OP just in case you're not aware, you may also need to revise your cover for contents insurance if you're away and/or renting your property out. Just check your policy to see what you're covered for first.
OP just in case you're not aware, you may also need to revise your cover for contents insurance if you're away and/or renting your property out. Just check your policy to see what you're covered for first.
Or just reach the understanding that insurance in most cases is a complete scam. If you're renting out property with contents that you can't afford to replace then that's pretty dumb, and on average the cost to insure those contents will work out more expensive than replacing them when necessary.
HC: Does that mean ideally you would want to lease a property without a stamped lease?
Really? So the rented property is damaged by fire or flooded and you think everyone has the money sitting in the bank to just pay for new everything and fix the damage? Wow Grunt, you're either loaded or you have very inexpensive tastes.
It's an invidual decision to take insurance out. We all know Grunt is anti-insurance. However, in the UK (where the OP has his property), 78% of homes have contents insurance (source: Association of British Insurers) so it's hardly outrageous to assume that by default that the OP has contents insurance. Hence the need to review the policy before leaving the property empty/renting it out.
It's a rental property! You put the cheapest fittings in that won't cause the tenant to move out. I always had a good agent do it. Replacement beds or sofas cost about 50 quid at most.
And really what on earth does the proportion of people who have fallen for the insurance scam prove, except, perhaps that 78% of people are dumb? (Frankly I'm surprised the figure is that low)
It depends on your target rental market. Some of us target higher end tenants. I love how you always think your way is the only way - and that anyone with a different viewpoint must be stupid.
As for 78% of people being dumb, you're entitled to your own opinion but it shows that 78% disagree with you.
It's ultimately the OP's decision but there's nothing wrong with reminding him to review his policy (if he has one).
Grunt's attitude to insurance is pretty funny.
Sure, the typical person will make a loss by paying for their insurance (that's how they make money)
But you're not insuring against being a typical person. You're insuring against something unlikely happening which would cost you a fortune. If you can afford to lose a fortune then, correct, you don't need insurance (but maybe you should start selling insurance yourself!)
Either way it is a gamble:
No insurance = small chance of a big loss
Insurance = big chance of a small loss
Sent from my Nexus 7 using GeoClicks mobile app
Last edited by justjoe86; 25-01-2014 at 09:09 PM.
It doesn't show anything of the sort. My guess would be that maybe 10-20% of people disagree and the rest haven't even thought about it - they just follow along sheep-like because their mortgage lender or their friends told them they had to have insurance. My role here is simply to try to get some of the sheeple to think for themselves and work out whether it actually makes sense for them. For some it might, but for most I don't think it would.
I don't even have insurance myself BTW, I just disagree with the idea that to have insurance is 'stupid' in all situations!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using GeoClicks mobile app