Landlords are required to have adequate building cover for lending purposes, but for some reason after a while some landlords tend to take residential cover. I really want to know why. First, it is not cheaper. Second, it is not right as they don't live in the property. I think somethimes people don't realise that buy to let insurance has liability cover included. Also some insurance companies offer cover for the loss of rent, if property has been damaged by fire or flood, but it is otional.

What do you mean by residential cover? contents insurance? If so, I would have thought that it's up to tenants whether they wish to take out contents insurance to protect their possessions. But what if you let your property fully furnished? Is is then advisable to take contents cover out? Please share your views/opinions or, indeed, experience!

I'd strongly recommend that landlords subscribe for contents cover even if the rented property is not furnished. carpets and other expensive finishes might be accidentally damaged by tenants (and they often are, believe me!), so it's better to have them covered.

Hi imaster
By residential I mean an insurance policy, which is intended for normal residential properties, not rental. Residential policy assumes that you actually live in the property, landlords policy is designed for properties which occupied by tenants.

Pirated movie launch varieties like BDRip, DVDRip, TC, R5, Screener, TS and CAM enables downloaders to effortlessly determine which sort of excellence you'd probably be anticipating. Such as, when you obtain a CAM release, you're always going to expect to have a quite unfavorable quality mainly because it can be a copy made in a theatre utilizing a video camera, possibly postioned on a tripod as well as the sound origin is the camera mic. Although there's believed to be a standard where by the dvd rippers will need to abide by, you'll find quite a few that doesn't necessarily think and release a undesirable value dvd movie which has a DVDRip name to the filename.