Asking the Internet for Legal Advice
Aug. 1st, 2009 06:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kingandyBack in October, when we went to pay depoit for the new (rental) flat, the estate agent, Sanderson James, offered us a choice. We could put down six weeks' rent as deposit, or put five weeks' down and use money from the the sixth week to pay for contents insurance. Fair enough, says we, it seems a reasonable amount of moneys and at least with the insurance being provided by the estate agent you know that it's definitely valid on the property in question. Saves us sorting it out ourselves.
In January we were burgled. Oh well, says we, at least we were insured. A claim was duly filed and (over the following months) proof of ownership of the majority of items provided.
Last month (July) a Loss Adjuster was sent to inspect the premises. Not, as we assumed, to verify ownership of said goods, but in fact to inspect the locks.
Today we received a letter from said Adjuster informing us that following his report, the insurance company had concluded that the lock fitted to the door did not meet the minimum standard specified in their policy, and as such the policy was not valid.
So the situation is this: Sanderson James sold us an insurance policy that was not valid on the property we were renting from them.
Pop quiz: What's our next step?
Our first thought is naturally legal action. I'm not 100% convinced it would work, though. Technically, as insurance brokers, they did let us read the policy before we signed it, and it might then be our responsibility to ensure that the estate agents kept the property up to scratch (even though they're the same people). But surely, there's a level of implication that the person selling you a policy on the flat you're renting from them is selling you a valid policy? Wouldn't it be their responsibility to make sure the flat matches the minimum security level before they try and sell it to you? Is that not, in fact, a scam? Or at the very least, criminal negligence. It's sale of an item not fit for use.
Ant is planning to consult his family solicitor but any additional insight would be greatly appreciated.
FWIW, they didn't actually give us a copy of the policy after we signed it. I'm pretty sure that at least is breaching some regulation or other.
Anyone have any experience with legal issues of this nature?
In January we were burgled. Oh well, says we, at least we were insured. A claim was duly filed and (over the following months) proof of ownership of the majority of items provided.
Last month (July) a Loss Adjuster was sent to inspect the premises. Not, as we assumed, to verify ownership of said goods, but in fact to inspect the locks.
Today we received a letter from said Adjuster informing us that following his report, the insurance company had concluded that the lock fitted to the door did not meet the minimum standard specified in their policy, and as such the policy was not valid.
So the situation is this: Sanderson James sold us an insurance policy that was not valid on the property we were renting from them.
Pop quiz: What's our next step?
Our first thought is naturally legal action. I'm not 100% convinced it would work, though. Technically, as insurance brokers, they did let us read the policy before we signed it, and it might then be our responsibility to ensure that the estate agents kept the property up to scratch (even though they're the same people). But surely, there's a level of implication that the person selling you a policy on the flat you're renting from them is selling you a valid policy? Wouldn't it be their responsibility to make sure the flat matches the minimum security level before they try and sell it to you? Is that not, in fact, a scam? Or at the very least, criminal negligence. It's sale of an item not fit for use.
Ant is planning to consult his family solicitor but any additional insight would be greatly appreciated.
FWIW, they didn't actually give us a copy of the policy after we signed it. I'm pretty sure that at least is breaching some regulation or other.
Anyone have any experience with legal issues of this nature?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-01 11:26 pm (UTC)No, there was no discussion of the property (they were more familiar with it than us... We hadn't even had the keys at this stage). They sold us an off-the-shelf, generic tenants' contents policy. As I recall from my read-through (we got a copy after the break-in, in order to send it to the insurers - which was itself a warning sign), it had all sorts of conditional clauses, like "if you have an alarm you agree to switch it on when you leave the house" etc. Also it mentioned the stuff about ground floor windows, though it's a first floor flat...
no subject
Date: 2009-08-02 12:24 am (UTC)Out of interest, is there a law/rule somewhere that says a rented property should have locks to British Standards...?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-02 03:34 pm (UTC)Perfectly normal. Similarly the ground/first floor bit. Like I said upthread, the policy document itself is typically a standardized, print-run-of-thousands, thing. It'll be worded accordingly. The Schedule, which is unique-per-policy, exists specifically for the purpose of reconciling that standard document to an individual policy.
Whoa. At this point, combined with the lack of paperwork, the component of my brain that knows things about FSA compliance regarding the sales of personal lines insurance is having small furry offspring.
As I mentioned above, normal practice is that the Proposer (i.e. You) is responsible for declarations regarding the state of the building. If the people selling the policy KNOW that you haven't even seen the building, they shouldn't be selling you the policy, full stop. They *might* be able to wriggle out of that if it was a high-powered, cover-everything-within-reason policy, but you've already discovered that's not the case.
Wut? That is so arse-about-face it's untrue. The underwriters should not have needed a copy of the policy (they're the ones who wrote it, in theory).
To me, the major alarm bells here are:
- they sold you contents insurance for a building that you hadn't even seen
- they didn't give you any paperwork for the policy at all
From my knowledge of HOWTO transact UK Personal Lines Insurance, both of those are just WRONG. This is not how things should be done.
Based on what you've said here, they basically mis-sold you a policy which did not cover you, and failed to provide the industry-standard paperwork that would have let you find out that it didn't cover you. Surprisingly enough, that's not entirely how the industry regulator says these things should work.
Their defense is probably going to be that you (knowingly or otherwise) lied to them when applying for the insurance. You say you signed a piece of paper. If you don't have a copy, demand one (though note my earlier comments about how they can legitimately cahrge for this).
If you signed it before you'd even seen the property (which sounds like the case) and they KNEW that you hadn't seen the property, then you might be able to challenge the legal validity of that document - which will be relevant if they start waving it in court. They probably will, if it comes to that, because that piece of paper is basically their main evidence. If they can't produce a copy of it, I believe they're the ones in hot water.
At this point, I'd start digging out tenancy documentation, too - if their defense evidence says you signed the insurance application (claiming intimate knowledge of the property) on the 12th of X, and the tenancy document says you didn't get access to the property until the 15th of X, you can probably make them look rather silly.
To conclude: get thee to a lawyer. IMO (and IANAL, of course) you have a strong case for mis-selling.
(in case you haven't already started, keep copies of EVERYTHING from here on in)
no subject
Date: 2009-08-03 09:43 am (UTC)Zero paperwork, though, and a definite sense that they should have known the building didn't match the policy. I mean, you go to rent a property and they offer to insure the property at the same time, there's a kind of assumption that your property would then be insured...
Thanks immensely for all your advice on this, BTW. You are a star.