Broken window in tenanted property

johnbusby

The tenant has the obligation to behave in a tenant like manner. This does not extend to vetting her daughters potential boyfriends in case they may cause damage to the house - I think it is relatively naive to think that the parent has much say in who their 15 year old daughter associates herself with.

You say "They should be more pro active about pursuing matters of damage caused by people they have bought to the property BEFORE whining to the LL". What do you expect them to do? They phoned the police who said there was no case - do you expect the T to go round to the boys house with baseball bats?

The claim is on more than shaky ground, it is downright unfair and unenforceable. People keep saying the T invited this thug into their house but this is clearly not the case - he is known the family but clearly not an invited guest.

A section 21 can be issued for any reason, however I think it is unfair and immoral to use it as a stick to threaten people with for fixing matters that they have no obligation to do so.

casper_g

Surely no 2-year-old boiler has a pilot light?

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

tI would go to someone you know, get on facebook do a screen print and then claim the cost of a new window off her when she leaves, via a deduction from her deposit.

If the ex boyfriend's FB account is restricted then the LL simply opening her own FB account will not mean that she would be able to access his personal pages. Only his FB "friends" will be able to do that.

T should have insisted that the police recorded it as a crime and obtained a reference number. LL then claims on insurance policy. Sounds mighty like Plod not wanting the paperwork in this case.

If "rioters" can be hauled into court over the content of their social networking pages then so can other petty criminals. I should imagine that the ex has now deleted that original comment.

If the circumstances are that the ex BF randomly committed this act from the street then this person is not a "visitor" to the property in the usual sense of the term within a tenancy agreement. It's a nonsense to suggest otherwise. I would suggest to any T that they challenge a LL seeking to pull the costs back from the tenancy deposit in those circs.

Had he actually been at the property by invitation of the T, had a row whilst there and then kicked the window in on leaving the premises then I would however expect the T or her insurance to deal with it and be making their own decision over how to pursue the ex BF for recompense..

tbs624

clutton wrote: »

"" I think its unreasonable to expect the tenant to keep the gas meter in credit 100% of the time.""

as a LL i think it is eminently reasonable to expect a tenant to keep the gas meter in credit.... especially if by not doing so an engineer visit is necessary....

If the result is that the pilot light goes out and both the LL and the T know how to relight the boiler then an engineer's visit would not be required.

johnbusby

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

If we're talking morality and tenant-like behaviour here: the tenants had a strong suspicion/prior knowledge that damage to the landlord's property was imminent.

What exactly did they do about it? Anything at all? Or did they just let it happen?

What exactly do you want them to do? I cant see the police being interested in a minor crime that might or might not happen. Do you want the police to stake out the place for a couple of days?

dodger1

jc808 wrote: »

No but the family should be more cautious about who they attract to the house, and should be more pro active about pursuing matters of damage caused by people they have bought to the property BEFORE whining to the LL 'oooh can you pay for a new window, like you paid for our flood and our misuse of the boiler thanks'

The problem is nobody knows who broke the window, the finger can be pointed but that's all.

johnbusby

The fact of the mater is that there was no way to stop the damage. The police would not have been interested and the little thug could have struck at any time, day or night, within the next couple of weeks. Im a reasonably rational person so if I was in the tenants situation I would have phoned the boys parents to try and get them to talk some sense into him. Failing that, im afraid I would have to shrug my shoulders and say c'est la vie, there is nothing else to do....

angelsmomma

casper_g wrote: »

Surely no 2-year-old boiler has a pilot light?

Sorry I meant the reset button not pilot light. It is a 2 year old condensing boiler. I don't know much about them as I always get a gas safe engineer in if there is a problem.

dodger1

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

Yes, of course they should have informed the police. They may not have been able to prevent the act but they'd certainly have circumstantial evidence and perhaps a criminal damage prosecution could have been secured.

If I assured you that I was coming round to your house with a Louisville Slugger, would you just shug your shoulders, c'est la vie?
Or would you think of protecting your property by calling the police?

Tenants have a duty of care.
Duty includes taking all reasonable steps to avoid damage.

The CPS will not go ahead with a prosecution with one piece of circumstantial evidence without hard evidence to back it up. There would have to be overwhelming circumstantial evidence on it's own for a prosecution to proceed. The CPS are very wary of prosecutions without a lot of evidence.

johnbusby

Im going to bow out of this thread at this stage, I can see the OP has no interest in considering that they should pay for the broken window (signafied by their thanking of every post that agrees with their opinion and ignorance of any post that contravenes it ) so there is no point carrying on the discussion. It makes me wonder why people bother to post things on here when all they are interested in only one side of the argument - wastes everybody's time