The guest of a tenant who fell down some stairs has resulted in a claim against a landlord that could easily reach over £1m and possibly run into several millions.
The landlord in question was, fortunately, covered by public liability insurance.
The claim is an ongoing case being handled by Total Landlord Insurance.
The guest who fell claims that the stairs were ‘not fit for purpose’. Because the victim is a young person, the compensation – if the landlord is found liable – is for a significant sum to cover ongoing care and loss of earnings.
Total Landlord Insurance says that the case is a stark reminder to landlords of the need for adequate insurance cover.
In the last two years, public liability claims received by the firm have reached an estimated £1.7m.
The firm says these claims are the result of slips, trips and falls by tenants that have happened at a property where the landlord is found responsible, and although often unavoidable, without insurance protection such incidents can prove extremely costly for landlords.
In the case mentioned, the landlord is not only covered for any damages which might be awarded to the claimant but also the legal costs of defending the claim and the claimants’ legal costs if the landlord is found at fault. Legal fees alone in this case are expected to cost hundreds of thousands.
Eddie Hooker, CEO of Total Landlord Insurance, said: “This is a particularly extreme case, but without insurance, this landlord would have been responsible for all costs associated with this incident. Not only could he have risked losing his buy-to-let investment, but his own home too in order to cover the costs in defending his case.
“Many landlords have very little idea of the level of their property insurance, but this should serve as an eye-opener for anyone who has inadvertently cut corners when is comes to both property maintenance and insurance.”
.png)
Comments
I worked for a big commercial property owning company which leased out the property to tenants. These tenants were operating the property and were required under the terms of their lease to have PL insurance.
Invariably when an accident occured the injured person's no win no fee solicitor would contact us as the Land Registry identified owner and demand we put our insurers on notice. You could almost hear their disappointment when they were redirected to the tenant operator. Once they found out that the insurance carried by the operator was limited and they would put up a fight or go bust, or the insurance was voided by some omission, the no win no fee solicitors would lose interest pretty quickly.
If the multi million pound property company however was ever in breach, their iron clad PL insurers would step in and use the "Zeebrugge" technique (just roll over) and the excess and fees just kept going up.....
Pretty co-dependent relationship? IE no win no fee sols would be fewer and further between if the insurers didnt supply the product and roll over to keep costs down and fear of being sued keeps the insurers busy with all singing all dancing policies......now if they actually treated it like their own money things might be different.
@ I O just looked again and I quote 'loss of rent, cost of alternate accommodation, cover for multiple properties, UK call centres', this is on buy to let insurance and does not qualify buildings or contents but states BTL cover. My understanding is the BTL cover is all encompasing so must be on both.
So do you want to take the chance?
@ Breaking Dad - love it best laugh I had all day!
@industryobserver My comments relate to buildings cover Rentguard being one such company amongst others.
NeilJ - I agree that this is yet another advertorial from LAT. However, unusually its one which, in my view, is actually useful.
We've had a couple of personal injury claims from tenants. They get taken up by no-win, no-fee solicitors who go after both agent and landlord. A successful claim could quite easily bankrupt either agent or landlord (or both).
I should add that by doing most of the legwork and providing proper documentary evidence to our insurers that we did our job properly no-one has, to date, won a personal injury claim against either us or our landlord clients.
@yarrum95
Thanks but I ask again, specifically, are these restrictions on who can occupy being stipulated on BUILDINGS policies and not just, as always, contents?
The existing tenant change of circumastances to LHA etc noted but that would be a different scenario surely as the LL had not willingly let to an excluded tenant, the tenant had simply become one.
Might mean no renewal though of course, only periodic.
Stairs are an issue. My agency carries out training on how to use a staircase when the tenant move in, which includes roping in at least two people when going up or down stairs and only fully trained tenants can use the staircase. A hard hat, gloves, protective glasses and a high viz jacket must be worn too. (This also applies when using the kettle, toaster and cooker). Walkie Talkies are recommended and a qualified Health & Safety office must re-train the tenants once every three months otherwise the stairs are out of bounds and must be sealed off. Bazinga.
@Industry Observer Many insurance companies stipulate no people on benefits, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants in their policies. However if you pay them a larger premium and accept their addtional terms the majority of the Companies I deal with will accept them. They consider them higher risk therefore higher premium. something an agent needs to look out for when a working tenant becomes unemployed and therefore invalidating the policy. The matter is compounded if the Landlord arranges his own policy and not advising the agent of any benefits conditions.
@ Phil
Sorry the "fortunate" comment was meant to be that there is nothing fortunate in it in the sense that as long as you have insured the building you will have PL cover. I agree on the hidden costs of an actual claim.
The eyesight comment was a jke. I run training courses on HHSRS and am well aware that fitness of the actual tenant has nothing to do with it.
@Hawkeye
Sorry do you mean a BTL lender saying that the LL cannot then instal a LHA tenant (or students etc?!!)
Far as I am aware restrictions on occupier types only applies to contents insurance does it apply to buildings as well? Increased premiums, and excesses and restricted cover I can understand - but a buildings insurer stipulating tenant type? Not sure I have ever come across that as an issue.
Is this not just a scaremongering headline in an advertorial for Total Landlord Insurance. We need fuller details before being drwan ino the debate. For instance did the tenant advise the Landlord there was a serious problem with the stair?
We currently have a similar case - thank God not for anything near the sums in the article, and we (hopefully) have insurance to cover us as managing agents.
In reality however, there are now 4 sets of solicitors involved and not one has answered my initial point of, can the 'victim' prove that his injuries were sustained at the property and as a result of tripping down the stairs. The 'victim' is using a no-win, no fee solicitor and didn't even report the incident for 6 months.
And of course the landlords and our own solicitors are now doing their damnest to get out of paying out on the claim and looking for any exclusion they can.
The fact is - Insurance is worthless if it doesn't stand up to a claim.
And do landlords and agents realise that with a DSS tenant the landlord has problems with insurance cover. Nationwide DO NOT COVER DSS tenants and this is made very clear in their terms and conditions. Many others put the excess up dramatically so even if covered there is some fees to be paid out on any claim.
How many of you come across the unscrupulous agent who does not give a fig but is only interested in the fee?
Could this be the next scam by the unwashed and unemployable dregs of society?
Scotty Boy - agreed - but how many agents/landlords make inspection visits regularly and ask the question of the tenant 'any problems with the property?'
The fortunate aspect of having PL is really becuase without insurance / insurer funded defence costs the property owner & managing agent would be handling this matter at their own expense. It is rebutting the allegations which is expensive & time consuming. The age of the injured party is material because not only of costs of care which will run to decades, but lost income and dependents. Contrast injury to a party who is elderly with no family to support- simply put they are likely to be retired and not require care for anywhere near as long. The eyesight argument is not likely to much of a mitigating factor - the owner and agent owed a duty of care to visitors (and let's not forget not all visitors will have good level of eyesight!)
Why "fortunate" to be covered by PL? Unless certyifiable and not having buildings insurance PL cover is an integral part of such policies.
If the claim is to "possibly run into several millions" the LL's real problem is to make sure they have the minimum cover needed these days which is at least £5M and now £10M is not unusual as the standard amount.
I agree Scotty Boy (not often we say that!!) let's have the detail from Eddie Hooker as to why such a claim could be made especially by a younger person with presumably decent eyesight.
Surely the claiments must prove neglect against the landlord. There must be underlying circumstances such as a reported fault with the stairs which the landlord chose to ignore.
Good advice to have adequate insurance but also a wake up call to landlords to deliver repairs in a timely fashion.