Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Insurance on rental property for social welfare

Options
  • 16-01-2008 2:52pm
    #1
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭


    Which insurance companies will insure a rented house with a social welfare tenant. It seems both Eagle Star and 123.ie refuse to insure in such cases.

    Looking for advise here.
    I need to insure a house by tomorrow - and have an existing policy with Bank of Ireland after 2 weeks they still cannot find my policy!!

    Seems Bank of Ireland don't know their arse from their elbow - IMHO


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    snubbleste
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 31,117 ✭✭✭✭snubbleste


    Is there a different insurance quote on rental properties with social welfare tenants compared to non social welfare tenants :confused:

    Is that not discrimination?


  • Options
    #3
    seahorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    snubbleste wrote: »
    Is there a different insurance quote on rental properties with social welfare tenants compared to non social welfare tenants :confused:

    Is that not discrimination?

    Yes it is, and it's no surprise to me; classism is the last acceptable form of discrimination and it's alive and well in this country.


  • Options
    #4
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Its always been the case that it cost far more to insure a buy-to-let property if the tenant was a social welfare recipient, rather than from the open market. It may be discrimination- but insurance companies argue that there is a far greater actuarial risk associated with those tenants than with others- hence the premia differential. Its the exact same argument in favour of lower insurance premia for women drivers or guys in their 30s/40s over a teenager or a 20 something guy- if an accident is caused, it tends to cost less to settle it.


  • Options
    #5
    seahorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    Well I'd be very interested to hear the insurance companies rationale on that issue Smccarrick; because I've been renting in the private sector for seventeen years now and I spent five of those in receipt of social welfare rent allowance. What I'd like to know is; why was I deemed more 'high risk' while my rent was being subsidised by the government? Was I considered more liable to, say, set fire to my home while I was on the rent allowance?? :rolleyes:

    Female drivers pay lower premiums because we're accepted to be usually naturally more cautious and therefore, as a group, have less accidents. This attitude by the insurance companies in relation to SW recipients is something that can only be explained by a beleif on their part that they are reckless and dangerous to the degree that, as the OP states: "Eagle Star and 123.ie refuse to insure in such cases". We're not talking about a higher premium in this case (which I wouldn't accept as just anyway) we're talking about two companies which refuse to insure at all!!! :eek:

    I'd be very interested to see what the insurance companies actually have to go on to support discriminatory practices like these.


  • Options
    #6
    patrickolee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 890 ✭✭✭patrickolee


    while you might not like it, Shane is correct. They are discriminating due to risk. I am a male driver, probably overly cautious yet I will pay a higher premium if I ever get a car. When I was younger I tried to get quotes for insurance and was refused from all insurance companies except for quinn. Its the same thing.

    Hi Bubby, btw, long time no hear... hope it works out for you. Have you tried Quinn (www.quinn-direct.ie), I think they tend to be less risk averse. God help you if you have to claim though!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,790 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Finance and insurance companies can discriminate on grounds like age and sex if they have the actuarial backing to demonstrate increased risk (although outright refusals of cover are problematic).

    There is no law which says anything about not discriminating against social welfare clients. If the insurance company doesn't want to do the business, it doesn't have to. It doesn't have to give any rationale for this policy.

    Being a social welfare client does not make you a member of a particular 'class'.


  • Options
    #8
    seahorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    There is no law which says anything about not discriminating against social welfare clients.

    I'm not saying there is antoinolachtnai; I'm saying there ought to be. What policies like this do is make rent allowance recipients deeply undesirable for landlords and you cannot blame the landlords for it either; they are business people engaged in an effort to make money; paying the highest insurance premiums around is not conductive to running a healthy business.

    Policies like this widen the gaps in our society to a degree that a person really couldnt understand unless they themselves were the rent allowance recipient ringing about the fiftieth flat that day and being told EHB was not accepted for the fiftieth time in a row.
    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Being a social welfare client does not make you a member of a particular 'class'.

    The vast majority of social welfare recipients are from the disadvantaged classes. I'm not going to argue what is a blatantly obvious sociological fact.


  • Options
    #9
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    To tar all social welfare recipients with the same feather all seems pretty harsh. Like one poster said, it is one thing to enforce a high excess, another to bar the windows and pull down the blinds. I finally managed to get a policy with BOI - and they were having a 50% sale - so it will be ridiculously cheap this year to insure.

    Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm glad its something I don't have to do more often.

    Patrick - nice to hear from you too! I agree with Quinn - very tempting deals to be had from them with combining the Health, Home and Car insurance. But just don't claim!!


  • Options
    #10
    seahorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    bubby wrote: »
    To tar all social welfare recipients with the same feather all seems pretty harsh. Like one poster said, it is one thing to enforce a high excess, another to bar the windows and pull down the blinds. I finally managed to get a policy with BOI - and they were having a 50% sale - so it will be ridiculously cheap this year to insure.

    Thanks for all the advice everyone. I'm glad its something I don't have to do more often.

    Good for you Bubby; I think you may have opened a can of worms with this thread though, lol.
    bubby wrote: »
    Patrick - nice to hear from you too! I agree with Quinn - very tempting deals to be had from them with combining the Health, Home and Car insurance. But just don't claim!!

    Why's that? Are Quinn notorious for dragging their heels about paying out? If that's the case I'll make sure to avoid them..


Advertisement