3 ms·
>landlords should be too. There are no insurances where I live that cover against malicious tenants who's pets destroyed your place. Household insurances here
by ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>landlords should be too.
There are no insurances where I live that cover against malicious tenants who's pets destroyed your place. Household insurances here only cover you place against accidents (like a pipe bursting flooding the place) or wraths of nature (like a storm breaking your windows) or against burglars breaking in but that's it. So it's up to the landlord to protect himself from bad tenants or they can financially ruin you.
>he problem is that if a landlord insurance policy (or mortgage, or long term lease) disallows pets, the landlord is going to prohibit pets. If such prohibition is void then pets are more likely to be allowed.
And any such insurances against malicious tenants or pets will be expensive and would only be passed on to the tenants in increased rent prices. There is no free lunch here. Landlords aren't gonna take a loss.
- gpderetta 3y agoHum. 5 minutes of searching shows that malicious tenant damage cover is available, often as an extra, in the UK. Of course that's an additional cost. As a landlord you can decide whether to take the risk yourself, pass the cost to the tenant at the risk of being less competitive, or eat the cost.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago>in the UK Like I said before, "where I live there's no insurances covering tenant damage". It's great it's a thing in the UK but I don't live there.
- foldr 3y agoYou're criticising proposed changes in regulations in the UK, though, so the availability of such insurance in the UK is surely relevant.