Landlord insurance-HAP

godtabh

kceire wrote: »

Never herd of this.
My insurance company didn't even ask the nature of rent paid, surely its discrimination?

I posted this year years ago but cant find it now. Its down to risk

godtabh

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103407535

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103486452&postcount=13

Bass Reeves

I be inclined to take this to the insurance ombudsman. However they only deal with personal insurances. However Insurance company could be on dodgy ground. Not quoting for a sectional group would be discrimination. .I contact the equal rights commission. It would be an interesting case landlord not allowed to discriminate but an insurance company can put in a discriminatory question

Eggs For Dinner

It's not discrimination, it's a commercial decision made by insurers and one which they are under no obligation to justify. Are they refusing to quote on race, nationality, age, sex, creed?

I could list 100's of examples of where insurers identify sectors where they either want to attract business or ones which they wish to avoid

godtabh

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It's not discrimination, it's a commercial decision made by insurers and one which they are under no obligation to justify. Are they refusing to quote on race, nationality, age, sex, creed?

I could list 100's of examples of where insurers identify sectors where they either want to attract business or ones which they wish to avoid

In their wisdom the government have made it an offence to discriminate against hap.

Eggs For Dinner

godtabh wrote: »

In their wisdom the government have made it an offence to discriminate against hap.

But not the provision of non-compulsory services to landlords bound by that legislation

The_Conductor

I can confirm Chill and FBD do not provide Landlord insurance for landlords unless they are paid directly by the tenant. Don't know about other companies. The risk associated with tenants other than private sector tenants, is just too unacceptable from an underwriting perspective.

banie01

Be very very interesting to see what the ODPC makes of collecting data on the source of the rent paid by tenants in discharge of their cotractual obligation.
Would also be curious to see what basis in law the insurer could present for refusing cover.

godtabh

The_Conductor wrote: »

I can confirm Chill and FBD do not provide Landlord insurance for landlords unless they are paid directly by the tenant. Don't know about other companies. The risk associated with tenants other than private sector tenants, is just too unacceptable from an underwriting perspective.

Tenants cant insure landlords possessions as there is no insurable interest. It would be surely a legitimate reason to refuse HAP.

The_Conductor

godtabh wrote: »

Tenants cant insure landlords possessions as there is no insurable interest. It would be surely a legitimate reason to refuse HAP.

Its Landlord's insurance- not tenants insurance. Typically it involves accidental or deliberate building damage by the tenants- alongside cover for the landlord's kitout in the building. There are specific issues with building damage in an Irish context- FBD will provide landlord insurance other than deliberate damage- but not with HAP/RAS/Social Welfare Tenants (they refuse to offer cover on the basis of tenant type). Chill won't quote. Most landlords at this stage just go with building cover and ignore landlord cover altogether, if there is a risk that they'll end up with a HAP tenant, as its a complete waste of time trying to get coverage otherwise.

The_Conductor

banie01 wrote: »

Be very very interesting to see what the ODPC makes of collecting data on the source of the rent paid by tenants in discharge of their cotractual obligation.
Would also be curious to see what basis in law the insurer could present for refusing cover.

An insurance company is a private company providing a service on a commercial basis. If they are unable to quantify the risk associated with providing cover to anyone- they can simply decline to cover (as most do)- or alternatively they can add a loading to a policy.

This is legitimate- it is the prerogative of an insurance company whether or not to do business with any prospective customer- and under what terms.

A landlord does not have a commensurate prerogative to act as a commercial entity- he/she has artificial strictures on their ability to act in a purely commercial manner (I'm not saying rightly or wrongly- simply that they do not have the ability/right to operate on a purely commercial basis- whereas an insurance company does).

In practice this means that a majority of landlords who have HAP tenants- are forced to accept a lower level of insurance cover (or indeed, no insurance cover at all) from an insurnace company or an underwriter- than they would do- if they had a tenant other than a HAP tenant.

Its perfectly legal to discriminate against landlords- just not tenants.

Its yet another reason why landlords don't like the HAP scheme- and the manner in which its setup (esp. where payments stop altogether if a tenant declines to pay their portion of the rent to the local authority, despite the fact that this is not an insurable risk (in an Irish context).

I'm not going to comment or offer an opinion on intentional damage to units- other than observe that insurance companies have quantified the risk associated with different tenant types, and specifically decline to offer cover on this basis. Tough luck on landlords- its moot from a tenant's perspective.

Olaz

kceire wrote: »

Reps on Twitter asking for contact details to discuss this.
OP do you want me to give them your name and number?

If so, please PM me.

Thanks kceire but I don't particularly want to discuss it with Aviva to be honest. Cowardly response on Twitter by them though. I'll vote with my money when I need my own home and motor policies renewed next. Not that they'll care!

I really just wanted to find a company who would insure the property which I have done now, at half the price Aviva charged last year, through Chrome Insurance as recommended earlier in this thread.

Thanks all for your input. I hope this thread is of some use to other HAP landlords in the future.

Gumbo

Olaz wrote: »

Thanks kceire but I don't particularly want to discuss it with Aviva to be honest. Cowardly response on Twitter by them though. I'll vote with my money when I need my own home and motor policies renewed next. Not that they'll care!

I really just wanted to find a company who would insure the property which I have done now, at half the price Aviva charged last year, through Chrome Insurance as recommended earlier in this thread.

Thanks all for your input. I hope this thread is of some use to other HAP landlords in the future.

No problem. I recommended Chrome. I’m
With them myself too. Glad you got sorted.

Old diesel

godtabh wrote: »

The_Conductor wrote: »

I can confirm Chill and FBD do not provide Landlord insurance for landlords unless they are paid directly by the tenant. Don't know about other companies. The risk associated with tenants other than private sector tenants, is just too unacceptable from an underwriting perspective.

Tenants cant insure landlords possessions as there is no insurable interest. It would be surely a legitimate reason to refuse HAP.

It's only a legitimate reason if no insurer AT ALL will insure .

If you are a landlord and you know that you "can't turn down HAP" then you insure your property with a crowd that will insure HAP.

Clearly if no one insures for HAP then this is something you would then need to take up with politicians and others with influence .

Edit - I suspect that "paid directly by the tenant" might mean the tenant paying the rent themselves rather then the tenant paying for the insurance.

Gumbo

Response from Aviva

Cuddlesworth

kceire wrote: »

Response from Aviva

Going to be honest with you, that went as far as the twenty year old marketing person who manages the twitter account.

um7y1h83ge06nx

From a business perspective it is a raw deal for landlords - you cannot discriminate against HAP tenants yet by taking on HAP tenants you are limiting your insurance options which may result in higher premiums and having difficulties getting insurance at all.

Landlords do not have the power of the insurance industry or political backing that tenants have resulting in situations like these. Yet, the narrative being spun by the media is that landlords are the bad guys.

Gumbo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Going to be honest with you, that went as far as the twenty year old marketing person who manages the twitter account.

I don't think they are even 20 until next year

godtabh

kceire wrote: »

Response from Aviva

That tweet they would not rule our insuring a person in receipt of hap. It doesnt say anything about a landlord letting to a hap tenant

Old diesel

godtabh wrote: »

kceire wrote: »

Response from Aviva

That tweet they would not rule our insuring a person in receipt of hap. It doesnt say anything about a landlord letting to a hap tenant

I think they mean the landlord being in receipt of HAP as in the council/HAP are paying him.

Poorly written though