Changes to insurance for SFA/SSFA

[The Nip]

Some might be aware, but there has been a recent change status of insurance for FQ. WEF 1 Aug, occupants are now advised to arrange for 'building' coverage of up to £20,000.
Occupants are not classed as tenants!!

Families are to note an amendment to JSP464 – Tri-Service Accommodation Regulations, Chapter 7, wef 1 Aug 11, that impacts on all occupants of SFA and SSFA,in relation to buildings Insurance and the introduction of a maximum insurance liability figure. The following is a direct extract of the JSP amendment:

0705. Insurance. Licensees are strongly recommended to arrange insurance for:

a. Their potential liability to DIO Ops Accommodation up to a maximum of £20,000. As personnel occupy Service Family Accommodation & Substitute Service Family Accommodation under a Service Licence to Occupy agreement (known as a Licence to Occupy) they are not classed as a tenant and, therefore, standard home insurance policies do not cover the potential liability. The Services Insurance & Investment Advisory Panel (SIIAP) has provided a web page detailing a number of insurance providers who can organise policies that have been designed specifically for SFA occupants. The web page can be found at www.siiap.org/l2o or here for the SIIAP home page www.siiap.org/home.

b. Their personal property and that of any spouse/civil partner or child(ren).

c. Their liability to third parties in respect to injury to them and damage to their property.

I am amazed that this change has taken place without more publicity to those it applies to. This is the first time a figure has been quoted.

[SirToppamHat]

I looked at this a few years ago, but at the time it wasn't possible to insure the property if you didn't own it and weren't a tennant.

Perhaps they've invented a new form of insurance now - God know insurance companies are rarely slow off the blocks if there's a buck to be made.

STH

[Could be the last?]

How can I not be a tennant?

[Laarbruch72]

I'm not sure. Were you in Doctor Who up until recently?

[whowhenwhy]

Well on the basis that pprune is not yet an official form of govt comms, they can go and £%&# themselves unless they formally write to me as a licensee. Then I'll probably tell them to do that to themselves anyway. Any bets that their list of approved insurers will charge us a number of limbs for the privilege? Another slice of salami falls from the sausage

[High_Expect]

I'm with you....... DE or Ops Housing or whatever they call themselves can get stuffed. I gave myself a cut off of ten more things that piss me off and I'm pulling the yellow and black.... Well they can chalk off another one! Five more strikes and I'm out of here!

Get A F*****g grip Air Force you are becoming pathetic and I'm embarrassed to be a part of it at the moment.

[Piggies]

That's astonishing. When do we get the DIN that tells us some good news?

Fortunately this year's increase allowances for living in SSAFA in London, tied with this year and next year's pay rises will pay for this.

Hold on a minute....

[Fairy Nuff]

The Nip 'I am amazed that this change has taken place without more publicity to those it applies to. This is the first time a figure has been quoted.'


You're not the only one who has been surprised. So far, of the companies on the SIIAP's approved list that I have tried, only 1 has any idea about this requirement. As expected, the costs are more than double a normal policy from the likes of Direct Line.

[Greenielynxpilot]

This is not as bad as it sounds. Service personnel are "strongly recommended to arrange insurance for ... their potential liability to DIO Ops Accommodation"

Ask youself under what circumstances would you be liable to DIO Ops Accommodation? They are still responsible to you for providing a safe building that is fit for purpose. All the usual buildings insurance claims ... leaky roofs, collapsing walls, subsidence etc. remain their responsibility.

I can only think of extremely tenuous and unlikely circumstances where it could be shown that the occupant breached a duty of care that they owed to DIO Ops Accommodation, and that breach caused a loss ... something like negligently leaving a gas oven on and going on holiday, followed by a loud boom. But even then, the burden of proof is on DIO Ops Accommodation to demonstrate that it wasn't a gas leak in their faulty pipework that caused said explosion ... very hard to do.

Much easier to publish policies intended to scare people into purchasing expensive insurances they don't really need.

[Talk Reaction]

This isn't news. Are we really becoming just a 'find something to rant on' forum??

You have always been expected to have suitable insurance to cover military equipment on loan and for damage to service accommodation (sp?), the fact that many people choose not to have suitable cover is up to them. Before the indignation starts, I think you'll find the liability to the licensee is for damage THEY cause, not a shoddily maintained home; the remark about not being a tenant is to remind them that normal house insurance companies will clearly do anything not to pay so you need something that covers the precise situation. This also applies to those living in SLA.

For what it's worth , I don't support the housing providers, daylight robbery and generally no rights that every other tenant enjoys, but I think we should understand the facts before going off half-cocked

:ugh: