late getting gas safety certificate, how likely insurance will wriggle out of claim?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    late getting gas safety certificate, how likely insurance will wriggle out of claim?

    Had a lot going on this last 12 months, and overlooked renewing my gas safety certificate. It's now done, but 6 weeks late. As sods law predicts there was an incident in the period when my certificate had lapsed - a small fire caused by the tenant's toaster, causing damage to the kitchen. Loss adjuster visited, agreed that I have a claim, but that he needs to see gas safety certificate as it's a condition of the insurance....

    Does anyone have experience of this situation? ie will I lose out on the claim on the lack of a valid gas safety certificate? Or has anyone experience a company giving them some leeway?

    Really really hoping for some positive experiences....

    #2
    If it were me, i would say, sorry, they don't make gas powered toasters, so you have no need to see a gas safety certificate as it was an electric toaster, so it WONT show on ANY gas certificate.( Because it's electric ) + it was the tenants toaster.

    BUT, any damage to your property is up to the tenant to rectify, and not your insurance for an item that you did not supply, was not on the inventory.
    Why should YOUR insurance pay for the tenants faulty equipment.
    He should have his own contents insurance which HE should claim off.

    I woul forget your insurance and tell tenant : - his faulty equipment caused the damage, and nothing to do with your insurance,. Gert estimates to rectify damage and bill the tenant.

    Also, your premium will go up next time because you had a claim, for which you want the tenant to pay the extra, if you do the wrong thing and claim off your insurance.

    Comment


      #3
      If OP wishes to claim on his insurance and a condition of the insurance is that a valid gsc must be in place at all times, he must respect that. You could see this as a cynical ruse on the part of the insurers to try to wriggle, or alternatively as a reasonable way of proving that you are a responsible LL who takes safety and compliance seriously.

      Which OP didn't, in this case. Telling the insurers that the toaster was not gas-powered is a really stupid suggestion, likely only to antagonise them further. They don't like clever dicks.

      If T is not insured for accidental damage to LL's property, then all OP can do is claim it from the deposit when T vacates, or stand the cost of the repair himself ...and then read the policy carefully in case he's missed anything else he should be doing.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
        Telling the insurers that the toaster was not gas-powered is a really stupid suggestion, likely only to antagonise them further.
        Hmmmmmmmmm.
        Well i bet you they come back and say there is no toaster mentioned on the Gas cert !

        Comment


          #5
          What? You bet me who comes back, etc?

          Read what I wrote before: the design of the toaster is irrelevant. The insurers just want to know that the LL is running a tight ship as far as safety generally is concerned. The existence (or absence) of the GSC (in a property with gas) is one indicator of this. It is a factor in the overall 'risk' equation for that LL and that property. No doubt compliance with fire safety regs will be another condition. Fair enough, I say.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #6
            I suspect you'll be OK.

            Having the valid gas certificate is a condition of insurance, and the loss adjuster needs to tick a box on his form in relation to this. If it subsequently transpired during investigations that something related to a gas fault was responsible for or contributed to the damage, I think we can all agree that the insurance company would not pay up if there was no gas certificate in place. However, in the present circumstances where the claim has nothing to do with gas, I think it's most likely that the claim will be allowed.

            It's an almost exactly comparable situation to claiming on a motor insurance policy without a valid MOT. Clearly, an MOT certificate is a precondition for a valid insurance policy, but what happens if a claim is made on a vehicle which doesn't have an MOT? If the car was in a collision due to faulty brakes I think we can safely assume the claim would be bounced; however if a tree fell on the vehicle or it caught fire, I don't think the lack of an MOT would be relevant. Try googling - there'll be lots of pertinent MOT cases, no doubt.

            Ultimately though, there's not a lot of point in worrying about it as you can't affect the outcome: just fess up and see what they say!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by crazydaisy View Post
              Really really hoping for some positive experiences....
              Then prioritise your statutory obligation to keep your GSC up to date!

              And be glad that while it had lapsed and you were consequently uninsured, the whole house didn't go up in flames. You could have been looking at a ruinously high bill for rebuilding - let alone personal injuries claims.

              I think the only positive you can hang onto is that fortunately it was only a small fire and nobody was hurt.
              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Ericthelobster View Post
                I suspect you'll be OK.

                Having the valid gas certificate is a condition of insurance, and the loss adjuster needs to tick a box on his form in relation to this. If it subsequently transpired during investigations that something related to a gas fault was responsible for or contributed to the damage, I think we can all agree that the insurance company would not pay up if there was no gas certificate in place. However, in the present circumstances where the claim has nothing to do with gas, I think it's most likely that the claim will be allowed.
                I think you are being optimistic, but I would be interested to know what line the insurance company takes when it learns there was no GSC in place.
                'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'd still take RAM's approach " its not a gas powered toaster!!!" chances are it will get waived as silly.

                  If not "Dear Insurer please see attached copy certificate".

                  The condition is that there is one in place. Reasonable chance they won't come back and say " no, we need one for the time of the incident".

                  If they do, then some might reply "OMG, I intended to throw out the oldest one( of two years of records) and must have thrown out the last one out by mistake- does that matter?"

                  If at that point they deny the claim then so be it. Just be prepared that when you are in front of St Peter in due course, it will be on his list.
                  Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    If they refuse to pay a thing (I think?) to stop you taking them through small claims process, but guess you might find getting insurance more difficult afterwards.

                    Anyone know what the legal position on this is please?
                    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      You will probably find that most (if not all) landlord insurance policies have Maintenance and Safety Requirements which will make it a condition of the policy that you comply with relevant Health and Safety legislation. As testing gas/electrical equipment is an annual requirement and this was not done they could in theory repudiate any claim while you were not compliant regardless of it's relevance to the gas/electrical test itself.

                      This being said, due to its non relevance and that you have, in good faith, now had the necessary test done and in place, it would be extremely over the top of an insurance company to throw out this claim (even though they probably could if they wanted to).

                      My advice would be just to product the current certificate and leave it at that. If they ask to see the previous one then send them that. If at any point they query the gap then just be honest and say that it was overlooked but you have now made measures to ensure it won't happen again. Insurance companies aren't always looking for a way out of things even though it may seem that way. Remember that not many people will take the trouble to say how great an insurer was for paying a claim they probably didn't have to but many will jump at the chance to say an insurer didn't pay out even though they weren't covered for something in the first place!
                      Steve Smith - Company Director at a leading Landlord Insurance broker with 20+ years experience in the industry
                      LandlordZONE Verified Poster and Topic Expert for Landlords Insurance since 2009
                      See my profile for contact details

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by ashburnham View Post
                        As testing ..electrical equipment is an annual requirement
                        Please provide a reputable link that states this.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by boletus View Post
                          Please provide a reputable link that states this.
                          Well its a rule of thumb that people settled on, with the help of contractors , rather than, as they should, assess risk and adopt a suitable policy.

                          http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.htm
                          Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X