Government insists selective licensing and PRS Database serve different purposes

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Government insists selective licensing and PRS Database serve different purposes

A peer has raised concerns over the potential overlap between selective licensing schemes and the upcoming Private Rented Sector (PRS) Database.

In a written question, Lord Truscott asked whether the government has assessed whether the PRS Database, to be introduced under the Renters’ Rights Act, would duplicate existing selective licensing schemes.

However, the government has insisted that selective licensing schemes and the PRS Database serve different purposes.

Selective licensing and the Private Rented Sector Database have different purposes

Lord Truscott asked the government: “What assessment they have made of whether local authority selective licensing for residential properties will duplicate the private rented sector database in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025; and what assessment they have made of the impact of each of those schemes on costs for landlords and tenants.”

In response, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary under-secretary for housing, said: “Selective licensing and the Private Rented Sector Database have different purposes. Unlike the Database, selective licensing schemes aim to target specific local issues by enabling more intensive proactive enforcement strategies.

“We recognise the need to keep requirements for landlords proportionate and fair. While Database registration brings some additional requirements, we are committed to ensuring these remain reasonable.

“We will continue to review the use of selective licensing as we develop the Private Rented Sector Database, refining the way the two systems work together.”

All landlords will need to sign up for the database

Under the Renters’ Rights Act, all landlords will need to sign up for the database, which will include information about their properties that tenants can access.

If a landlord lets or advertises a property without it first being registered on the database, they can be issued with a civil penalty of up to £7,000 or a £40,000 fine if they provide fraudulent information to the database.

As previously reported, on Property118, the government previously hinted at combining the registration process for the PRS database and Ombudsman, but stopped short of confirming whether landlords will be required to pay separate fees for each scheme.

The post Government insists selective licensing and PRS Database serve different purposes appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Government insists selective licensing and PRS Database serve different purposes

Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation – Why Insurers Decline Claims

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation – Why Insurers Decline Claims

One of the most frustrating experiences for landlords is having an insurance claim declined. In many cases, the reason is non-disclosure or misrepresentation at the point of purchase or renewal. Put simply, insurers expect you to provide accurate information about the risk. If key facts are omitted or misstated, they may reduce a payout or refuse it altogether. This article explains what landlords need to disclose, common pitfalls, and how to avoid problems.

What Is Non-Disclosure?

Non-disclosure occurs when a landlord fails to tell the insurer something that could affect their decision to offer cover or the price charged. Even if unintentional, it can still void a claim.

Examples include:

• Not declaring that a property is an HMO.
• Failing to mention past claims or subsidence history.
• Not disclosing tenancy types (e.g. students, DSS, asylum seekers) if specifically asked.
• Leaving out building works or major refurbishments.

What Is Misrepresentation?

Misrepresentation is providing information that is false or misleading. This can be deliberate, careless, or even accidental.

Examples include:

• Stating that the property is occupied when it is vacant.
• Declaring that all certificates (gas, electrics, alarms) are in place when they are not.
• Claiming there are no trees nearby when they are within influencing distance.

The Insurance Act 2015 – Duty of Fair Presentation

Since 2015, landlords have been bound by the Insurance Act 2015, which requires a “fair presentation of the risk”. This means:

• Disclosing every material circumstance you know or ought to know.
• Presenting information clearly and accessibly.
• Not withholding details a prudent insurer would want to know.

If you fail in this duty, insurers have proportionate remedies:

• If deliberate/reckless – the policy can be voided with no refund.
• If careless – claims may be reduced proportionately or excesses increased.
• If innocent – claims should still be paid, but disputes may arise.

Common Pitfalls for Landlords

• Assuming “they didn’t ask, so it doesn’t matter” – material facts should be disclosed even if not asked directly.
• Relying on memory – forgetting old claims, prior works, or subsidence can still count as non-disclosure.
• Not updating changes – converting to an HMO, new tenants, or property refurbishments must be notified at once.
• Failing to read policy documents – many landlords don’t check the statement of fact they agree to at inception.

How to Protect Your Claims

• Keep a risk file for each property: certificates, licences, inspections, claims history.
• Declare all material facts – even if you are unsure whether they matter.
• Update your insurer promptly if something changes during the policy term.
• Check your statement of fact at each renewal – correct errors before cover incepts.
• Use a specialist landlord broker who understands property nuances and can frame disclosures correctly.

Case Example

A landlord submitted a claim for malicious damage after tenants vandalised a property. The insurer declined because the property had been converted into an HMO without notification. Although the landlord argued the change had only recently occurred, the insurer classed it as material non-disclosure. The claim was rejected, and the landlord had to pay for repairs themselves. The lesson: always disclose material changes as soon as they happen.

