Thread: Is illegal to have a hobby shop at home

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

Its great that you are covered but I do wonder why we need to go to such lengths just because we have woodworking (tools) as our hobby. It would be interesting to run the exercise to see how much and additional $30k to the general house and contents policy would effect the annual premium - I doubt that it would be $6 a month additional. I am sure that they would argue that tools are easily stolen but I doubt a smash and grab would end up taking a table saw, lathe or bandsaw. If however I was into home theatre equipment I am sure that the smash and grab thief could quickly walk out with a full $30k worth of goods.

Good Morning Sir Stinkalot

I do exactly the same thing, and not just for my workshop stuff. Businesses do it routinely, and I think it is a good idea to carry it over for one private stuff.

My reasons for listing stuff with an insurance company include:

• Most policies limit the payout for an individual non-listed item to a small amount - $500, $800 or $1,000 are common figures,
• I am giving the company effective proof of ownership simply by paying the premiums,
• I am specifying, for example, Lee Valley chisels - precluding the insurer from replacing them with Titans or BigChain specials,
• records can, and are lost in fires.

Insurance covers fire, flood, storms, impact damage, earthquake, tsunami, etc, as well as theft.

My house insurance premium is about 0.225% of the sum insured. The cost of adding stuff to the policy is quite smalll.


Fair Winds

Graeme

Originally Posted by section1

I can't see it being a risk since I barely use power tools if but once a month and that's the bandsaw for resawing those machines just sit there everything is hand tools unless I burst into flames how in the world can I pose a risk.

Good Morning Section1

I fully agree with what you are saying, but in this instance my assessment of the risk is irrelevant and, with respect, so is your assessment. The insurance companies have been collecting statistics for 100+ years and they will base the premiums on their assessment of the risk profile of a specified house in a specified area owned by a specified landlord and consisting of a residence plus garage. From their perspective, and that is the only one that counts, the risk profile of a workshop would be different from that of a garage. It might be sufficient reason for them to deny liability - this appears to be what happened in the case that RustyNail quoted below. It is a fairly common scenario.

The insurance companies and their loss adjusters will and do adopt very legalistic arguements to avoid accepting claims that seem to be totally covered by the policy - in the view of non-experts like you and me. In my commercial life, I saw several such examples. Often formal legal advice was sought - go to arbitration but avoid any legal action. ".... The insurer has denied a claim for $20,000. If you go to court you will probably win; your legal cost might exceed $100,000 and the insurers $200,000. If the judge makes a mistake and you lose then you will have to pay both your own and the insurers legal costs. Upside $20,000; downside $300,000. There is no certainty in the legal process - a commercial judgement might be to walk away ...." I have paraphrased this from an actual case about five years ago - the numbers are real.

I know that you do not want to hear what I am saying, but you are in a very difficult situation, and so is your landlord.




Fair Winds

Graeme

So basically anyone having any kind of hobby in Australia is doomed so we should basically sit at home on weekends and vegetate and what about those craft markets where everything is supposed to be hand made and done at home should we close down these markets to satisfy the insurance companies whom I might add will fight legitimate claims just to weezal their way out of paying.

This is ludecrous.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Good Morning Section1

I fully agree with what you are saying, but in this instance my assessment of the risk is irrelevant and, with respect, so is your assessment. The insurance companies have been collecting statistics for 100+ years and they will base the premiums on their assessment of the risk profile of a specified house in a specified area owned by a specified landlord and consisting of a residence plus garage. From their perspective, and that is the only one that counts, the risk profile of a workshop would be different from that of a garage. It might be sufficient reason for them to deny liability - this appears to be what happened in the case that RustyNail quoted below. It is a fairly common scenario.

