Beware – Property unoccupied you must tell your landlords insurance

Dear James,

I am very sorry to hear of your situation.

Unfortunately nearly all insurance policies have a restriction about the number of days a property can be left unoccupied unless specified as a separate risk. It is normally a specific question asked by insurers at the time a policy is taken out. Would you have any evidence that this was not made clear?

The risks in an unoccupied property are statistically much higher and hence policies only cover for a certain period of time left empty or the cost would be much greater.

I have copied in our insurance expert Jason to see if he can give you any advice or look into what your options are.

I am not sure if there is anything we can do, but it is worth asking.

Reply from Jason:

Hi James

Sorry to hear about this escape of water claim.

I don't have your policy in front of me, but you need to check the terms and conditions ref unoccupancy carefully. If you were out of terms, then they have every right to reject a claim I'm afraid.

Unoccupancy is one area that insurers are hot on because it is higher risk - as you have found out. If you had advised them, then they would have applied unoccupied terms to the policy - usually (and amongst other items such as visitation) either draining down the water tanks/switching off or keeping heating running at a certain temperature. That makes the chance of an escape of water much less likely and protects everyone involved.

I think your best effort should be put into checking the dates you were unoccupied against the permitted days - but if outside of this term, I don't think there's much you can do.

I appreciate this is not the answer that you want to hear, but insurers offer strict terms to limit losses and a small oversight on material disclosure will not be overlooked. If I can help in any other way, please let me know.

Hi James, I would be interested to know what the wording in the policy actually says. It is normally linked to a number of days of un-occupancy before you have to report it? I am just wondering if the policy contains unfair terms!

My policy considers you visiting the premises to carry out repairs or checks or even contractors attending the premises as 'occupied' and so the number of days is almost constantly reset even during empty periods. Let me know if you want details.

Change your insurers. Towergate never allow claims. I had a nightmare with them refusing snow damage to the roof on a tenanted property. They insisted it didn't snow on the day despite weather reports.

As a general rule, I see insurers' refusal to pay out as the starting point in the negotiations. I have had several insurance claims of different types refused initially and then with a lot of toing and froing and arguing etc., had them pay out - if not all of the claim then a good portion of it. I had this with a cannabis farm claim where it looked like a lost cause, but wasn't. As Luke says, visits from contractors, the council etc., can be useful as evidence.

I've thought for many, many years that insurance is hardly worth the paper it's written on! I avoid insurance where possible as long as I'm within the law as I find I'm insured in 'theory' but not in practice!

Dear James
Unfortunately one particular property was prone to voids. As I was aware of the empty property clause I have always advised the insurance company if it becomes when and after the empty after the allowable period.
Having done this the insurance company have extended the permitted void and cover for quite some time as they were assured I was actively seeking a new tenant. Communication is a must and the key to avoiding problems and by taking the name date and time of the insurance officer who you spoke with, fortunately most calls a re recorded for their protection and your own.