Final Thoughts

Most declined landlord insurance claims could have been avoided with accurate disclosure. The Insurance Act 2015 gives insurers proportionate remedies, but the safest route is full transparency. Treat disclosure as part of risk management, and you will avoid the most common reason for declined claims.

Request your quote or call-back

The most efficient way to get a personal quote with the best price and cover possible is to call the team on 01832 770965 so we can focus on your enquiry when you are ready and sitting down with your portfolio details to hand.

Alternatively, you can use the form below to request one of our team to give you a call back.

/* “function”==typeof InitializeEditor,callIfLoaded:function(o){return!(!gform.domLoaded||!gform.scriptsLoaded||!gform.themeScriptsLoaded&&!gform.isFormEditor()||(gform.isFormEditor()&&console.warn(“The use of gform.initializeOnLoaded() is deprecated in the form editor context and will be removed in Gravity Forms 3.1.”),o(),0))},initializeOnLoaded:function(o){gform.callIfLoaded(o)||(document.addEventListener(“gform_main_scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.scriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),document.addEventListener(“gform/theme/scripts_loaded”,()=>{gform.themeScriptsLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}),window.addEventListener(“DOMContentLoaded”,()=>{gform.domLoaded=!0,gform.callIfLoaded(o)}))},hooks:{action:{},filter:{}},addAction:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“action”,o,r,e,t)},addFilter:function(o,r,e,t){gform.addHook(“filter”,o,r,e,t)},doAction:function(o){gform.doHook(“action”,o,arguments)},applyFilters:function(o){return gform.doHook(“filter”,o,arguments)},removeAction:function(o,r){gform.removeHook(“action”,o,r)},removeFilter:function(o,r,e){gform.removeHook(“filter”,o,r,e)},addHook:function(o,r,e,t,n){null==gform.hooks[o][r]&&(gform.hooks[o][r]=[]);var d=gform.hooks[o][r];null==n&&(n=r+”_”+d.length),gform.hooks[o][r].push({tag:n,callable:e,priority:t=null==t?10:t})},doHook:function(r,o,e){var t;if(e=Array.prototype.slice.call(e,1),null!=gform.hooks[r][o]&&((o=gform.hooks[r][o]).sort(function(o,r){return o.priority-r.priority}),o.forEach(function(o){“function”!=typeof(t=o.callable)&&(t=window[t]),”action”==r?t.apply(null,e):e[0]=t.apply(null,e)})),”filter”==r)return e[0]},removeHook:function(o,r,t,n){var e;null!=gform.hooks[o][r]&&(e=(e=gform.hooks[o][r]).filter(function(o,r,e){return!!(null!=n&&n!=o.tag||null!=t&&t!=o.priority)}),gform.hooks[o][r]=e)}});
/* ]]> */

/* = 0;if(!is_postback){return;}var form_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_wrapper_9′);var is_confirmation = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘#gform_confirmation_wrapper_9′).length > 0;var is_redirect = contents.indexOf(‘gformRedirect(){‘) >= 0;var is_form = form_content.length > 0 && ! is_redirect && ! is_confirmation;var mt = parseInt(jQuery(‘html’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + parseInt(jQuery(‘body’).css(‘margin-top’), 10) + 100;if(is_form){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).html(form_content.html());if(form_content.hasClass(‘gform_validation_error’)){jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).addClass(‘gform_validation_error’);} else {jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).removeClass(‘gform_validation_error’);}setTimeout( function() { /* delay the scroll by 50 milliseconds to fix a bug in chrome */ }, 50 );if(window[‘gformInitDatepicker’]) {gformInitDatepicker();}if(window[‘gformInitPriceFields’]) {gformInitPriceFields();}var current_page = jQuery(‘#gform_source_page_number_9′).val();gformInitSpinner( 9, ‘https://www.property118.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/images/spinner.svg’, true );jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_page_loaded’, [9, current_page]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = false;}else if(!is_redirect){var confirmation_content = jQuery(this).contents().find(‘.GF_AJAX_POSTBACK’).html();if(!confirmation_content){confirmation_content = contents;}jQuery(‘#gform_wrapper_9′).replaceWith(confirmation_content);jQuery(document).trigger(‘gform_confirmation_loaded’, [9]);window[‘gf_submitting_9′] = false;wp.a11y.speak(jQuery(‘#gform_confirmation_message_9′).text());}else{jQuery(‘#gform_9′).append(contents);if(window[‘gformRedirect’]) {gformRedirect();}}jQuery(document).trigger(“gform_pre_post_render”, [{ formId: “9”, currentPage: “current_page”, abort: function() { this.preventDefault(); } }]); if (event && event.defaultPrevented) { return; } const gformWrapperDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_wrapper_9″ ); if ( gformWrapperDiv ) { const visibilitySpan = document.createElement( “span” ); visibilitySpan.id = “gform_visibility_test_9″; gformWrapperDiv.insertAdjacentElement( “afterend”, visibilitySpan ); } const visibilityTestDiv = document.getElementById( “gform_visibility_test_9″ ); let postRenderFired = false; function triggerPostRender() { if ( postRenderFired ) { return; } postRenderFired = true; gform.core.triggerPostRenderEvents( 9, current_page ); if ( visibilityTestDiv ) { visibilityTestDiv.parentNode.removeChild( visibilityTestDiv ); } } function debounce( func, wait, immediate ) { var timeout; return function() { var context = this, args = arguments; var later = function() { timeout = null; if ( !immediate ) func.apply( context, args ); }; var callNow = immediate && !timeout; clearTimeout( timeout ); timeout = setTimeout( later, wait ); if ( callNow ) func.apply( context, args ); }; } const debouncedTriggerPostRender = debounce( function() { triggerPostRender(); }, 200 ); if ( visibilityTestDiv && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent === null ) { const observer = new MutationObserver( ( mutations ) => { mutations.forEach( ( mutation ) => { if ( mutation.type === ‘attributes’ && visibilityTestDiv.offsetParent !== null ) { debouncedTriggerPostRender(); observer.disconnect(); } }); }); observer.observe( document.body, { attributes: true, childList: false, subtree: true, attributeFilter: [ ‘style’, ‘class’ ], }); } else { triggerPostRender(); } } );} );
/* ]]> */

