Thanks @mrafferty, I’ll be interested to hear how that goes.
And thank you to @syncretic, @mark_m, and @phb for your thoughts which sum up my misgivings about the advertising. While not technically dishonest, they conflate a few things (antibacterial action with antiviral action; the need to sanitise against SARS-COV-2 with the “need” the kill all/some bacteria, and in washing no less). Overall, the goal appears to be to enhance a fear and offer a solution, and I suspect it would mislead some consumers.
I have been tying for days to get Landlord insurance and only St George provided a quote for an outrageous amount of $2,431.87 or $203 per month. The reason the price is so high is because of Covid-19. I have had Landlord insurance in previous years for half the amount. I am thinking is St George is price gouging? Has anyone else had the same problem?
Have you tried going through an insurance broker rather than going directly to a insurer yourself. Often brokers can target those insurers/underwriters which best suit your needs. They can also usually remove some cover parameters such as for COVID-19 related claims as well. They will also have their ‘ears to the ground’ in relation to what emerging issues within the industry for cover and risks.
Ours comes up for renewal in Feb 2021 so haven’t got any current information from our own broker. Ours is a little unique as our property contains 165+ year old buildings which most retail insurers won’t cover…another reason for using a broker.
That seems most unexpected given the hammering of TV adds by Terri Scheer promoting their product well onto the Covid era.
We were land lords for 30 years.
Is the insurance really necessary?
The product is promoted on the basis that all tenants are a risk. If we start out with that expectation is it self fulfilling?
Note:
The insurance provides cover for extended periods of loss of rent due to tenants absconding etc. It’s no surprise in the current environment insurers are uncertain of the outcomes. Also a great excuse to up the premium, whether the claims reflect a difference or not.
More and more Australians are choosing to rent or have no choice but to rent. We’ve also been tenants on numerous occasions. As a renter one might ask why there is not also insurance to protect you from dodgy agents and defective properties.
It appears responsible landlords and good tenants can save $50 per week. Importantly the premium which gets added to the rent penalises responsible tenants for the sins of a few, when landlords have recourse to both the law and bonds. No $50 discount for being a good tenant?
I have moved your topic to this already existing thread about poor Business behaviour and the use of COVID-19 to use bad behaviour.on consumers.
The fact that the price increased, it appears from COVID-19 concerns, might just be prudent management of risks, particularly as tenants are harder to be addressed if their ffailures are using COVID reasons. The disease has influenced Tenancy laws. It may also just be an excuse to get that extra dollar out of those wishing to insure their risk.
I personally think it is just a money grab but I also considered if it was a reality based increase. The clarification that it was just to cover the property value makes me more certain it is just an excuse to use COVID to increase premiums and hard for a client to prove otherwise. I should add that when people usually say Landlord insurance it often includes things like rental loses, property damage by tenants and similar items. Could you insure it as a normal domestic occupied house? I’m not sure of the ins and outs but if possible that may be a cheaper option.
There is an owner occupied test in the PDS and policy application in our ordinary household policy. It does make a difference. At least to the policy. I don’t recollect paying a large difference.
A property only policy we have for a strata titled residence does not ask to distinguish between wether a unit is owner occupied or tenanted. Although it favours landlords in that it pays loss of rent if a unit becomes uninhabitable as well as Accommodation costs for the tenants. Assumes the building condition is not caused by the tenant. Owner occupiers simply get the benefit of accommodation costs. Going through a Broker the policy cost renewed end of August worked out at under $1500 per $million of insured property value. This included PL and Body Corporate Office Holders cover. It did not cover all the other instances of damage or loss due to Tennant fault that specialised Landlords policies propose to cover.
Hopefully @Bittern56 you may be able to get a better deal through a specialist broker who handles Strata and rentals. If you can advise which state you are in, one of the community may have a suggestion or two on who to try.
The responses from the company is somewhat concerning.
Instead of holding their heads up and differentiating themselves as a outstanding ethical company what Australian’s should support, they have taken the approach that since out competitors (including imported product) have made potentially misleading or unethical claims, we have as well.
If they had taken the approach of calling out their competitors, they could have got ‘free’ mainstream media attention which would have been ‘priceless’. Instead they took a different route and have been caught out.
It looks like with cold washes, bacteria can survive the washing process. One needs to have a hot wash or add something like bleach to result in bactericide within the wash.
The question for the maker of Pine O Kleen Laundry Sanitiser is do they have information which supports their claims. I wonder of they are like Euca, and have used COVID-19 as a marketing opportunity.
If and only if you believe that the numbers of bacteria remaining on a cold wash are a significant risk to your health. Excepting for those with badly compromised immune systems I doubt it.
If it is strong enough to kill all those bacteria in the rinse cycle of the wash you might be able to imagine the effect on our bodies of such strong chemicals, if not immediate perhaps incrementally.
However the statement is just probably “Puffery”, yes the chemical/s used do kill these bacteria, so that part is true. The out for them is that proven effectiveness, but the amount used is probably largely ineffectual to reduce the entire bacterial load to 0.1% remaining after the rinse.
I think it would be better to do a wash, then hang out to dry in sunlight, or using a hot cycle in the dryer and/or a hot wash. But most clothes are not required to be washed to a hospital infectious unit standard, clean as in washed and dried as normal is most often well and truly good enough.
I received an email ad about an antibacterial surface treatment:
Subject: Protect your family from COVID-19
Protect your family from COVID-19
Following continued Research and Development, we are pleased to announce Nanoman’s innovative Antibacterial 365 surface coatings for both Hard and Fabric surfaces. These coatings have been engineered to physically kill bacteria and germs continuously 24/7 for 365 days after a single application.
Laboratory tested and proven effective against coronaviruses by leading German laboratory Eurovir Hygiene-Labor GmbH
Protect your family and friends from COVID-19
Make your home COVID-19 safe
One application - 365 days protection against viruses and bacteria
On the website, Covid-19 is never mentioned, so they are perhaps aware of making unfounded claims. But many people wouldn’t notice that omission and assume from the email that this product can protect against Sars-Cov-2.
Sneaky.
