IP Security

[moyjos]

I have seen this is the media recently

Burglary Risk 70% higher for renters.
Claims data from RACV Insurance shows rented properties are 70% more likely to be burgled than owner-occupied homes, highlighting the risk to uninsured tenants.

RACV Insurance GM Susan Allen attributes the trend to “lower security levels in many properties and the concentration of rental property in inner-city locations”.

Despite the lighter security protection of some rental homes, a survey by personal lines insurer AAMI last year found just 57% of tenants have home and contents cover compared to 98% of homeowners.

Statistics from RACV Insurance reveal 37% of tenants claim they can’t afford contents cover while 31% say they don’t have anything worth insuring. A further 31% say they don’t buy cover because insurance is too hard to organise within a shared household.

My question is.... If an IP does not have security screens or alarms etc. (provided by the LL) and the house gets broken into, does the tenant (or their insurance co) have any rights to claim against the LL for not providing "proper" security of their belongings??

Sounds like a GREAT advertising speil for those of us who make our living selling security screens

 

[wylie]

I have often been asked by the insurance company what level of security my own house has, plus IPs. They use this to calculate risk (I suppose) but I have never, ever had an insurer tell me that the level of security is not "proper" or not adequate.

Just like me, my tenants decide whether or not to insure their things. If they don't that is their problem. I provide a house that can be closed, and doors that lock. I don't know whether things will change and down the track we will be required to provide more security, but it would affect thousands of house owners and landlords.

My understanding is also that even though I have deadlocks, if I accidentally leave the front door open, my insurance would still cover me. If someone leaves a window open, the burglar still is doing the wrong thing by climbing into the house. I don't think the insurer would void the claim. At least I have not heard of that happening.

I know this is not exactly what your question is asking, but it follows that if an insurer will pay up for someone leaving a window open, I cannot imagine the insurer chasing the landlord for not having provided, say, window locks.

 

[tubs]

Tenants rent the property 'as is'. If they want deadlocks/window locks/alarms etc then they should rent a property with all that.

They know what security the property has when they rent it.

 

[Collector]

In NSW - lease clause 18.1

The landlord agrees to provide and maintain locks or other security devices necessary to keep the residential premises resononably secure


there have been many tribunal hearing in NSW with the tenant seeking compensation because the break ins etc.

Many cases can be found here