Broken window in tenanted property

Googlies_2

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?

So you are now relying on straw man arguments and rudeness.

Which part of my post stated my position on liability? I was just pointing out that you were making up your own arguments, which you have just done again.

lighting_up_the_chalice

real1314 wrote: »

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?

Very simply. When threats are made (and documented), the authorities and any party with an interest are informed. You may well think that the Police would have done nothing, but that is pure conjecture as the opportunity was never provided. The tenant has a duty as well as the landlord.

lighting_up_the_chalice

Googlies wrote: »

So you are now relying on straw man arguments and rudeness.

Which part of my post stated my position on liability? I was just pointing out that you were making up your own arguments, which you have just done again.

The "arguments" used are detailed in previous posts by the OP.... Hardly "straw man arguments". I'm quite happy to quote them if you think they are made up. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread?

real1314

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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?

O, gawd almighty, all that twisting just to show that you cannot be "wrong" ?

The LL is responssible - for the provision of a property that meets appropriate standards, like having proper windows, wot is not smasehed, 'cos they own the property.

The LL is ultimately responsible for the property. Funnily enough, because it's THEIR property and THEY signed a contract to provide the T with an adequate property

Even if the T had DIRECTLY caused a fault, e.g they did something to the boiler that made it unsafe so that it could not be used to provide hot water.
Then they told the LL that the boiler was unsafe.
Then the LL got a GasSafe engineer to inspect it and agreed it was unsafe.
Who would have to pay for action to make it safe?

Go on LUTC, give us your view?

.......:cool:

clutton_2

"" how you can insure against that for which you are not liable? ""

i am not liable for trees destroying my drains - but i can insure against that happening.
i am not liable for terrorism.. but i can insure my property against that

lighting_up_the_chalice

clutton wrote: »

"" how you can insure against that for which you are not liable? ""


i am not liable for trees destroying my drains - but i can insure against that happening.

They're YOUR drains. Unless YOU insure against such damage, only YOU will be liable for their repair.

clutton wrote: »

i am not liable for terrorism.. but i can insure my property against that

It's YOUR property. Unless YOU insure against such damage, only YOU will be liable for their repair.

I'm surprised that you find this so difficult a concept to grasp.

lighting_up_the_chalice

real1314 wrote: »

O, gawd almighty, all that twisting just to show that you cannot be "wrong" ?

The LL is responssible - for the provision of a property that meets appropriate standards, like having proper windows, wot is not smasehed, 'cos they own the property.

The LL is ultimately responsible for the property. Funnily enough, because it's THEIR property and THEY signed a contract to provide the T with an adequate property

Even if the T had DIRECTLY caused a fault, e.g they did something to the boiler that made it unsafe so that it could not be used to provide hot water.
Then they told the LL that the boiler was unsafe.
Then the LL got a GasSafe engineer to inspect it and agreed it was unsafe.
Who would have to pay for action to make it safe?

Go on LUTC, give us your view?

My opinions are well documented. Let's hear some other regarding the above points.

There ya go, MSE landlords.... Your tenant can do whatever they like to the property, even with malice, and it's up to YOU to pay the price. Discuss.

Oh, and 1314? Let me know if you ever start landlording. If I can pinch just one boiler a week from your house, I'll be quids in. Fool.

Googlies_2

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The "arguments" used are detailed in previous posts by the OP.... Hardly "straw man arguments". I'm quite happy to quote them if you think they are made up. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread?

After I had posted you wrote;

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

"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?"

How could I have possibly made a conclusion from something you had yet to write?

clutton_2

go to User CP at the top of the page.....scroll down to Edit Ignore List... enter users name. ... save... simples

lighting_up_the_chalice

Googlies wrote: »

After I had posted you wrote;

How could I have possibly made a conclusion from something you had yet to write?

(sigh)... In reply to.....

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?

You posted....

Googlies wrote: »

So you are now relying on straw man arguments and rudeness.

I was asking why you felt that to be a "straw man argument"? Seems simple enough..... even for you.