Broken window in tenanted property

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

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

There's nothing stopping the tenant from taking out their own insurance to mitigate against such losses. That they have chosen not to is no reason to impose that responsibility onto the landlord.

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

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?)

He has insured against them and, I'm sure, accepts the risks of being a landlord. However, he is also perfectly justified in mitigating those losses wherever possible. That's just good business practice.

johnbusby

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

There's nothing stopping the tenant from taking out their own insurance to mitigate against such losses. That they have chosen not to is no reason to impose that responsibility onto the landlord.

Im pretty sure your wrong, you can't insure something you can't own - it could even be fraud. In my opinion this one is up to to the LL, renting is not a riskless enterprise.

The tenant has agreed to pay which is great for the LL (not so great for the T) however I would be certain that if this found it way to court they would rule in the Ts favour.

johnbusby

It sounds like in the case "good business practice" equates to shafting the tenant who probably doesn't realise they have no obligation to pay. Not the way I would run my business but each to their own...

manda1205

Im surprised no one has mentioned visiting the ex-boyfriends parents.
My mum and dad have always rented, when we were younger my brother fell out with his friend and he came round and smashed the front door window. (he wasnt actually seen but he told my brothers other mate that he did it and soon confessed when my dad rang up his dad) My dad then rang the boys parents, they sent someone round to fix the door straight away. The landlord was never even contacted.
Surely if it is known its the ex boyfriend, why cant the tenants go and see/call his parents. He may confess to them, if he knows he is going to be in trouble with them, and then they can pay.

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

Im pretty sure your wrong, you can't insure something you can't own - it could even be fraud. In my opinion this one is up to to the LL, renting is not a riskless enterprise.

The tenant has agreed to pay which is great for the LL (not so great for the T) however I would be certain that if this found it way to court they would rule in the Ts favour.

LL/T act 1985 S11 (2)(a) clearly imposes a responsibility upon the tenant to "use the premises in a tenant-like manner". Failure to do so will mitigate the landlords repairing responsibility.

You can insure that which you do not own. After all, that is the basic principle of 3rd party insurance on motor vehicles. Many hire agreements will insist on insurance being taken out. As for specific tenants insurance to cover this kind of damage, just a few moments on google would have clarified the issue for you... http://www.lets-cover.co.uk/services/tenants.aspx

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

It sounds like in the case "good business practice" equates to shafting the tenant who probably doesn't realise they have no obligation to pay. Not the way I would run my business but each to their own...

How has the tenant been shafted? And how would forcing the responsibility of the tenants visitor onto the landlord be anything other than shafting the landlord?

real1314

The tenant, if we accept the tenancy clause, is responsible for breakages due to themselves, their family and their visitors.

The ex-boyfriend is not the tenant, not family, and given that they were not invited, is not a visitor.

So, the LL is liable.

By suggesting the T is liable, the suggestion is that the T, extended to their 15 yr old Daughter, is somehow responsible for the actions of their Ex.
They are no more responsible for the illegal actions of their ex than they would be responsible for someone they served in a shop who was !!!!ed off with them, a stranger who followed them home etc.

The LL could in-turn, sue the ex-boyfriend, based on the FB page and the outcome of events.
The level of proof in a civil case would be on balance of probability, and the LL would most likely win. :cool:

lighting_up_the_chalice

real1314 wrote: »

The tenant, if we accept the tenancy clause, is responsible for breakages due to themselves, their family and their visitors.

The ex-boyfriend is not the tenant, not family, and given that they were not invited, is not a visitor.

So, the LL is liable.

By suggesting the T is liable, the suggestion is that the T, extended to their 15 yr old Daughter, is somehow responsible for the actions of their Ex.
They are no more responsible for the illegal actions of their ex than they would be responsible for someone they served in a shop who was !!!!ed off with them, a stranger who followed them home etc.

The LL could in-turn, sue the ex-boyfriend, based on the FB page and the outcome of events.
The level of proof in a civil case would be on balance of probability, and the LL would most likely win. :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc

The ex only went to that address because of the presence of the tenant and her family. He would, therefore, fall under the umbrella of "visitor". His attack was not a random attack on a random house, it was a targeted attack on a very specific address.

Now, if the TENANT wants to chase the ex-boyfriend for reparation, that is entirely the TENANTS business. The identity or culpability of the ex boyfriend is of no concern to the landlord. He has already secured reparation from the party liable for the reparation of HIS damages/costs.

angelsmomma

clutton wrote: »

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.....

They are still waiting for the card meters to be installed as there was a credit meter when they first rented 2 months ago but the utility company has stated they should have the card meters.

I think they know how to operate them better than I do as I have never had them. Thank you for telling me about this I will do as you suggest and put it in writing for her.