Landlord's claim affect premiums?
- Thread starter goponcho
- Start date
Have the PM politely decline the request.
As the tenant can't insure the oven, because it's the landlord's, if the landlord declines to lodge a claim, then I would think the maximum that the landlord could claim towards the repair would be the excess.
I guess compare all the costs involved with that (excess, premium increase, etc) with replacement?
Yes, if I'm right. Have asked thatbum to chime in, because I think I remember that from somewhere but I'm not sure.
The owner
Under the Residential Tenancies Act (1987) WA (s.42), the owner must:
provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness;
provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, consistent with the age, character and life expectancy of the property; and
comply with all building, health and safety regulations that relate to the property.
The owner?s responsibilities outlined above extend to the chattels provided with the property, for example whitegoods and furniture.
However, under s. 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the owner/agent can ?contract out? of some of their above responsibilities.
The term ?contracting out? refers to clauses that can be included in your written Tenancy Agreement that change your tenancy rights as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.
For example, the owner/agent may ?contract out? of their responsibility to carry out maintenance and repairs by stating in the Tenancy Agreement:
that the tenant must maintain the property; or
that the tenant accepts the tenancy in an ?as is? condition.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act (1987) WA (s.42), the owner must:
provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness;
provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, consistent with the age, character and life expectancy of the property; and
comply with all building, health and safety regulations that relate to the property.
The owner?s responsibilities outlined above extend to the chattels provided with the property, for example whitegoods and furniture.
However, under s. 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act, the owner/agent can ?contract out? of some of their above responsibilities.
The term ?contracting out? refers to clauses that can be included in your written Tenancy Agreement that change your tenancy rights as set out in the Residential Tenancies Act.
For example, the owner/agent may ?contract out? of their responsibility to carry out maintenance and repairs by stating in the Tenancy Agreement:
that the tenant must maintain the property; or
that the tenant accepts the tenancy in an ?as is? condition.
Nah there's no obligation on a landlord to use the landlord's insurance in a situation where a landlord can claim directly from the tenant.
I would probably wouldn't use it myself if I thought I could claim from the tenant and they actually had capacity to pay. Both of which sometimes are not certain.
Which is where insurance can be useful.
Cool, thanks. Are tenants responsible for all accidental damage? The Act seems to refer only to damage caused intentionally or negligently. Or are all accidents assumed to involve "negligence"?
"Accidental" doesn't have any special legal meaning in this context.
Tenants are only responsible for damage they cause intentionally or negligently.
What is negligent really depends on the circumstances, but can be a wide definition in the context of a residential tenancy. But it can depend on the Tribunal/Magistrate's interpretation on the day.
Yep, I have also claimed a storm damage and premiums went up after that (Allianz)
Which is why wherever possible a landlord should not allow the tenant to use their insurances to pay regardless whether the damage is accidental or not.
Unfortunately a lot of Insurers do tend to increase premiums based on even a single claim, but not all do. I can't speak for others, but our RentCover products don't work that way at all, it is more on a whole State basis, or in fact even more on a whole portfolio basis.
It is possible that in extreme cases we will look at individual landlords where on an ongoing basis claims appear to be well out of the norm, but definitely no increasing of premiums on individual properties because there has been a claim.
