Who is liable for burglary damage causing a callout?

ewan_steele

I've dug my contract out. There are obviously many sections and points, but the relevant points seem to be:

The landlord agrees with the tenant as follows:

6.1 To pay and indemnify the tenant against all taxes, assessments and outgoings in respect of the property, except for the charges herein before agreed to be paid by the tenant.

6.5 To keep insured the premises and the furniture and effects (unless the insurance thereon shall be made void through or by reason of any act od default of the tenant) in such value as the landlord shall consider appropriate against the loss or damage by fire, storm, tempest, explosion and such other risks (subject to normal excesses) as the landlord shall think expedient and in case of damage by any event covered by such insurance forthwith to apply the monies received in rebuilding and reinstating the premises and the furniture and effects.

6.6 To keep the property insured against fire and the usual comprehensive risks.

The "charges herein before agreed to be paid by the tenant" seem to be

The tenant agrees with the landlord as follows:

4.5 To keep in tenantable repair all the fixtures, fittings and glass on the premises and not to remove from the presmises any of the said fixtures, fittings and glass and to keep the same in their present state of repair and condition and to replace with similar articles of at least equal value or if the landlord so requires to pay to the landlord the value of any part of the said furniture and effects which may be destroyed or so damaged as to be incapable of being restored to their former condition. (Except any part thereof which may be destroyed or damaged by any risk against which the landlord is required to insure).

If I'm reading that correctly, I was right to refer the locksmith to the landlady, and should do so again? Your thoughts?

She is insured, though does not want to claim because of the excess. If she claimed, the garage door could be totally replaced and this charge could also be claimed for.

Tiddlywinks

ewan_steele wrote: »

That's what it comes down to. It just annoys me that I (like most of us) pay a lot of council tax, and every single dealing we've had with the police so far has resulted in them farming out work on our behalf without asking, The police have been utilising trade partners for many years - would you rather an Officer be tasked with the carpentry? Or the taxpayer funds a compound with all of the admin and security etc that that would involve?

only for us to be charged extortionate fees. He is an innocent bystander, however his charges are extortionate. Off peak callout or not, £200 for what is 10 minutes work (maximum) and a very cheap bit of plywood is now exactly a figure which makes me want to put his feelings first. Had the charge been a little more reasonable, then yes, maybe I'd feel differently about this. Running a business is not just about sitting around waiting for a punter to call so you can rip them off - it involves the upkeep of premises and vehicles, staff costs, taxes and bad debtors etc. The fee sounds pretty reasonable to me.

This does not make me respect the police at all, and I feel that after a double burglary I've been hit with charge after charge as well as losing property all because of the police - who failed to even catch those responsible. The police didn't rob you or take your property - why did you not take steps to increase the security of the garage after you were burgled the first time? You said yourself that you expected them to return.

You didn't have insurance - your choice. You say you couldn't afford it - well, you could have sold one of the bikes to pay for it.

You kept valuables in a garage which was then burgled.

The police recovered the property and charged you a storage fee - perfectly legal; that's not what your council tax is for. Tenant's insurance would have covered it.

You continued to store valuables in your garage (despite thinking the burglar might come back) and took no steps to increase the security or move the goods to another location.

The garage was secured by a locksmith (on request of the police) and he deserves to be paid for his work - had you had tenant's insurance then this would have covered these costs.

You need to take some responsibility for the results of the choices you have made so far not blame everyone else.

Emmzi

I too pay a lot of council tax and I don't want to pay more because some people a) don't take out insurance and b) fail to take additional security measures following a burglary even when they have identified a higher risk that the thieves will return for more goods.

geri1965_2

I think you're all being a bit harsh on the OP. This charge would still have been levied even if there had been insurance!

mynameisdave

ewan_steele wrote: »

That's what it comes down to. It just annoys me that I (like most of us) pay a lot of council tax, and every single dealing we've had with the police so far has resulted in them farming out work on our behalf without asking, only for us to be charged extortionate fees.

And only about 10% of it goes to the police. I'm not surprised they don't want to invest in all the logistics of a vehicle recovery service when they are only like to be moaned at for not investing a lot of time into catching criminals!

He is an innocent bystander, however his charges are extortionate. Off peak callout or not, £200 for what is 10 minutes work (maximum) and a very cheap bit of plywood is now exactly a figure which makes me want to put his feelings first. Had the charge been a little more reasonable, then yes, maybe I'd feel differently about this.

This does not make me respect the police at all, and I feel that after a double burglary I've been hit with charge after charge as well as losing property all because of the police - who failed to even catch those responsible.

You'd still have to pay for the charge, even if they had caught the culprit. And without witnesses, or finger prints its going to be nigh on impossible to catch them.

On top of this, our landlady says there's no way she will pay a penny towards this.

Personally, I don't think you will be held liable if this went to dispute, but then I am not a legal expert or a judge. I would suggest an agreement with her IF you want to stay in the property.

If you don't you can just refuse to pay and she will have to cough up when you leave, but antagonising the landlady may get her goat and she could be awkward - no reference, for example.

You say had you been there you would not have instructed the repair. But thats the point. You WERENT there. And had the repair not been carried out you would have had another motorbike stolen.

clutton_2

""she told us the last tennants trashed the place. If she claimed on her insurance ("I didn't realise the excess was so high" - perhaps minor details like that should be looked at before taking out a policy...)""

the excess was probably high BECAUSE the previous tenant trashed the place.....

