Block buildings insurance voided by insurer?

Block buildings insurance voided by insurer?

0:01 AM, 10th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago 20

Text Size

Hello everyone, a few months ago, my ground floor rental flat (part of a block of 6 flats) was extensively damaged and rendered uninhabitable by water escape from 2 flats above.

All 6 flats (including mine) are covered under the same buildings insurance policy and premium cost is split equally amongst all 6 owners. I submitted a claim to the buildings insurer for repair of the damage from the water escape. I’ve just been informed by the insurer that the claim is denied and the insurance cover voided, rendering the entire block presently, uninsured.

They explained that the insurance had been voided and the claim denied because the flat above mine (which was also damaged by the water loss and submitted a claim) had been let to the local authority, without informing the insurer. They indicated that the declarations in the statement of fact include that the property will not be sub-let or let to any housing association or local authority. Had they been made aware of the let to the local authority they would not have offered insurance coverage under any terms.

I am aggrieved and feel very unfairly treated by the insurer’s decision to deny my claim for reasons not related to me – my flat is privately let and therefore compliant with the insurance policy. The flat that caused the water escape is also privately let and compliant. I cannot see how non-disclosure/non-compliance with policy terms by one of the covered flats (not mine nor the flat that triggered the claim incident) should affect my claim and completely void the insurance leaving the entire block uninsured.

Has anyone else had this experience of denied claim/voided block insurance cover due to non-disclosure and/or non-compliance by one/some flats in the block? Does anyone have advice on legal and/or ethical grounds for me to challenge the insurer’s decision?

Thank you in advance,

Mary

Editor’s Note: Property118 insurance expert Jason McClean says: Thanks for the question. Sadly, you may not like my answer, which is the insurer is perfectly within its rights to refuse the claim based on incorrect disclosure.

Sub-let flats are a completely different and higher risk to normal let or residential flats. The tenancy agreement is not between the owner and end user. It could be any end user (refugee, asylum, vulnerable etc) due to the nature of sub-let. This makes the insurance requirement more complex with a lot fewer insurers willing or able to take this on due to the increased risk.

Any insurance is only as good as the information you disclose. If you get something like tenancy wrong by omitting a sub-let arrangement, then the insurer has every right to decline and void the policy; it is incorrect disclosure. As your insurer says, they do not offer this sort of insurance and the product is not designed to do so. It is also priced accordingly to meet standard tenancies, not sub-let, which is typically more expensive due to higher risk.

Ethically you need to provide correct and accurate disclosure for any insurance to be valid. Telling the truth accurately cannot be avoided.

The best thing you can do is get a new policy with correct disclosure on all flats. That is your responsibility as a block of flats. However, remember, moving forward you need to now note you have had insurance cover cancelled or voided. Unfortunately, as a general rule,  that will restrict markets even further for you and increase cost.

We are here to help and talk it all through if you need assistance. We may be able to get you an offer of insurance depending on further disclosure of facts. Please contact The Home Insurer and speak with Tom Chapman on the below number 01832 770965.

If you need help with any insurance, including landlord, sub-letting, or contents insurance, the best way to get a personal quote with the best price and coverage is to call the Home Insurer team at 01832 770965. 

Alternatively, you can use the form below to request one of our team to give you a call back.

Landlords Buying Group Insurance Renewal


Share This Article


Comments

Jason

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

15:00 PM, 10th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago

When you let a property to the council there is a long list of requirements before they will take it on and I’m sure that one of them is to ensure the insurance company is in compliance re subletting. I remember years ago asking the council to take on a flat. However, the list was too much so I changed my mind.

So did the council do the right checks? Was it sub let and the then landlord changed to a different provider without realising.

So many questions but sounds like a nightmare situation.

Cider Drinker

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

16:40 PM, 10th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago

This ridiculous and unfair decision by the insurer may be technically correct but it makes flats worthless. That is, unless the owner of the sub-let flat or the freeholder can be sued for causing the loss.