Publication date: Tuesday 30 December 2025

The post Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation – Why Insurers Decline Claims appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation – Why Insurers Decline Claims

Why leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations must be enacted

admin    Uncategorized     agents

Property118

Why leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations must be enacted

Article by Katherine Simpson, Partner at Edwin Coe LLP

The objectives of the Draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill involve enacting the remaining Law Commission recommendations on leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage.

What issues will this present to professionals and their clients?

In July 2020 the Law Commission published three reports containing over 100 recommendations to enhance leaseholders’ rights to extend their leases, buy their freeholds and take over the management of their buildings.

24 May 2024 in the pre-election wash-up, a somewhat modest number of the Law Commission’s recommendations were enacted by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA).

In July 2024 the Government announced that it would further reform the leasehold system including enacting the remaining recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage, essentially to make enfranchisement easier and cheaper, and is expected to publish a draft Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill imminently.

“Cheaper” relates to the valuation methodology and costs, which feature in LAFRA but which are the subject of a landlord driven challenge.

“Easier” relates to the qualifying criteria and the process, which have not been addressed, save for the abolition of the two-year ownership requirement for extended lease and freehold house claims, and the increase to 50% of the 25% limit on commercial parts for Right to Manage claims.

Criteria changes were absent

Changes to the qualifying criteria for collective enfranchisement claims were conspicuous by their absence.

The Law Commission recommended that the qualifying criteria for such claims should be relaxed, enabling more groups of leaseholders to get together to acquire the freehold interest in their building.

The recommendations included increasing the 25% limit on commercial parts to 50%, and so consistent with Right to Manage claims, and that, also in line with Right to Manage claims, there should no longer be a two flat limit to enable a leaseholder to qualify.

The two flat limit was originally enacted to prevent investors from qualifying for a collective claim, the thrust of the initial legislation being to protect homeowners as opposed to investors.

The unintended consequence of that limit meant that homeowners were effectively deprived of their rights.

Furthermore, it was recommended that everyone should have the right to participate and so avoiding disputes between groups of leaseholders who deliberately left fellow leaseholders out of the party, the objective being to make collective enfranchisement a collaborative process and avoid those with deeper pockets taking advantage of others.

Make the procedure easier

The Law Commission also identified the need to make the procedure easier and made a number of recommendations with that in mind.

In particular, claimants are often at the receiving end of “cat and mouse games” driven by landlords seeking to defeat claims on technicalities, increasing costs, and the attendant delays resulting in higher valuations.

It was accordingly recommended that there should be a prescribed form of notice and response, with the Tribunal having greater powers to remedy disputes.

In the same vein, assignments of the benefit of enfranchisement claims were recommended to be automatic, avoiding the potential for disputes as to the validity of an assignment.

This was identified as another area of the process that frequently provoked tactical displays by landlords at the expense of claimants both in terms of costs and valuation outcome.

The effect of the procedural amendments may well be that claimants can avoid having to instruct solicitors with specialist enfranchisement expertise, instead instructing solicitors with general leasehold expertise and at a lower cost.

Only if these recommendations are enacted will the Government have achieved their aim of making enfranchisement cheaper and easier.

Katherine Simpson is a Partner at Edwin Coe LLP and a member of the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP).

The post Why leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations must be enacted appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: Why leasehold enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations must be enacted