Broken window in tenanted property

lighting_up_the_chalice

real1314 wrote: »

You clearly have no idea of the Legal responsibility for landlords. If a random driver hit the property causing damage and drove off;
how would the LL have exhibited neglect or negligence?
how would it fall under wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance?

It clearly wouldn't, so by your "logic" it would not be the LLs responsibility.

But the simple fact is that it would be the LLs responsibility.

Until you grasp this point, you are just entrenching a naive viewpoint.

Chalk and cheese, dear boy, chalk and cheese. This wasn't an accident and it wasn't random.

real1314 wrote: »

I see what you're doing here; you are trying to twist the scenario.

A bit hypocritical, given your fanciful "what if" above.

real1314 wrote: »

perhaps I should suggest that if the T invited the LL round for a chat, and the LL broke every window, it would fall the to T, as the LL was their "guest"? That would be as equally farcical as your suggestion;

"I see what you're doing here; you are trying to twist the scenario.".... Ring any bells? Ultimately, the person who broke the window is responsible, of course. But that is a matter between them and the tenant. The landlord is not a party to that issue.

real1314 wrote: »

The tenant didn't break the window. If the Tenant broke 1 window or every window, it would be the Tenant's responsibility. No-one has suggested that it would not be. :cool:

Unlike your runaway car scenario, the fact remains that if that particular tenant wasn't in that particular property, the window wouldn't have been broken. If the tenant feels another party should cough up (ie the person who broke the window) it is for them to chase the guilty party for recompense, in much the same way that the driver of the runaway car (via their insurance) would be chased by the landlord (via his insurance) for recompense.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

Hell, if somebody came to kill you in your house and fires a shot from the street, will you classify him as a visitor? What if he knows you, does he then become a visitor? What if he went out with your daughter at some point in the past, does he then become a visitor?

What if he breaks into the house and strangles you, does he become a visitor?

Think from the position of the tenant in this case.

You have no leg to stand on.

He visited, yes. He went, with intent, to a specific location.

Googlies_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If I did call myself a landlord, I would have stuck a big sheet of plywood over the window until the tenant sorted out the repair.

Tenants CAN get insurance against such damage. This incident indicates that, perhaps, they SHOULD.

As for the landlords responsibility.... I can see no evidence of neglect or negligence on the landlords part which has lead to this breakage. Neither can I see evidence of normal wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance being at fault.

Should the tenant decide to break every window in the house, once a week, every week, would you expect the landlord to keep every glass fitter in the area constantly employed for the duration of the tenancy?

Straw man arguments..

A little bizzare to introduce what you cant see as support for your argument.

Does the Landlord and Tenant Act restrict Landlords obligations to these reasons? If not what is the point of that statement?

No, is this the only option you can think of?

clutton_2

angelsmomma wrote: »

This has now escalated into a much more serious matter and as such I feel I should not comment further at this time.

Chuck Norris, I agree with you and what you suggest is near enough to what I was thinking. Thank you

i am so sorry to hear that things are more serious and sorry that the thread did not serve you well. if you want any support, feel free to PM me, as a LL of 12 years i have come across many situations which needed difficult solutions. best wishes

lighting_up_the_chalice

Googlies wrote: »

Straw man arguments..

A little bizzare to introduce what you cant see as support for your argument.

Does the Landlord and Tenant Act restrict Landlords obligations to these reasons? If not what is the point of that statement?

No, is this the only option you can think of?

It was a simple argument, intended to indicate levels of responsibility. Perhaps it wasn't simple enough for you. Would more colours have helped?

Threat made to tenants home. Did they...
Notify the landlord for her to take appropriate action to protect their property?... No.
Notify the relevant authority of a stated intent to commit a crime?... No.
Do anything that may have either prevented or mitigated the loss?... No.

And from that, you conclude that the landlord is liable. How?

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

He visited, yes. He went, with intent, to a specific location.

But in the eyes of the law and everybody else, he wasn't a visitor!!

Yorkie1

Good luck OP, and do take Clutton up on her offer if you need to.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

But in the eyes of the law and everybody else, he wasn't a visitor!!

In the eyes of the law? Are you sure about that? Visited, in the context I have described (went, with intent, to a specific location)?

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

It was a simple argument, intended to indicate levels of responsibility. Perhaps it wasn't simple enough for you. Would more colours have helped?

Threat made to tenants home. Did they...
Notify the landlord for her to take appropriate action to protect their property?... No.
Notify the relevant authority of a stated intent to commit a crime?... No.
Do anything that may have either prevented or mitigated the loss?... No.

And from that, you conclude that the landlord is liable. How?

Strawman argument again. Look at the response of the police after the crime was committed. What do you think they would have done when it was still hypothetical and nothing had happened yet?

What could the tenant actually do? There is nothing in this thread to suggest that the tenant was at fault.

Thus, the damage happened through no fault of the tenant, much like the gale force winds could have thrown a rock at the window. And the landlord needs to provide secure accomodation, and landlord insurance is for events like this!!!

real1314

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

In the eyes of the law? Are you sure about that? Visited, in the context I have described (went, with intent, to a specific location)?

He was not an invited guest or visitor.

He was uninvited.

A contract which makes someone responsible for the actions of someone whom they have not invited to their property could only be enforced if the tenant could be shown to be negligent in some way.

I don't think there is a cat in hell's chance of that being proven.

really, you are just trying to shift and shift your point. You started off with LL only being responsible if negligent/neglect/wear and tear/fail to maintain; however the fact is that the LL is principally responsible for any event which cannot fall to the tenant.

And you cannot place responsibility on the T without negligence.

You'll stick to your view, you've invested too much to actually take an open-minded approach. It'' just run round and round.

The legal position is:-

1. LL pays for repair (or gets their insurer to pay, in which case they would be the ones suing)
2. LL can attempt to sue for costs.
3. LL has very very little chance of establishing T was negligent, so they wouldn't win that one.
4. LL has a very strong chance of establishing that the perpetrator was responsible, so that is who they would sue.

A contract can't really bind a signatory to responsibility for the actions of another over whom they have no control. :cool: