Cautionary tale to include fire cover clause in AST!

Reply to the comment left by hpbennett at 25/09/2021 - 16:17I have now checked with Cambridge Citizens Advice and what you state is wrong. They are taxpayer funded through layers of organisations and they will not advise a landlord on landlord matters as a matter of Citizens Advice national policy. In the same way, they will not advise a female of the alternatives to abortion where she only asks for abortion advice, again as a matter of national CA policy. Feel free to copy paste this post and email them to ask whether it is correct or not. So, there is indeed anti landlord bias by taxpayer funded organisations.

Reply to the comment left by Stephen at 25/09/2021 - 09:32Stephen, your post is wholly incorrect advice. Commenting in turn:
"Firstly very sorry to hear of your stressful situation.
Unfortunately this can happen to anyone Yes, it can but it is possible for tenants to take out insurance.
Liability always fall on the landlord Not true. And what liability are you talking about?
If a rental property an insurance policy for letting out goes hand in hand with your mortgage provider This sentence makes no sense.
You agent legally speaking is not liable THEY would expect you are covered! The agent is not liable to the tenant but not for the reason you suppose. The agent is not liable because Carole is not liable. If she were liable she might have a claim against the agent if the agent was arranging insurance.
Please check your letting T&C
also any Basic B2 let insurance company would cover rehousing No it would not as Carole's policy does not and as I have indicated above many policies do not cover the tenant's costs unless the landlord is liable
Go straight to the ombudsman/ broker who sold you the insurance Please read my posts above. As Carole has no liability to the tenants, her pursuing the ombudsman or the broker is pointless
I would pursue the insurance company For what purpose? Please read my comments above.
Sorry to criticise like this but your post is not in the least helpful.

Reply to the comment left by AP at 25/09/2021 - 07:31
Loss of rent is an oprional extra which I did not take out because as our tenants move out we are selling up. The properties were bought for the future, which appears to have arrived in the guise of a burnt out bungalow! In theory, our rent would have been covered in the event of a disaster by the clause I have already mentioned.

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 27/09/2021 - 11:44
Thanks again Ian. No-one believes me! I have an email from the Loss Adjuster confirming that both they and the insurance company are standing firm on this one. I have referred the matter to my solicitor now who also agrees with you. Here's hoping this ends up in court so the point can be proven beyond doubt.

I have read most of the comments in this thread but have not seen the ACTUAL clause purporting to provide the cover. I just checked our wording with RSA and it's very clear that it only applies where WE are LIABLE for the costs, which we are not and don't want to be. This is a matter for the tenant's insurers and if uninsured it lies with the tenant. Our wording:

We will pay the costs You incur in providing similar short term accommodation for the Residents who normally live in the Buildings if the Residential Property cannot be lived in or accessed because of Damage covered by this Insurance.

Reply to the comment left by Andrew Miller at 02/10/2021 - 08:35
We will pay your costs of reasonable alternative accommodation for your tenants and temporary storage of your tenants furniture while the residential portion of the property can not be lived in or access is denied as a result of damage. This cover will only apply where we have made a payment or accepted liability under the Buildings Section of this policy.
The most we will pay etc.etc.
Provided that tis cover is not insured elsewhere.
It is not insured elsewhere and they have said they are going to rebuild our property.
Go figure?

Reply to the comment left by Carole Wicklow at 03/10/2021 - 14:54
I would agree that your wording is more ambiguous. Who is the insurer?

Reply to the comment left by Andrew Miller at 03/10/2021 - 18:16
One of the largest in the business, I have had to instruct a solicitor so prefer not to say. As Ian says (as does my solicitor) it isn't the wording of the policy. It is the wording of the AST - there is no legal liability/requirement to provide accommodation/storage/transport of tenant chattels in it, so the insurer will not pick up the liability because it is not there for me as the landlord to cover.
I have three A levels and 15 O levels (showing my age now 🤣) and would have expected that clause to kick in, until the loss adjuster explained why it does not.

Reply to the comment left by hpbennett at 25/09/2021 - 16:17
"...it offers advice to all comers, including landlords. The only time they would decline advice is ..."

Not true I'm afraid.

I have been explicitly denied advice by them as a landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Badger at 07/10/2021 - 16:47
Badger you are absolutely correct. I have it on unimpeachable authority from someone who worked for years at CAB that they will not, as a matter of policy, advise landlords.