""You say had you been there you would not have instructed the repair. But thats the point. You WERENT there. ""

if OP had insurance it would not have mattered that they were not there when the burglary happened.. that is what insurance is for....

pararct

End of the day you did not ask for the work to be done so therefore no contract (or an obligation to pay on your part) exists for the work.

I think going through your AST here is a bit of a red herring, yes it will talk about damage and putting right but that will be for stuff you are directly responsible for.

Where emergency work has been taken to make good or secure property then it is usually the owner who would foot the cost and claim from the building insurance.
You as a tenant would not have building insurance and TBH I am pretty sure contents insurance wouldn't cover repair to the infrastructure of a building such a garage door.

There could be a number of reasons why your LL does not want to claim on the insurance, having to fork out the excess is only one. LL need particular insurance not run of the mill policies, it may be this is an unsuitable policy. The LL may have a mortgage on the property and not have permission to sublet, nothing to suggest the lender would discover the actual circumstances but it may be a worry for the LL.
I would be a little suspect as to why the LL is playing difficult with what after all is a pretty trifling bill (£200?) Maybe she has financial problems?

You probably cannot be pursued for this debt but your LL as the property owner can. If you leave it you may well sour your relationship. Question is, is your relationship with your LL more important that perhaps trying to reach an agreement with her on say a 50/50?

Worst case scenario she does not have the correct products to allow here to sublet and her mortgage lender makes life difficult for you.

Tiddlywinks

geri1965 wrote: »

I think you're all being a bit harsh on the OP. This charge would still have been levied even if there had been insurance!

Harsh? For pointing out that we all have to be prepared to live with the consequences of our actions?

Yes, the charges would have been levied but the insurance company would reimburse the insured party once receipts were submitted.

ewan_steele

Yes harsh. As a tenant (not a house owner) it is reasonably expected for me to only have contents insurance. It is not like I'm complaining about having a computer stolen with no insurance. Contents insurance would not cover this issue. I pay more per month as a tenant than I would on a mortgage, and I don't get the accumulation of property ownership. In return, I have the house on a short term lease, and the assurance that certain buildings related issues (such as broken plumbing) are taken care of, unlike if I owned the house. I should not, as a tenant, be expected to have buildings insurance; of that I'm quite certain. I'm not (really! ) complaining about my bikes being stolen, if I wanted to I could have had them insured for theft. I calculated that it wasn't worth it due to the low cost nature of the bikes, once excess and increased premiums were taken into account, and unfortunately that descision left me bikeless. Such is life, I'd make the exact same decision again, it makes sense. I'm not complaining about any contents being taken. What I am complaining about is damage done to the building, which was nothing to do with the tenants (us), and associated charges being pawned off on us.

Either the LL or the Locksmiths are lying a little bit here. We have spoken to the LL and she said she referred them back to the police, and that he said "why not just claim on your insurance?" to which she said "I'm not going to claim." We have spoken to the Locksmith afterwards and he adamantly told us that she told him she doesn't have insurance. Our contract clearly states in multiple places that the LL is required to have insurance (and maybe this is also law? Who knows). It also says we are not liable for costs related to the house other than utilities, furnishings and some other odds and ends (see my previous post for the exact clauses). He has asked us to send him a copy of our tenancy contract. The LL has asked us not to post any further details (e.g. her address) to him. The contract has this information on.

I can't see a reason for the Locksmith to lie - what benefit would he have from lying with "she said she has no insurance" over her claim to us that she told him "I'm not claiming on insurance." I see no benefit to him of choosing to lie this way. However I can see a clear benefit of her lying to us about this, i.e. she should have insurance and she doesn't. I'm beginning to think that the Locksmith may be telling the truth after all.

At the end of the day I feel that this should be between the LL and the Locksmith, and that my name is unfairly attached to this. I also feel that the LL and the Locksmith feel that we're the easier target and might just pay out of fear or to get it out of the way. This is not the case. I'd like to have this passed over to the LL and have the LL and the Locksmith fight it out.

To those that asked if it's worth souring the relationship with our LL over, my answer would probably be yes. It's a principle thing. We tested the water with the joint payment agreement, and she is adamant that she is not paying a penny towards this (and to give her credit, that "nor should we.") She suggested just ignoring it. Easy for her to say, it's not her name and address attached to this, the last thing I need is a bailff at the door or a CCJ.

To those that argue for me having to pay for the recovery of bikes and for work done on the house under duty of care, rather than the police paying for it which would put up council tax - you're right. Except for all of the reasons outlined above, I disagree that in this situation it should be me personally who pays for this. I believe this comes under (or certainly should come under!) the property owners responsibility.

princeofpounds

Reflecting on this, I'm pretty sure it is the landlord's responsibility if it is anyone's at all. As a tenant you do not have responsibility for the fabric of the building or its upkeep unless you actively damage it. Just occupying a building as a tenant when something bad happens does not mean you are responsible otherwise you'd be paying for every water leak, electrical fire and sewage overflow if it involves third parties.

Whatever the case of the bill for the emergency securing of the property, you rented a functional garage and it is the landlord's duty under section 11 of the housing and tenant act to repair it within a reasonable amount of time. If she does not, you can use the procedure under Lee-Parker vs Izzet 1971 to fix it and bill her from future rent. Of course, this might annoy her enough to end up with no more renewals on your tenancy, but it is your right. But start off with a written letter requesting repair so the clock starts ticking.