Insurance when Tenant has a lodger

by Readers Question

9:46 AM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Insurance when Tenant has a lodger

Make Text Bigger
Insurance when Tenant has a lodger

I let my 2 bed property to a single tenant. She wanted to take in a lodger in order to help her to afford the bills. I agreed and helped her to find a suitable lodger.

My understanding is that the lodger has no rights to remain in the property if the tenant or myself wish her to leave. We drew up an agreement between the tenant and lodger that clearly states that either of them only has to give 2 weeks notice for the lodger to leave. They share the house but each have their own bedroom. However, the tenant has stated to the lodger that she needs access to the lodger’s room because the water tank and boiler controls are in there. The room does not have a lock on and the lodger cannot refuse to allow the tenant access. Insurance when Tenant has a lodger

The problem I have is that my Landlord’s Insurance is now invalid according to the Insurance Company. They refuse to provide insurance if my tenant has a lodger. They seem to be of the opinion that the lodger is a subtenant.

Is this common practice with Insurance companies? Does anyone know where I can get Landlord Insurance that will provide cover for my tenant and her lodger?

Thanks

Debi

 



Comments

Mark Alexander

9:49 AM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Hi Debi

Why do you think your landlords insurances is no longer valid? What question did you ask your insurance company and what was the clause in their T&C's which says that cover is invalidated if you tenant takes in a lodger?

I am slightly more worried about whose lodger it is. Is the agreement between your tenant and the lodger and is it professionally drafted? If so, why do you think you have the right to give the lodger 2 weeks notice? You don't have a legal relationship with the lodger.
.

Deborah Clare

10:41 AM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "24/08/2014 - 09:49":

When I added this property to my landlord insurance policy, the company asked if it was let to a single tenant. I said that yes it is, but she would be looking for a lodger. At that point, the lady I was speaking to said she needed to check something, When she came back she said that they could not cover me as the tenant is sub-letting. I eventually got them to add the property to my policy as at this point there was no lodger! I agreed that when the tenant found a lodger I would remove the property from my policy. The lodger moved in recently and now I am worried that the property is not covered.

It is my tenant that has the lodger. The agreement is between them and the form used was from an internet site. I helped to organise this because the tenant is my daughter and I usually help her with filling in forms etc. Although she is my daughter it is being treated as a business arrangement and she will have to move out if she cannot afford to live there.

I understand that I have no legal relationship with the lodger, but I also believe that should the tenant move out, I have the right to remove the lodger. Is this correct?

Mark Alexander

19:43 PM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Debi Owen" at "24/08/2014 - 10:41":

Yes, this is correct. If your tenant moves out then the tenants lodger would be trespassing if he/she was to stay without your consent.

I don't understand the insurance companies position though.
.

Deborah Clare

19:59 PM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "24/08/2014 - 19:43":

Thanks for your repies Mark.

My insurance renewal documents arrived yesterday. I have read them thoroughly and it doesn't mention lodgers anywhere. I think I will either renew or use another company and not mention lodgers unless they specifically ask. It looks as though I may have confused the issue by being too honest and volunteering too much information.

Mark Alexander

20:06 PM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Debi Owen" at "24/08/2014 - 19:59":

Hi Debi

Take a look at this >>> http://www.property118.com/landlords-insurance-landlords-buying-group-2/

GUARANTEED SAVINGS!!!
.

Deborah Clare

20:42 PM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "24/08/2014 - 20:06":

I just purchased insurance via the link. Saved over £200 on my renewal quote! Thanks

Mark Alexander

21:24 PM, 24th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Debi Owen" at "24/08/2014 - 20:42":

Amazing isn't it, I can't understand why all members don't use it.

Why not see how much you could save on your home insurance as well?

See >>> http://www.property118.com/new-property118-home-insurance-main-residence/66820/

Thanks for your business too by the way. When members use our sponsors it helps to fund what we do here at Property118 🙂
.

Rob Crawford

11:07 AM, 25th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Excellent result then Debi! Going to an insurer that specialises in the rental sector always makes sense.

Mandy Thomson

12:18 PM, 25th August 2014
About 4 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Mark Alexander" at "24/08/2014 - 19:43":

Given that the tenant is the landlord's daughter, it's unlikely that such a scenario would arise, but for the record, as the landlord gave consent for the lodger to live there, she would be obliged to honour the lodger agreement (i.e. give the lodger the agreed notice) if the tenant were to be evicted without giving the lodger proper notice - see earlier 118 post on this subject: http://www.property118.com/landlord-evicted-gave-4-days-notice-leave-well/67403/ However, where the very real situation in the first post differs from the hypothetical situation here, is that the property owner most likely hadn't given consent for the lodger to live there.

Nick Pope

9:39 AM, 31st August 2014
About 4 years ago

Debi

Going off at a tangent somewhat - as your daughter is the tenant and if you have a buy to let mortgage then unless the lender is aware you may be in breach of your mortgage terms and they could have the right to demand full re-payment immediately. The mortgage deed could also preclude any form of sub-letting (this would include lodgers in my view) with the same result.

As a mortgage valuer I am now often seeing properties where owners/purchasers are applying for buy to let mortgages but intending to occupy themselves. This is to avoid all the new checks for affordability etc. but be aware that it is fraud and lenders are taking it very seriously.

1 2

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

Second IVA?

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More