A Wiltshire landlord says rebuilding may cost four hundred thousand pounds while the current insurance offer is five thousand pounds
A landlord whose tenant deliberately set fire to a rented home has reportedly been offered £5,000 by her insurer against rebuilding costs estimated at about £400,000.
The case, reported on 3 October, concerns a three-bedroom house in Mere, Wiltshire. The tenant poured petrol around the living room and ignited it on 16 December 2024, causing an explosion that severely damaged the property and endangered neighbours and emergency workers.
The criminal case is concluded, but the insurance dispute is not. The tenant pleaded guilty to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered and received a prison sentence of three years and one month at Salisbury Crown Court on 21 April 2026. No court or Financial Ombudsman decision has determined what the insurer must pay under the landlord’s policy.
The disputed insurance claim
The Times reported that landlord Patricia Prout paid an annual premium of about £400 and that builders now estimate the rebuilding work at roughly £400,000. Her insurer initially offered £5,000, later increased the figure to £55,000 and, after that offer was rejected, returned to £5,000 last month.
A letter from the loss adjuster said the tenant intended the petrol to ignite and the fire to continue burning inside the house. The insurer’s position was that damage to the property was therefore an intended consequence, even if the tenant’s main purpose was suicide and the full extent of the explosion was not foreseen.
The landlord argues that the sentencing judge described the incident as a suicide attempt rather than an act motivated by malice. HDI UK and Ireland declined to discuss the individual claim publicly, saying claims are assessed on their circumstances and the applicable terms and conditions. The account therefore records the parties’ positions, not a final finding that either interpretation is correct.
Fire and malicious damage are different cover questions
A policy can insure fire damage generally while applying different terms when the fire was deliberately started by a tenant. The result depends on the wording, including the definition of malicious damage, any exclusion for tenants or people lawfully in the property, and any separate financial limit.
The everyday meaning of malice does not necessarily decide an insurance claim. An insurer may focus on whether the person intended the damaging act or its consequence, while a criminal court may concentrate on the offence, mental state and sentencing factors. The policy contract and evidence determine the insurance classification.
Published Financial Ombudsman decisions show how much policies vary. One decision upheld a £25,000 limit for malicious damage by a tenant. Another upheld a £10,000 limit even though the landlord had spent about £37,000 restoring the property. A separate case concerned wording that excluded malicious damage caused by tenants or other people lawfully on the premises.
The insured value does not remove every limit
A rebuilding sum insured of hundreds of thousands of pounds does not mean that every insured event is covered up to that amount. A policy may place a much lower sub-limit on tenant damage, apply an exclusion or make cover conditional on specified referencing, inspection or notification requirements.
The premium also reveals little by itself. Two policies with similar prices can differ materially in the events covered, the treatment of deliberate tenant acts, the maximum payment, the excess and the evidence required when a claim is made.
Loss of rent can create another dispute. Ombudsman decisions show that it may be considered separately, but usually depends on both insured physical damage and proof that rent would otherwise have been received. A policy can therefore respond to one part of a loss while limiting or rejecting another.
Why the case matters to landlords and tenants
For landlords, the Mere case shows that the largest financial exposure may sit inside a definition, exclusion or sub-limit rather than the headline rebuilding figure. The difference between £5,000 and an estimated £400,000 is large enough to determine whether a damaged rental home can be restored at all.
For tenants and neighbouring residents, the consequences go beyond the insurance contract. A deliberate fire removes a home from the rental supply, can force evacuations and places lives at risk. A prolonged claim dispute can leave the building unusable long after the criminal case ends.
The reported offer does not establish that malicious damage is always excluded, that the insurer’s interpretation will prevail or that another landlord’s policy would respond in the same way. It establishes something narrower and important: landlord insurance policies can treat deliberate tenant damage very differently, and the practical value of cover depends on the exact event, wording and limit when a serious loss occurs.
NetRent does not provide legal advice. This article represents our understanding of rental property law and is provided for general information only. Landlords should obtain independent legal or professional advice where appropriate.
Telephone: 01352 721300
Email: support@netrent.co.uk