Something that occurred to me over the bank holiday and I haven’t seen discussed anywhere. Now that fixed-term tenancies are effectively abolished under the RRA, I’m wondering whether existing landlord insurance policies still provide adequate cover. Most of the policies I’ve seen over the years have specific wording around void periods, malicious damage by tenants, and rent guarantee that references assured shorthold tenancies by name. If the tenancy type has fundamentally changed, does the existing wording still hold? I’ve checked my own policy with Aviva and it still references ASTs in the small print, which feels like a gap waiting to be exploited at claims stage. Has anyone actually contacted their insurer about this or had a policy updated since 1 May? I’m half expecting the industry to catch up six months late as usual, by which point someone will already have had a claim rejected on a technicality.
Good spot @GrumpyLandlord47 and you’re right to be suspicious.. this is exactly the sort of thing insurers sit on quietly until someone makes a claim and then it’s ‘oh sorry your policy references a tenancy type that no longer exists’.
Had a similar experience in Scotland years back when they changed the tenancy regime to Private Residential Tenancies in 2017. My insurer at the time (Direct Line for Business) took the best part of eight months to update the policy wording.. in the meantime I phoned them and got a note on file confirming the cover still applied. Whether that note would have held up at claims stage is anyone’s guess but at least it was something.
I’d strongly recommend everyone phones their insurer and gets written confirmation that cover is unaffected under the new Act. Email ideally, not just a verbal assurance. And check whether your rent guarantee section still works if there’s no fixed term to reference.. that’s the bit most likely to fall apart.
Cheers!
I went through my policy documents yesterday evening and the wording is not encouraging. The schedule of cover refers to the tenancy as an “assured shorthold tenancy” which of course no longer exists for new lettings from 1 May. My current tenancy pre-dates the Act so it converted automatically, but the policy doesn’t acknowledge that. I rang the insurer this morning and the person I spoke to had clearly never heard of the Renters Rights Act, which tells you everything. They said they would “escalate it to the underwriting team” and call me back within five working days. I am not holding my breath. My concern is exactly what you described, that at claim time the insurer argues the tenancy type on the schedule doesn’t match the actual legal status and uses that as a basis to decline. I may write to them formally and get the response in writing so there is a paper trail.
This thread prompted me to dig out my own home insurance policy, which is obviously owner-occupier rather than landlord, but I was curious about the general approach to wording. Sure enough, the definitions section refers to “the insured” occupying the property as their “sole and main residence” but then elsewhere it refers to “domestic residential property” without specifying tenure at all. It is a mess of layered terminology even on the simplest possible policy.
For landlord policies the problem must be significantly worse because the entire product was designed around ASTs with fixed terms. I would not be surprised if most landlord insurers have not updated their standard wording yet. They tend to move slowly and rely on brokers to sort out the detail at renewal. It might be worth a collective nudge to the ABI to issue guidance before the first batch of claims under the new regime starts landing. @GrumpyLandlord47 if you do get a written response from your insurer it would be very useful to see what they actually say 
Most insurers will just update the wording at renewal. Theyve had since last year to prepare for this. If yours hasnt, switch. The actual cover doesnt change just because the tenancy type has a different name. The risk profile is identical. Wouldnt lose sleep over it.