...or maybe just a rant :-)
We've have moved to a rented house due to a work relocation, and are renting out our own for now.
I've had an ASU policy with my mortgage lender for years, which I've been meaning to change as the premiums are now pretty uncompetitive for the level of cover I'm getting.
Moneysavingexpert.com recommends i-protect. They offer two policies, basically identical except that one is marketed at mortgage-holders and one at tenants. To be eligible for the mortgage protection policy, you have to live in the mortgaged property as your main home - all fine, as I am eligible for the (identical) tenant policy, which ticks all the right boxes in terms of the cover I'm after. The only thing is... my premium for the tenant policy will be 35% higher than it would be for the equivalent mortgage protection policy with the same amount of cover.
Why am I suddenly deemed to be at higher risk of losing my job/becoming ill, just because I'm a tenant?!
I've tried a few other providers and they all seem to require you to live in the mortgaged property, so my choices are to stick with my mortgage company's insurance policy, or switch to an ASU policy specifically designed for tenants.
Admittedly, the premiums i-protect have quoted, even for their tenant policy, are quite a bit less than I've been paying my mortgage lender I know, I know... should have shopped around before) so I shouldn't complain TOO much but still, being charged more because I'm a tenant leaves a bad taste.
Has anybody else come across this?