11:47 AM, 18th October 2021, About a month ago 1
Sadly, following a bad experience, one of the sites was converted into a Cannabis Factory. After usual arguments, AGEAS accepted liability and paid for lost damage around say £50k (Insured losses) uninsured cost (£20k).
The loss was in Jan, renewal of policy in Feb and policy renewed. However, midterm AGEAS advised that they didn’t wish to offer cover as some of the properties they considered ‘sub-leases’.
The majority of the portfolio is mixed commercial – “shop and flat above.” The majority on long leases and tenants have rights to rent flats if not used by them on AST. Issue only FRI leases.
Insurers claim that this is subletting and Landlord doesn’t have control of tenants movements etc.
BUT as a landlord lease ensures tenants are responsible for the management and in any case has to pay FULL rent whether upper floors used, empty or whatever.
The total rent is say 10-15% lower, so good for them and long term they save/make some return for looking after and managing the same.
The broker was 100% aware, and he failed to report the same. After 6 weeks of finding someone to offer me insurance, we were forced to move midterm.
AGEAS returned pro-rata premium. I feel there is some unfairness from AGEAS and they wouldn’t move from their position. My broker was useless and failed to tackle this matter in the expected manner. I employed a Loss Assessor company and they assisted me nicely.
Thoughts regards AGEAS stance appreciated and what legal steps should be considered if any? Or refer the matter to the ombudsman for discrimination?
Any no win no fee or legal opinions would be appreciated or reasonable legal or fixed fee.
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.