Search results

It's a good thing, nobody ever told the winners at the tribunals they would lose..others they would be out a lot of money.

Pedro61 has given me permission to post this, and I quote: "FIY My insurance renewal came in the oter day and surprise ! The premium has increased. I called them to ask why and they said that it was because of this recent claim, and I had now lost my "No-claim bonus". So Mr Perp's claim that...

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/decisions.php?action=decision&id=95&PHPSESSID=7e9356bff21d6a80d40ff5169de1018e I direct you to points 18,19, 20 Zepth, In the previous link.. The landlord, tenant, judicator have all accept that The bond was applied to fire damage, thus accepting the tenant...

Pedro61, http://www.acat.act.gov.au/decisions.php?action=decision&id=95&PHPSESSID=7e9356bff21d6a80d40ff5169de1018e I have also posted this link in another thread, but thought you and hopefully others will find this ACT decison helpful and inspiring.

http://www.acat.act.gov.au/decisions.php?action=decision&id=32&PHPSESSID=7e9356bff21d6a80d40ff5169de1018e I have been reading tenancy decisions and came across this one. It seems to be quite relevant to this thread. A tenant had a kitchen fire, similar to Pedro's.This tenant willingly...

Today I called an insurance company. The first company telephone staff didn't have the option to provide this cover. Most, I guess, would have stopped there. If I had the type of personality to stop there, I wouldn't have discovered Youi did offer this insurance to tenants. I called and...

Everyone seems to be willing to close their eyes to the facts, that even the insurance company is telling you.They will cover Fires etc, under certain conditions. You all seem to read one part..and ignore the rest. Good luck.

That is really good to hear. Will you be considering adding that tenants provide tenant insurance?

Does your lease require you to have Tenant Liability insurnace? If not, you probably have nothing to worry about...yet. At the moment perp and I are discussing, when a lease is properly written,to require proper insurance. Perp seems to be of the opinion, leases used by most incompetant...

Because it states in this insurance companies policy disclosure that this is an insured event if certain conditions are met.

I was talking to Jesse at Youi, and they said they could never give a definite answer, because all claims were on a case by case basis..which doesn't mean they are not covered. I specifically asked about this case senario, and she couldn't tell me it wouldn't be covered.This is when a tenant is...

From the above link, which you may have not actually read These are insured events, if they are required in the lease. Again, the correct form of Lease, for the state, territory, province, properly written to require insurance is neccessary, which is the major reason that REI leases as...

Well, I just got off the phone with Youi, and as long as tenant insurance cover is required in the lease, it would be covered. http://www.youi.com.au/faq/What_is_tenants_liability_cover This is one of the reasons we write our own contract leases. See..a bit of research does help. Those...

So Perp, you are stating that any damage a tenant does, would be covered under LL insurance and bond is never used to repair, replace? You don't seem to differentiate between the terms culpable or accidental. We do not require tenants to have insurance for the purpose you state. We would not...

Agreed people do this, but it is not an accident, it would be considered negligence. Most "accidents" are preventable, and therefore not really accidents. How you phrase or word your statements, makes all the difference. It's like the difference of "shall" and "should" in a contract.

Perp and Biggles, This was not an "accidental" fire. It was negligence.Would be similar to a tenant telling their dog to sit on the mat by the door and telling them to "sit", while the tenant goes for a cloth to remove the paint (for an example)the dog has all over its feet and fur. The dog...

See...you are still getting it wrong. He didn't say the tenant was insuring the building, he said the tenant was insuring his legal liability.Big difference.

We may not be as ignorant of these things, as you may think. Rob is from Australia..I am Canadian. We are from both countries. Many here are so close minded and unable to be bothered in finding out your rights. you'd rather just take the easy route and PAY. Well, I'm just suggesting, you...

Always worth fighting. It is not Pedro's insurance premiums may go up..as they might not. He may never get any discounts for a claim free record either..which in fact..is equal to an increase. LL need to look at the long term effect of just paying. Same as saying yes to a tenant always...

I'm not talking about public liability either. It covers the tenant when THEY do something negligent..such as overflow the bathtub and it ruins all the drywall on the ceiling below it..or hot oil on the stove and then have a shower. This is the tenant obtaining insurance to cover themselves...