

If your tenant is unemployed, they are in the house using appliances, cooking, watching Jeremy Kyle etc for 8-9 hrs more per day than someone who is working. Premium is therefore higher as its a bigger risk.

...but then if they are home, you're less likely to get burglarised...

Obiwan Kenobi wrote:If your tenant is unemployed, they are in the house using appliances, cooking, watching Jeremy Kyle etc for 8-9 hrs more per day than someone who is working. Premium is therefore higher as its a bigger risk.

No more so than a couple with kids with an employed home-owner but a partner staying at home raising the kids .... who may or may not be running amok causing mayhem to fixtures and fittings.

Obiwan Kenobi wrote:If your tenant is unemployed, they are in the house using appliances, cooking, watching Jeremy Kyle etc for 8-9 hrs more per day than someone who is working. Premium is therefore higher as its a bigger risk.

...but then if they are home, you're less likely to get burglarised...

What Jeremy Kyle is on for 8-9 hours a day? Sod it I'm packing my job in and staying at home!

It's only buildings cover so I'd have thought it was less likely to burn down with someone looking after it 24/7 but then you can argue that they're more likely to start a fire.

In regards to you having to declare refusal of insurance surely that only applys if you have a claim and they refuse? Not refusal to grant you or change an existing policy? Take car/motorcycle insurance for example, you go on a price comparison website and some companies don't provide quotes due to specific age/gender/type/size/eco restrictions. Does this mean you've been refused insurance? So therefore should run another search mentioning this?

falcono wrote:In regards to you having to declare refusal of insurance surely that only applys if you have a claim and they refuse? Not refusal to grant you or change an existing policy? Take car/motorcycle insurance for example, you go on a price comparison website and some companies don't provide quotes due to specific age/gender/type/size/eco restrictions. Does this mean you've been refused insurance? So therefore should run another search mentioning this?

I'd say the comparison site thing is entirely different. You've not reached the stage of asking anyone to cover you and so they've not actually refused to insure you. What they have done is declined to provide a quote - not refused to insure you.
OK, if they won't quote, they probably would refuse to insure you but their declining might be for many reasons (including things like their automatic computer quoting system has gone down). It's not a refusal to insure you.

(in my opinion)

falcono wrote:some companies don't provide quotes due to specific age/gender/type/size/eco restrictions. Does this mean you've been refused insurance?

I was refused insurance once for having the odd toe missing. I didn't consider it as refused cover, just considered that particular broker was a bunch of spunkbubbles. I always mention the toe thing when getting insurance and it's the only time it's been an issue in twenty odd years. I'm sure some of the people in Norfolk have insurance so digit count is a non issue.