Broken window in tenanted property

clutton_2

just found this on another thread - thought it very useful

However, in Lord Denning's famous judgment re "tenant like manner.." , Warren V Keen 1954
http://www.letlink.co.uk/case-law/di...keen-1954.html

Quote:
'What does "to use the premises in a tenant-like manner" mean ? ..The tenant must take proper care of the place. He must, if he is going away for the winter, turn off the water and empty the boiler. He must clean the chimneys, when necessary and also the windows.He must mend the electric light when it fuses. He must unstop the sink when it is blocked by his waste. In short, he must do those little jobs about the place which a reasonable tenant would do. In addition, he must, of course, not damage the house wilfully or negligently; and he must see that his family and guests do not damage it; and if they do, he must repair it. But apart from such things, if the house falls out of repair owing to fair wear and tear, lapse of time or for any reason not caused by him, then he will not be liable to repair it.'

dippy

clutton wrote: »

just found this on another thread - thought it very useful

However, in Lord Denning's famous judgment re "tenant like manner.." , Warren V Keen 1954
http://www.letlink.co.uk/case-law/di...keen-1954.html

Quote:
'What does "to use the premises in a tenant-like manner" mean ? ..The tenant must take proper care of the place. He must, if he is going away for the winter, turn off the water and empty the boiler. He must clean the chimneys, when necessary and also the windows.He must mend the electric light when it fuses. He must unstop the sink when it is blocked by his waste. In short, he must do those little jobs about the place which a reasonable tenant would do. In addition, he must, of course, not damage the house wilfully or negligently; and he must see that his family and guests do not damage it; and if they do, he must repair it. But apart from such things, if the house falls out of repair owing to fair wear and tear, lapse of time or for any reason not caused by him, then he will not be liable to repair it.'

Lol, this thread is getting more and more farcical by the minute. The OP has revealed that the ex has made death threats and threatened to break the window.

Guys, take a step back and do you believe that in these circumstances the ex-bf of the daughter would have been anything like a guest or an invited person in the house? This person _WAS NOT A VISITOR NOR GUEST_.

tbs624

Unbelievable that this thread is on its fourth page and *still* posts such as Clutton's are being made suggesting that the T is liable

As dippy says, the apparent perpetrator cannot be classed as a visitor or guest of the T in this scenario. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest otherwise.

lighting_up_the_chalice

tbs624 wrote: »

Unbelievable that this thread is on its fourth page and *still* posts such as Clutton's are being made suggesting that the T is liable

As dippy says, the apparent perpetrator cannot be classed as a visitor or guest of the T in this scenario. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest otherwise.

I'm with Clutton on this one. Were it not for the presence of that individual tenant and their family, he wouldn't have been there. Who else do you think he was "visiting" at that address? This wasn't an act of pure chance.

johnbusby

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm with Clutton on this one. Were it not for the presence of that individual tenant and their family, he wouldn't have been there. Who else do you think he was "visiting" at that address? This wasn't an act of pure chance.

Okay lets take this to extremes to show the massive holes in your argument. Suppose a tenant is black and happens to move in next door to a racist. The racist puts the windows in - this is not an act of chance, if the tenant had been white then the racist would have been as happy as Larry.

Would you still propose that the tenant pay the cost here, and if not what is the difference between this and the situation on this thread? The tenant can do as much about the actions of others (ex boyfriend) as they can about the colour of their skin...

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

I'm with Clutton on this one. Were it not for the presence of that individual tenant and their family, he wouldn't have been there. Who else do you think he was "visiting" at that address? This wasn't an act of pure chance.

For god's sake, the tenant's daughter was the _VICTIM_ of death threats and an attack with an object heavy enough to break a window. Now you're trying to say it's her fault?????

Read what you're writing people!!!

lighting_up_the_chalice

johnbusby wrote: »

Okay lets take this to extremes to show the massive holes in your argument. Suppose a tenant is black and happens to move in next door to a racist. The racist puts the windows in - this is not an act of chance, if the tenant had been white then the racist would have been as happy as Larry.

Would you still propose that the tenant pay the cost here, and if not what is the difference between this and the situation on this thread? The tenant can do as much about the actions of others (ex boyfriend) as they can about the colour of their skin...

Not quite the same thing, is it? However, if we're going to take a flight into the realms of fantasy, what if the tenant has a bit of a party? Uninvited guests turn up, smash the place up a bit, would you expect the LL to dip is hands in his own pockets for that one too? What if it happens every Saturday night?

The tenant failed to exercise any control over those visiting THEIR home. They failed to notify anyone about the threats made to damage the property and failed to take any action to address that threat or to mitigate that damage. Please explain to me how, in your opinion, that is not an act of neglect.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

For god's sake, the tenant's daughter was the _VICTIM_ of death threats and an attack with an object heavy enough to break a window. Now you're trying to say it's her fault?????

Read what you're writing people!!!

And what action did they take to address these threats? The square root of FA. Their neglect does not transfer responsibility onto the landlord.

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Not quite the same thing, is it? However, if we're going to take a flight into the realms of fantasy, what if the tenant has a bit of a party? Uninvited guests turn up, smash the place up a bit, would you expect the LL to dip is hands in his own pockets for that one too? What if it happens every Saturday night?

The tenant failed to exercise any control over those visiting THEIR home. They failed to notify anyone about the threats made to damage the property and failed to take any action to address that threat or to mitigate that damage. Please explain to me how, in your opinion, that is not an act of neglect.

Give it up lighting up the chalice!!! You're the one who's trying to victimise a poor girl who's already been the victim of death threats and a frightful crime. Violence was used here.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

Give it up lighting up the chalice!!! You're the one who's trying to victimise a poor girl who's already been the victim of death threats and a frightful crime. Violence was used here.

And your solution is to create another victim (the landlord)? How is that constructive?