Broken window in tenanted property

clutton_2

Quote:
Originally Posted by clutton

well lighting.. i hope you are proud of yourself.. you have driven away yet another person who was in distress and needed help..... what is the matter with you ? this forum is about helping others, not engaging in nitpicky silly arguments which stop genuinely needy people from getting the help they need... do grow up


Read the thread, Clutton. Further legal action has caused her to stop posting. Nothing I have said has changed the action already taken. It might, however, have stopped her sticking her own hand into her own pocket, thus saving her money which is, as I understand it, the entire point of a MONEY SAVING forum. Or didn't you understand that?


Lighting - you appear to have failed dismally : -



Originally Posted by angelsmomma

Thank you everyone for your input, it is sorted out now. I am paying for it and they will pay me back after Christmas. If they don't pay me back I will put it down to experience. I won't be serving a section 21.


i wouldn't hold my breath for them to pay up.......

chucknorris

tbs624 wrote: »

Some guidance from the Office of Fair Trading which may help LUTC

"Landlords are under a duty to maintain the structure of the building and this risk is their responsibility even though the claim may not arise through their fault. This does not mean that tenants are not liable for damages where they are at fault, but they should not be required to bear this risk in all instances. Similarly we would object to a term making the tenant liable for damage done by third parties outside their control, for example, repairs required following a burglary or vandalism."

Ultimately, this is one of those things that would have to be settled by a court/deposit scheme arbitration if the LL tried to recoup the costs from the T's deposit.

As I said previously

I thought that it was muddy waters until this post, I would have paid for it anyway, but after reading your post I think I would be satisfied that I hadn't actually done anyone any favours and merely fulfilled my obligations.

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by clutton

well lighting.. i hope you are proud of yourself.. you have driven away yet another person who was in distress and needed help..... what is the matter with you ? this forum is about helping others, not engaging in nitpicky silly arguments which stop genuinely needy people from getting the help they need... do grow up


Read the thread, Clutton. Further legal action has caused her to stop posting. Nothing I have said has changed the action already taken. It might, however, have stopped her sticking her own hand into her own pocket, thus saving her money which is, as I understand it, the entire point of a MONEY SAVING forum. Or didn't you understand that?


Lighting - you appear to have failed dismally : -



Originally Posted by angelsmomma

Thank you everyone for your input, it is sorted out now. I am paying for it and they will pay me back after Christmas. If they don't pay me back I will put it down to experience. I won't be serving a section 21.


i wouldn't hold my breath for them to pay up.......

But at least I am comfortable that I didn't drive her away, as you claimed.

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.

The cost of the repair can be easily recovered by the landlord with such an agreement in place. However, had there been a unanimous opinion that she should pay, this may have swayed her decision. In that context, I'm comfortable with my moneysaving advice.

clutton_2

"The cost of the repair can be easily recovered by the landlord with such an agreement in place."

exactly what planet do you live on - talking about "easily recovered"

1) there is no legally binding contract between the window-breakers family and the landlord
2) even tho they may have verbally agreed, they probably wouldnt pay and a LL would have to take them to court to ask for judgement which s/he may or may not get.
3) even if judgement were obtained then there is the matter of enforcement... if the family are on benefits, it is utterly pointless taking them to court
4) if they are in work, and dont pay, its back to court for an attachment of earnings...

all this probably costs more than the cost of a new window...

if you call that easy .....................

clutton_2

chucknorris wrote: »

I thought that it was muddy waters until this post, I would have paid for it anyway, but after reading your post I think I would be satisfied that I hadn't actually done anyone any favours and merely fulfilled my obligations.

as usual tbs uses "guidance " which is not law to tell people how to proceed....... pls treat this posters advice with great caution

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

"The cost of the repair can be easily recovered by the landlord with such an agreement in place."

exactly what planet do you live on - talking about "easily recovered"

1) there is no legally binding contract between the window-breakers family and the landlord
2) even tho they may have verbally agreed, they probably wouldnt pay and a LL would have to take them to court to ask for judgement which s/he may or may not get.
3) even if judgement were obtained then there is the matter of enforcement... if the family are on benefits, it is utterly pointless taking them to court
4) if they are in work, and dont pay, its back to court for an attachment of earnings...

all this probably costs more than the cost of a new window...

if you call that easy .....................

Give it a rest, Clutton. For someone so worried about driving the OP away, you aren't half giving it some....

1) I was talking about an agreement between LL and T.
2) How on earth do you know that the agreement is just verbal?
3) Crazy idea, but what about taking it from either rental payments or the deposit? Threat of S21 should encourage compliance.
4) See 3)

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

as usual tbs uses "guidance " which is not law to tell people how to proceed....... pls treat this posters advice with great caution

Clutton is right - this applies to all posts, even hers

Look up at the top:
"IMPORTANT!
This is an open forum - anyone can post.

Please exercise caution..."

Clutton - if you are going to pick at the posts of others like an old maid then at least have the courtesy to read and digest properly.

I don't give "advice" - none of us should on here. It's all suggestion, opinions and personal interpretations which posters should of course clarify for themselves. I've unfortunately lost count of your own many errors.

My post does not tell anyone "how to proceed" - that is down to the Original Poster to decide. She asked for opinions and that is what everyone has offered.

As can be seen, contrary to your assertions, I make it perfectly clear in the post above that

(a) what the OFT says is GUIDANCE and
(b) that ultimately it would have to be settled in a court of law.


I would have thought that was straightforward enough, even for you sweetheart.:D

chucknorris

clutton wrote: »

as usual tbs uses "guidance " which is not law to tell people how to proceed....... pls treat this posters advice with great caution

But at the end of the day I am only trying to be fair and reasonable and in the grand scheme of things if I err on the side of the tenant and there's not a great cost invoved, then some good will has been created.

real1314

clutton wrote: »

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

you try telling that to Environmental health who seem to think i can stop tenants making loud noise and abusing the neighbours......

But to be fair, you can exercise some degree of control over a tenant by evicting them or taking other action. EnvH would not be able to take action against a LL who had taken every legal remedy available.

On the other hand, to stop someone over whom you have no control at all, like a member of the public, albeit one whom you may previously had a some sort of relationship? How would that work?


Oh, and I did predict that LUTC would be totally entrenched, as they have proved.
The link to Occupier's Liability pretty much shows that the T cannot be held responsible; therefore the LL is responsible. That LUTC doesn't seem able to comprehend this demonstrates how little they are prepared to actually consider any other view.

There's no point actually continuing any debate with them imho.

:cool:

lighting_up_the_chalice

real1314 wrote: »

The link to Occupier's Liability pretty much shows that the T cannot be held responsible; therefore the LL is responsible.

Shows how limited your grasp of the situation is and how easy it is for people to get too close to the wood to see the trees. Just to remind you........ The person who broke the window is, ultimately, responsible. Surprised anyone would have to tell you that.... and surprised at how little the guilty party features in your posts.

And do you not wonder how you can insure against that for which you are not liable?