The industry ombudsman has ruled that a landlord’s verbal periodic tenancy was sufficient to trigger  cover, despite the policy requiring a written agreement. 

After a long and acrimonious disagreement with the tenants, the landlord took out optional tenant-protection cover on July 3 last year, just days before police carried out an eviction.   

The landlord sought compensation from Suncorp for lost rent and the alleged theft of furniture. The insurer argued the tenant protection cover did not apply because there was no written rental agreement. 

Both parties agree that the tenancy was verbally agreed.

But in its determination, AFCA said: “I agree that the policy wording requires a written rental agreement. However, in deciding this complaint, I am required to do what is fair. Having regard to the circumstances, legislation and the policy wording, I consider it is fair to read the definition of rental agreement to include a verbal periodic agreement."

It added: “The applicable legislation (referred to by the policy definition and some of the exclusions) treats verbal and written agreements in much the same way.”  

But while the ombudsman said the landlord was allowed to claim for lost rent, after the tenants were evicted, she had not proved a valid claim for theft of property.  

There was little reliable evidence about when the alleged theft occurred, with the landlord giving an inconsistent version of events.

She had not conducted documented inspections during the years of the tenancy and had no photographs showing the claimed items at the property. A police report did not establish when the theft occurred or identify an offender.

The landlord also failed to provide sufficient evidence of ownership and value. Even a purchase order for a $3449 corner lounge suite did not establish that she owned it or that it was present after the tenant protection cover was added, AFCA ruled. 

AFCA ordered Suncorp to accept the lost rent claim, assess its liability for replacement locks and sink damage, and pay interest on any settlement from September 22, 2025. 

It also awarded the landlord $1000 for non-financial loss, finding that the insurer had caused some avoidable delay and inconvenience after accepting the claim. 

Read the full ruling here.