Broken window in tenanted property

Humphrey10

angelsmomma wrote: »

I really do want to give them a chance.

You've given them a chance, and they flooded your house. Also why were they fiddling with the boiler (I assume the pilot light didn't turn itself off), if they are not even intelligent enough to work a shower curtain? How on earth do they not know how a shower curtain works?

They clearly do not respect your property at all, and are not taking care of it, and have no money to repair all the damage they have done. If you get rid of them, they have only themselves to blame.

clutton_2

if they are on a card gas meter... if it runs out of gas the boiler may not restart... you need to put something in writing about this, and get her to sign it - otherwise you will be calling out engineers and paying through the nose....

i discussed this with British gas this week and tenants need to top up a minimum of £10, not £5, as the £5 usually only pays for the emergency credit which BG gives at weekends.... and then the boiler may stop working, again.....

jamie11

Wow! from busted window to busted boiler, must be train of thought happening. However I agree with Brallaqueen, don't lend them money, fix the window and claim it from the deposit at the end of the tenancy, if the tenant offers you the cost later before the tenancy ends then count that as a blessing.

johnbusby

Without going into the other maters I think the your tenant is being very generous by offering to replace the window at her cost. While you can have your own thoughts on who smashed the window there is clearly no proof (or the police would intervene) so what you are doing is making the tenant pay for a random act of vandalism. Would you expect them to pay if some arsonist came along and set the building alight? Where is the difference?

While it is frustrating, the buck stops with you as the property owner to sort out repair in my opinion. At the end of the day this is part of being a LL...

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

Without going into the other maters I think the your tenant is being very generous by offering to replace the window at her cost. While you can have your own thoughts on who smashed the window there is clearly no proof (or the police would intervene) so what you are doing is making the tenant pay for a random act of vandalism. Would you expect them to pay if some arsonist came along and set the building alight? Where is the difference?

While it is frustrating, the buck stops with you as the property owner to sort out repair in my opinion. At the end of the day this is part of being a LL...

How much "proof" do you need? The tenant has stated that the ex did it, he stated that he was going to do it and the tenant has taken responsibility with an offer to pay. This isn't the Old Bailey.

johnbusby

Even if the old boyfriend did do it then why should the tenant pay - she didn't break the glass?

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

Even if the old boyfriend did do it then why should the tenant pay - she didn't break the glass?

Neither did the landlord. But if he's had a different tenant in there, the window would not have been broken. Simples.

johnbusby

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The tenant is at fault because the issue is tenant specific, not a random attack. Had a different tenant been resident, the attack from the ex-boyfriend wouldn't have happened.

The responsibility clause is common and passes the "reasonableness" test. As such, it would be enforceable.

It doesn't pass my reasonableness test. Where do we draw the line, if I bump into some maniac in the street and they petrol bomb my house am I responsible. If I attract a stalker and they break a window am I responsible.

Both of these wouldn't have happened if another tenant was in situ (if I was a 60 year old man rather than an 21 year old model I wouldn't have attracted that stalker)

You can't make the tenant pay for the irrational actions of others. While it is frustrating, the cost falls on the home owner or their insurers

johnbusby

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Neither did the landlord. But if he's had a different tenant in there, the window would not have been broken. Simples.

No the landlord did not, and I sympathise with him. However he runs and business and, like anything, there are risks and unforeseen costs involved. The LL must either accept these risks, insure against them or perhaps invest their cash in some risk less enterprise (gold maybe?)

jenhug

don't lend her money!