Ian Narbeth

... Read More

... Read More

Dear "Jonah"
You have had rotten luck. I haven't had such a loss in over 20 years as a landlord.
There are numerous problems having the freeholder effect LoR insurance, including:
1. He does not suffer loss and so has no insurable interest in your lost rent;
2. You want to be sole loss payee so that you get your hands on the money;
3. Insurance is on unit by unit basis depending on the rentand he freeholder will not want to be bothered to keep up to date;
4. You as the insured need to make disclosure of all material facts, e.g. is there a burglar alarm, smoke detectors, alterations to the flat;
5. Most flat owners won't want to pay for such insurance.

You have been particularly unlucky but many LL will take the risk rather than pay for the insurance every year.... Read More

@Paul Barrett
Is it the case that you are looking to take out RoL insurance where the landlord has effected the buildings on a block of flats (you own a flat and presumably pay towards the premium via an "insurance charge" or perhaps through the service charge)? That is a more complex situation than your earlier remarks revealed. It may well be more difficult to obtain LoR insurance in that case but the OP has a house not a flat.

I suggest you contact the insurers of the block and see if you can tack on a policy with you as named insured. The premium rate should be similar to the rate for buildings insurance, e.g. if your flat is insured for £200,000 and you want £20,000 of LoR cover the premium will be 10% of the premium for the buildings insurance. It is more complicated than that because the flat owners collectively have to pay for the block including common parts to be insured.

In the OP's case, a claim for loss of rent can be included in the damages claim. Her insurers may not bring it unless prompted as they are not indemnifying her for lost rent. I suggest she contacts them and brings a claim against the neighbour.... Read More

@Paul Barrett
Paul, ordinary buildings insurance does not cover loss of rent. However, loss of rent policies do (the clue is in the name!). You seem very forthright for someone who appears not to know the ins and outs of the property world. Your comments are not helpful. I have practised in the property area for 28 years. Let me enlighten you.

It is not illegal to have two insurance policies in place. What you may be thinking about is double insurance where the SAME RISKS are covered by two policies and insurers either apply "average" or try to avoid paying out on the basis that the other insurer will pay. It is perfectly possible, legal and common to have one policy to cover the buildings, another to cover contents and a third to cover loss of rent. The first two are often combined on household policies. The third is more specialist but is definitely available, either as a standalone policy or as part of a buildings insurance policy.

Landlords should check that the policy covers the case where there is no tenant (either because damage occurs during a void or because the tenancy ends before reinstatment is complete) but this is not usually a problem.... Read More