Insurance wording for tenancy agreements?

What is more concerning to me about recent insurance quotes is not so much that their policy wording may be out of date (which appears to be the case in your post). Rather, my recent quotes specifically asked for information on which of my properties are rented out to people who are employed, and more specifically, which are on benefits. In other words, the implication to me is that whilst landlords are expressly forbidden from discriminating against renting to people in receipt of benefits to fund their rent (in rent charged or right to rent), there is clearly a cost calculation to landlords’ insurance premium being exercised by insurance companies based on whether the occupier is on benefits or not. I am drawing the conclusion, therefore, that there is a clear higher insurance cost for landlords to rent to people on benefits rather than employed people, and that this extra cost can not be passed onto what rent you advertise a property for based on tenant circumstances. I am not saying that insurance companies are wrong (in fact they are probably right in their risk assessments), but landlords are effectively being forced by law to subsidise rents to people on benefits despite them having been assessed by insurance companies (probably correctly) to carry greater risks and therefore greater insurance premiums and greater costs.

Hi.
Just as you do not need to issue new APTs in place of your current ASTs neither do the insurance or any other comp-any need to change immediately.
A bit like the new banknotes coming in with the King on. The others are still valid.
Its a statutory change passed by Parliament. Therefore wherever you see AST you now read APT.
I hope this helps

All very well for ASTs that are automatically becoming APTs on 1st May.
BUT for tenancies commencing after 1st May then would look like an easy get out for the insurance company not to pay out.
I would be asking your insurance coming to sign a declaration that the policy WILL cover ATPs as well as ASTs that have become ATPs.

All our insurers are updating wordings and terms. They are obliged to sell a policy that will stand up in a claim and if they tried to throw out a claim based on their old wording which is now illegal, you can imagine the Ombudsman response.

It’s worth checking with your insurer if you are specifically concerned about something though, give them a call.

The biggest activity I see now is the increase in rent guarantee policies that look like they may be fit for purpose. Fear is driving demand but shop around as not all policies are equal and some are potentially profiteering.

Reply to the comment left by Ryden Jones at 22/04/2026 – 10:06

It’s worth noting that I have read the gov website repeatedly on the subject of the rights of potential renters receiving benefits. They have no more rights than those in full employment, nor any less. Essentially, if you allow anyone to apply to rent your property, you won’t be breaking any rules or laws. Landlords retain the right to choose the tenant they feel is most suitable. The decision can simply be that the landlord feels the person they choose is the one they are most confident of creating an ongoing & healthy landlord – tenant relationship with. This is not a prohibited method of choosing a tenant. We aren’t being forced into accepting benefits tenants, we just have to allow them to apply & consider their application. It may be that the benefits applicant is the right one, or maybe another is more suitable. Our right of choice remains, it’s just not well worded to highlight that right of choice.

Reply to the comment left by Landlord Phil at 16/07/2026 – 15:15
Given that there is now discrimination legislation in place regarding tenants on benefits and those with children, I think a landlord needs a robust, objective and evidence based tenant selection process to avoid civil penalties or local authority prosecution. Landlord confidence that the relationship will be healthy sounds to me too subjective to meet that requirement. It raises the question of whether you can reject someone you dont warm to. I suspect that legally you can’t.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 16/07/2026 – 16:15

Well, if I have 5 applicants for a property, & that’s not unreasonable to expect in the current climate, & I really just don’t like 4 of them, I’ll credit check one. If he, she or the family meets the recommendation standard of the credit agency & proves to meet the criteria set out in the right to rent regulations, I can’t see a problem in my selection process. I can’t find any rules or guidance that contradict my methodology, but I’ll read anything presented to me. I’m happy to be directed to a gov web page that contradicts my ways. We’re always learning as landlords, more than ever before. I don’t care if the other 4 are on benefits or millionaires. If I can’t envisage a healthy relationship of courtesy & respect being created, I can’t rent to someone. It’s a model I’ve used for the last 18 years, & it’s, in the the most part, worked very well. I have stable tenancies in place & a good relationship with all my tenants. Some have, through no fault of their own, had periods of support from the state, but it’s the relationship between us that makes their tenancy work, & my house their home.

Not that this should be taken as a brush to tar all with, but interestingly, in 18 years I’ve only had to evict 2 tenants. It may be purely a coincidence, but both were claiming benefits & owed considerable amounts in rent arrears. Not something to be given too much weight to, but I do find it interesting. They also came through high street agents, which served as a lesson to me. I now do all viewings & treat it as an interview process. They look at the property, but we interview each other. They need to feel as comfortable with me as their LL as I do with them as my customer.

About warming to people. I believe their are laws of offer & acceptance that apply to all goods & services in the UK. The item or service remains under my control until I decide to sell or rent it. Who I rent or sell to is my choice. If the government wants to force us to house benefits claimants, then I for one will simply sell as soon as a tenant leaves. I imagine a few more may follow that way with me. I doubt they can do that though. It would then become positive discrimination against those not on benefits.

The right to choose is vitally important in a democratic society. I think we still qualify as a democracy, just about, don’t we?

Reply to the comment left by Landlord Phil at 16/07/2026 – 17:02
My expectation is that many benefits tenants and those with children who are not successful with a property will be sufficiently annoyed to contact the local authority to challenge the landlords decision. It will be easy to allege discrimination and they have nothing to lose by doing so. I fully expect Councils to be over-run with such claims. In the first instance they are likely to send the landlord a fishing letter asking for a written account of their decision making process and copies of the notes they took at the time. Any landlord who simply says they chose someone else is likely to be hit with a civil penalty and an offer to appeal it, (at a cost of c£500) if they believe they have a case. Some local authorities have already said that they intend to do this.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 17/07/2026 – 13:43

That’s diabolical behaviour on the part of councils. Should I encounter it, I will gladly allow the case to rise to a courtroom setting. I’m absolutely sure that once case law is established, such discriminatory encouragement will cease. The suggestion of positive discrimination against any group is unacceptable, & I’m talking about those earning money through jobs. I would imagine this is one situation when we can use the text in the RRA to turn it back on the system. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has the legal right to tell me who I rent a property to. Discrimination is discouraged in the RRA, so it should work both ways. If anyone want’s to prove that statement wrong, I’m keen to learn.