I'm following up on the above. Without some further information from you as above, I am limited in what I can say on the matter but in the hope it is helpful nonetheless, I will provide you with the following broad answer. If you are able to kindly provide me with the above further information or if you have any further questions generally, I will be delighted to expand on the following - please just reply back to me in this case:
Notwithstanding the above, in general terms the first thing to look out would be the terms of the lease to see what insurance the landlord is required to provide and compare this to the policy that he is actually providing. If he is over insuring the risks not set out in the lease then he will not be able to recover the elements of the premium that represent risks which do not need to be insured.
In terms of the premium generally, you can require detailed information in relation to the premium by serving a s21 and s22 notice on the landlord demanding information to the extent you not already have the information you require. If you have evidence that policies covering the risks required in the lease can be obtained at a substantially lower amount that the landlord is paying, then you can challenge the reasonableness of the insurance premium the landlord is seeking to pass on.
I do not suggest this is what is happening here but it has certainly been known for landlords in the past to enter into arrangements with insurance brokers whereby significant sums are paid by the broker is commissioned to the landlord in relation to a particular policy introduction which means that a significant proportion of the premium the tenants are paying is effectively to cover the landlord's commission payments. It would be important in particular to establish that this is not what is occurring in this case
I hope the above is of some assistance but if you have any further questions, please revert to me