The insurance companies and their loss adjusters will and do adopt very legalistic arguements to avoid accepting claims that seem to be totally covered by the policy - in the view of non-experts like you and me. In my commercial life, I saw several such examples. Often formal legal advice was sought - go to arbitration but avoid any legal action. ".... The insurer has denied a claim for $20,000. If you go to court you will probably win; your legal cost might exceed $100,000 and the insurers $200,000. If the judge makes a mistake and you lose then you will have to pay both your own and the insurers legal costs. Upside $20,000; downside $300,000. There is no certainty in the legal process - a commercial judgement might be to walk away ...." I have paraphrased this from an actual case about five years ago - the numbers are real.

I know that you do not want to hear what I am saying, but you are in a very difficult situation, and so is your landlord.




Fair Winds

Graeme

Graeme - unless your rental properties are in Qld and unless the case you are referencing was after 2008, your anecdotes have little bearing the situation Section1 is describing. In this particular thread, these anecdotes are just scaremongering.

The Qld RTA Act 2008 sets out conditions and terms of residential tenancies. Sorry - but any insurance payouts/policies and so on have to comply with the Act and there is nothing in the Act that says a tenant can't "change" the use of a particular part of a rental property. It does talk about restrictions on how a change is implemented (ie fixtures and structural changes).

Section1 can use the property as he sees fit as long as is not criminally illegal (think meth lab) and is not sub-let in some way (think boarders) and is within zoning laws and is used as a residential abode. Any commercial use is restricted by zoning laws (local govt in Qld) not by the RTA Act.

I agree that insurance coys will usually play hardball when it comes to claims, but that's not what this thread is all about. FWIW My Landlord Insurance (guided by a broker) with Allianz then more recently with Comminsure never asked about risk factors related to "usage". They both assessed risk and premium and the basis of property value, any security installed and suburb.

As several of us have already said, it all depends on the lease agreement and the standard boilerplate lease agreements provided by RTA do NOT limit usage. The Act does not even define "change of usage" as far as I know.

Section1 - I urge you to talk to the RTA asap. Here's part of their website. I think contact info is at the bottom.
http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/Resources/...irs-fact-sheet

I am not a lawyer. This is my experiences as a residential landlord and interpretation of the Act.

thank you dabbler I am complying with everything that is written there and some where I have read that I have the right to make full use of the property without the interference of the landlord or agents. Since I have not altered or added any fixtures everything is just free standing plus I will even go one step further and unplug everything. Renting property doesn't mean one should be held like a prisoner in a home he or she is paying for as long as I am looking ater the property and when and if the time arises I should leave it will be left in the same condition I first entered. Seriously with all the scums bags out there who destroy property any landlord should be over the moon to have a tenant like me. If anything should arise from the inspection I will point out that nothing has been altered and everything is as it was when I first moved in. Plus it's clean.

God damn you bastards know how to make a tsunami of a Balmoral wave.

Just ring the insurers, tell them what you are doing and send them some photos of your shop and a spreadsheet of purchases. QBE, problem, goddamn, solved.

Really. LOOSTEN UP.

I used to own 2 geared properties. Just insure them via tenant liability insurance. I think it cost me maybe a hundred or three a year. The agent did it via an insurer. Place burn down? Paid. Simple.

A tenant is perfectly entitled to do on your fracking property the same as he is as if he owned it himself.

It is time you princesses got off your collective rent-seeking asses and actually knew what you are talking about, rather than ranting and raving about some random . If you were real investors you'd know this.

Yes, I'm a capitalist. Yes, I used to own in Australia. No more. Why? You are about to all get royally and absolutely screwed with losses. Wear that on your tax. Stop bitching and learn to suck it up.

I agree in 3 years time Australians will feel the pinch like never before this is Abbots plan to lower the dollar and wages to compete on the world market but unfortunately the cost of living will continue to rise. I am contemplating of moving to the U.S. I stand a better chance of success with a population of 300 mil than I do here but still I will wait it out and see if my predictions are correct. On the Gold Coast many have lost on their properties of up to 200,000 that is a substantial loss and there's nothing they can do about it. Paradise Waters is prime example of this loss. Holden's going, Ford is going , Toyota will follow SPC is going even though the parent company Coca cola has profited 216mil in the first half of the year. This is only the beggining. Troubled times are ahead I just hope that I'm wrong about this.

