police broke door down and won't pay for it

suited-aces

meritaten wrote: »

They certainly do! seen it happen when one git wouldnt give way to them! and good for them I wouldnt care how many cars they bumped out the way if MY house was on fire!

That person was ignorant. OP's mum was faultless.

Errata wrote: »

er, no. The FS often have to tear the roof or a door off a car after an RTA. They don't pay the car ownber for the damage they cause.

Do they randomly cut open empty cars that someone had been in 2 weeks previous just to check as a first resort?


And stop referring to insurance claims as though they're free. They'll reclaim every penny in higher premiums.

ifstar

The police do not knock down doors as a first resort, they would have tried various other means of contacting the person before that.

Phone triangulation takes time to do, it's not just a case of flicking a switch and seeing where a phone is.

The police will definitely have tried to contact the person first, however would you rather police continued to try and phone around lot's of people if there could be someone dead in a house.

You need to explain the circumstances to the insurance company, the police certainly aren't liable though.

nadnad

ifstar wrote: »

The police do not knock down doors as a first resort, they would have tried various other means of contacting the person before that.

Phone triangulation takes time to do, it's not just a case of flicking a switch and seeing where a phone is.

The police will definitely have tried to contact the person first, however would you rather police continued to try and phone around lot's of people if there could be someone dead in a house.

You need to explain the circumstances to the insurance company, the police certainly aren't liable though.

i am completely flabbergasted! the police when notified about the missing person - went straight to the flat and put the door in - no other measures were taken before this - shortly afterwards however, miraculously they managed to speak to him on the phone.

i would rather the police rang round a couple of people first - you dont just assume someone is lying dead if they havent turned up for work - that is an over reaction - and to be harsh if he was dead then ringing round a few people first (or one person - my mum whose number they got from a neighbour) wouldnt have made any difference.

i can't believe people think it ok for the police to take such unwarranted action to a property no longer rented by a man and then expect the owner to foot the bill. thats crazy.

and even if the insurance company did pay there is a £300 excess - that coupled with increased premiums would mean my mum would be no better off.

tripled

ifstar wrote: »

would you rather police continued to try and phone around lot's of people if there could be someone dead in a house.

If they're already dead another couple of hours isn't going to do them any harm.

GEEGEE8

Very unfair to your mum.. I am suprised! Hope she gets her money back.

SnowyOwl_2

suited-aces wrote: »

Fire service barge cars out of their way?

Yes, they are entitled to do this. Roads are meant to be passable by emergency vehicles at all times. If some pillock parks in such a way as to block the path of a fire applicance then there is no one to blame for his/her sh*t parking and causing an obstruction.

Nadnad - has your mum looked into what is involved in going to a Small Claims Court? I don't know the facts and figures, but I understand it is affordable, so may be worth closer investigation.

I don't understand why the police didn't call a locksmith in the first place. Then they could have left the flat secured after they had checked it out and left.

Mutter_2

nadnad wrote: »

Background to the story is: My mum owns a flat that she rents out. Back in February her tenant gave her notice and moved out. 2 weeks later she went to the flat to tidy up and the door had been put in with a note from the police to contact them.

To make a long story short it turned out that the tenants workplace had reported him missing as he hadnt turned into work on the monday and tuesday and they had reported him missing on the wednesday. on the wednesday the police had then battered the flat door in to see if he was there.

within 1 hr of putting the door in they were able to contact him by phone. and he was fine. he had in fact previously told my mum that he was going on holiday.

she put a claim form into the police and today heard back that they would not be paying as it was "to save life".

i rang the police solicitor dealing with the case and she said they rarely pay in cases such as these and it was basically the responsibility of the landlord.

my mum had to replace the door - like for like it was £590 which was a lot of money.

anyone any experience of this?

Hi nadnad. My late Father went away to spend New Year with his son, closing the curtains before leaving.
Neighbour opposite contacted Police who then broke in.

We of course took care of and paid for everything, boarding up, new door etc. Around £500 altogether.

Police didn't want to know and nor the insurance company. It became a matter of principle really from my dad age 90 to win. Personally, I would have let it drop. He hadn't paid a penny, we had.

So, reading The Mail On Sunday money problem page and a Nancy? money expert had tackled an insurance company with the exact same problem and won. Dad used that example and got the £500 back.

He offered us £100 for our trouble. we declined gracefully. After all we had paid the £500 but didn't have the heart to explain it to him.

Love him, I'd give a million front doors to have him back.

I have tried to find the article nadnad, unlucky so far. Someone on a money saving site will know of this Nancy woman, when you find it quote it to your insurance company.

vaio

ifstar wrote: »

The police do not knock down doors as a first resort, they would have tried various other means of contacting the person before that.

Phone triangulation takes time to do, it's not just a case of flicking a switch and seeing where a phone is.

The police will definitely have tried to contact the person first, however would you rather police continued to try and phone around lot's of people if there could be someone dead in a house.

You need to explain the circumstances to the insurance company, the police certainly aren't liable though.

According to the OP the neighbours gave the police her mothers number before they knocked the door in and yet rather than ringing they carried on and knocked the door in.

You're correct, exact triangulation does take a while, but a quick (as in instant) check can be done to get the rough location (between 5 miles ish out in the sticks or 500m in a city), this would have told them whether the phone could be in the flat or was in a city 100 miles away or, as in this case, in Lithuania.

Finally, she has explained the circumstances to her insurance company and they have advised that the police are responsible.

On the face of it I’m inclined to agree

ventureuk

Sect 17 PACE

Lawfully used in these circumstances, Police don't have to pay to do their job and use the powers afforded by legislation.

The Ambulance Service don't compensate people whose clothes they cut off in order to treat them.

The Fire Service don't compensate people when they knock a door in to put a fire out.

The insurance company should not have to pay either, as a landlord it's down to you.

vaio

ventureuk wrote: »

Sect 17 PACE

Lawfully used in these circumstances, Police don't have to pay to do their job and use the powers afforded by legislation……..

Yep, pace does give the power of entry & searching but only if it’s done reasonably.

I’d say the refusal to ring the landlady before knocking the door off coupled to the non locating of the former tenants phone took it outside the reasonable area and therefore the police should pay for the damage