GlanACC

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

17:19 PM, 10th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago

Sorry to say that although it's not your fault, the insurer will win this. Letting to a local authority brings into question the nature of the tenants it will place in the property - as previously mentioned a higher risk, which should have been reported to the insurance company. It may be that the local authority is responsible for repairing the property that it rents, but that is not going to help you.

Kizzie

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

17:44 PM, 10th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago

Re rights of RTM limited companies. RTMs are not Landlords. Thanks to KD Law report on Eastpoint Block A RTM co. Ltd v Otubaga (2022) UKUT 319 (KC) .
Section 168 CLRA restricts the ability of a landlord to serve notice under s 146 Law of Property Act 1925 as precursor to forfeiture of residential lease.
RTM co does not acquire the right to forfeit a lease where a leaseholder is in breach of lease because it is not a landlord but after this Case the RTM can make a s 168 CLRA application but not s 146 Forfeiture. There are other routes for RTMs

Puzzler

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:29 AM, 11th January 2025, About 2 weeks ago

Who arranged the insurance? And who is the freeholder? If it is a company then you might be able to make a claim against the directors and officers insurance

EGN

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

4:30 AM, 14th January 2025, About A week ago

Reply to the comment left by Mike Workman at 10/01/2025 - 10:15
Thanks. That's 100% plan on appealing the claim denial. The water escape was not from the flat that was let to the council. The fact that one of the flats was sublet is immaterial to the claim, as no additional risk was created by the sublet flat in this particular case. I feel the insurance is taking an easy way out of settling this claim through a technicality. I'm also considering escalating to the financial ombudsman service.

EGN

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

4:40 AM, 14th January 2025, About A week ago

Reply to the comment left by Jason at 10/01/2025 - 15:00
I dont know for sure what prechecks the council made and what responses the landlord gave regarding buildings insurance. I understand from the owner that the council is refusing responsibility for the repairs which shocked me as I would have thought the council will have made insurance arrangements for properties under it's management. So seems I can't hold the council accountable, even if I wanted to, especially as the water escape did not come from the flat under their management.
Word to the wise: do not let your private property to a local council ; chances are you take on higher risks (no control on tenants, no liability cover for damages to flat/other flats caused by tenants or originating from the flat etc) than if you let the property yourself directly through private tenants /using an rental ageny.

EGN

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

4:59 AM, 14th January 2025, About A week ago

Reply to the comment left by Kizzie at 10/01/2025 - 14:55You are spot on. Each flat owner owns a share of the freehold and is a shareholder of a limited RMC co set up to protect our assets. We arrange the buildings insurance and contribute equally to the premium. None of the other 5 owners were aware of the sublet to the LA until this water escape incident. As far as we are concerned, we took reasonable care to provide, to the best of our knowledge, true and honest information to the insurer at onset of the policy. There was no intentional nor malicious act of non-disclosure or mis-representation
I also agree that leaseholders' lack of understanding and/or full knowledge of their block insurance policies is more common than anyone cares to imagine. I hope my experience serves as a wake-up call to block insurance leaseholders and possibly a push for favourable legislation on this matter.

EGN

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

5:37 AM, 14th January 2025, About A week ago

Reply to the comment left by Kizzie at 10/01/2025 - 14:55
You are spot on. Each flat owner, owns a share of the freehold and is a shareholder of a limited RMC co set up to protect our assets. We are arrange the buildings insurance and contribute equally to the premium. None of the other 5 owners were aware of the sublet to the council until this water escape incident. As far as we are concerned, reasonable care was taken to provide, to the best of our knowledge, true and honest information to the insurer at onset of the policy. There was no deliberate nor malicious intent to withhold information or misrepresent.

I also agree that block insurance leaseholders' lack of understanding and/or full knowledge of their block insurance policies is more common than anyone cares to imagine. I'm hoping my experience serves as a learning for leaseholders and triggers a favourable change in legislation on this matter.

NewYorkie

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:13 AM, 14th January 2025, About A week ago

Reply to the comment left by EGN at 14/01/2025 - 05:37
How can none of the freeholders not know one of them was subletting to the council?

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More