Originally Posted by section1

Troubled times are ahead I just hope that I'm wrong about this.

Yes, we are going into troubled times. Who is to blame?

Abbot hasn't been in long enough to cause such catastrophic results. He must have inherited them. Where did it come from? History shows a repeated trend of labor governments producing a deficit and liberal governments producing a surplus after their first term and sufficient time to undo labor's financial incompetence. Its a repeating cycle. Liberals build a surplus, Labor then wastes the surplus buying votes by propping up bludgers and other drains on a healthy economy, until the liberals get back in and establish another surplus, then the cretin voters put in a labor government to waste the surplus and put us into deficit again and the wastage continues until we vote in another liberal government which returns us to surplus again and then we elect a labor government who wastes it all and round we go again - and again and again.

Yes but in this instance Labour had no choice that was the only solution to sustain our economy and the liberals agreed with this decision by raising the debt ceiling to 400 billion dollars besides that I heard Tony Abbot say we need to lower the wage and dollar to compete on the world market so he started the ball rolling and this will affect each and everyone of us who is not wealthy. Mark my words in 3 years time you will remember this post. Again I hope I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Evanism

God damn you bastards know how to make a tsunami of a Balmoral wave.

Just ring the insurers, tell them what you are doing and send them some photos of your shop and a spreadsheet of purchases. QBE, problem, goddamn, solved.

Really. LOOSTEN UP.

I used to own 2 geared properties. Just insure them via tenant liability insurance. I think it cost me maybe a hundred or three a year. The agent did it via an insurer. Place burn down? Paid. Simple.

A tenant is perfectly entitled to do on your fracking property the same as he is as if he owned it himself.

It is time you princesses got off your collective rent-seeking asses and actually knew what you are talking about, rather than ranting and raving about some random . If you were real investors you'd know this.

Yes, I'm a capitalist. Yes, I used to own in Australia. No more. Why? You are about to all get royally and absolutely screwed with losses. Wear that on your tax. Stop bitching and learn to suck it up.

Evan,
Just a few points I would like to draw to your attention:
1) My parents were married 9 years prior to my birth. Can produce certificate if required.
2) You didn't own geared properties, the bank did.
3) Its not the tenant's job to insure the asset, it is the owners.
4) A tenant is not permitted to do as they like on your property.
5) I have been called many things in my time, but never a Princess. I guess there is always a first time for everything. Please make sure its the last.
6)May I ask what, in your opinion, is a real investor?
7) If the thought of an apology should happen to cross your mind, you may like to give it some serious consideration.

Originally Posted by section1

So basically anyone having any kind of hobby in Australia is doomed so we should basically sit at home on weekends and vegetate and what about those craft markets where everything is supposed to be hand made and done at home should we close down these markets to satisfy the insurance companies whom I might add will fight legitimate claims just to weezal their way out of paying.

This is ludecrous.

Its not a matter of not having a hobby, its just a matter of giving the landlord and yourself peace of mind.
Any good landlord knows a good tenant is worth keeping. But when it comes to changes in use, a good tenant will seek permission and a good landlord, where possible, will grant it. What is so hard about that? This idea of living in fear every time the agent comes to inspect is not healthy. I have been approached many times by tenants seeking changes. On only one occasion did I have to refuse. That was a Vet who wished to bring recovering dogs home for the night. The property was under strata and no dogs allowed. He understood and made other arrangements.

C'mon guys there's no need for a heated debate.

Originally Posted by section1

C'mon guys there's no need for a heated debate.

Originally Posted by section1

C'mon guys there's no need for a heated debate.

This was liked by Evanism, rather weird as he is the one that turned it from a good discussion into a heated debate.


Peter.