Broken window in tenanted property

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

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

I'm not creating any victims. Both the girl (as the person whose life was in danger) and the landlord (as the person who owns the house) were the victims of that guy. Point final.

Nothing else can be done about that. By trying to further persecute the girl for money when she had no fault in this, you are further victimising her!!!

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

I'm not creating any victims. Both the girl (as the person whose life was in danger) and the landlord (as the person who owns the house) were the victims of that guy. Point final.

Nothing else can be done about that. By trying to further persecute the girl for money when she had no fault in this, you are further victimising her!!!

The tenant's paying up, so the landlord isn't a victim. At least one of us seems to think that fewer victims is better.

As for the money aspect? That's a bit of a mute point really. The tenant chose not to insure against such a loss. Hardly anyone's fault but her own.... unless you think she is now the victim of ignorance?

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The tenant's paying up, so the landlord isn't a victim. At least one of us seems to think that fewer victims is better.

As for the money aspect? That's a bit of a mute point really. The tenant chose not to insure against such a loss. Hardly anyone's fault but her own.... unless you think she is now the victim of ignorance?

The tenant is paying up because they think it's the "decent thing to do". But don't let this fool you, the landlord would be victimising the tentant if they were to ask for money here.

The tenant cannot/should not get buildings insurance here. It's the landlord's responsibility.

Do you call yourself a landlord? This is appalling behaviour!! A visit to the CAB and their resident legal service would put any bad landlord on the straight and narrow here.

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

The tenant is paying up because they think it's the "decent thing to do". But don't let this fool you, the landlord would be victimising the tentant if they were to ask for money here.

The tenant cannot/should not get buildings insurance here. It's the landlord's responsibility.

Do you call yourself a landlord? This is appalling behaviour!! A visit to the CAB and their resident legal service would put any bad landlord on the straight and narrow here.

If I did call myself a landlord, I would have stuck a big sheet of plywood over the window until the tenant sorted out the repair.

Tenants CAN get insurance against such damage. This incident indicates that, perhaps, they SHOULD.

As for the landlords responsibility.... I can see no evidence of neglect or negligence on the landlords part which has lead to this breakage. Neither can I see evidence of normal wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance being at fault.

Should the tenant decide to break every window in the house, once a week, every week, would you expect the landlord to keep every glass fitter in the area constantly employed for the duration of the tenancy?

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If I did call myself a landlord, I would have stuck a big sheet of plywood over the window until the tenant sorted out the repair.

Tenants CAN get insurance against such damage. This incident indicates that, perhaps, they SHOULD.

As for the landlords responsibility.... I can see no evidence of neglect or negligence on the landlords part which has lead to this breakage. Neither can I see evidence of normal wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance being at fault.

Should the tenant decide to break every window in the house, once a week, every week, would you expect the landlord to keep every glass fitter in the area constantly employed for the duration of the tenancy?

Look, your position is untenable and there is no need to go to far-fetched examples here.

I could just as easily have taken a similar tack and said that if you had a daughter and her ex was mental and made death threats and killed her, you should go to prison because you're responsible ... etc

The tenant or her family did not let the perpetrator into the property when the crime happened and thus is not responsible. There are no two ways about this.

The perpetrator was not a visitor nor guest when the crime happened. So they're not responsible!!

lighting_up_the_chalice

dippy wrote: »

The perpetrator was not a visitor nor guest when the crime happened. So they're not responsible!!

What? Do you think he did it by post?

chucknorris

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

If I did call myself a landlord, I would have stuck a big sheet of plywood over the window until the tenant sorted out the repair.

Tenants CAN get insurance against such damage. This incident indicates that, perhaps, they SHOULD.

As for the landlords responsibility.... I can see no evidence of neglect or negligence on the landlords part which has lead to this breakage. Neither can I see evidence of normal wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance being at fault.

Should the tenant decide to break every window in the house, once a week, every week, would you expect the landlord to keep every glass fitter in the area constantly employed for the duration of the tenancy?

I'll say up front that I'm a landlord.

I don't think it's relevant that the landlord was not negligent, what is relevant is whether or not the tenant was responsible, if not then by default it must be the landlord's maintenance responsibility. IMO it all depends upon whether or not the (ex)bf was a 'visitor' or not. I can see the logic on both sides of the arguement, one side being he was there because of the tenant and the other side being that he was not invited or welcome.

Although I tend to think that the tenant is probably responsible I personally would just pay for it myself, I probably wouldn't claim it on the insurance, because between the excess and the possibly increased premium probably isn't worth claiming. It would be more economical simply to just claim the 40% tax back from the inland revenue.

But just simply as a point of interest I would like to know what the outcome would have been had the tenant and landlord fought it out in the small claims court. Personally I think life's too short to argue over such petty things and I would have just paid for it.

If I was the owner of the property I would contact the police (again) though just in case this happens again.

real1314

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

.... I can see no evidence of neglect or negligence on the landlords part which has lead to this breakage. Neither can I see evidence of normal wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance being at fault.

You clearly have no idea of the Legal responsibility for landlords. If a random driver hit the property causing damage and drove off;
how would the LL have exhibited neglect or negligence?
how would it fall under wear and tear or a lack of routine maintenance?

It clearly wouldn't, so by your "logic" it would not be the LLs responsibility.

But the simple fact is that it would be the LLs responsibility.

Until you grasp this point, you are just entrenching a naive viewpoint.

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Should the tenant decide to break every window in the house, once a week, every week, would you expect the landlord to keep every glass fitter in the area constantly employed for the duration of the tenancy?

I see what you're doing here; you are trying to twist the scenario. perhaps I should suggest that if the T invited the LL round for a chat, and the LL broke every window, it would fall the to T, as the LL was their "guest"? That would be as equally farcical as your suggestion;

The tenant didn't break the window. If the Tenant broke 1 window or every window, it would be the Tenant's responsibility. No-one has suggested that it would not be. :cool:

dippy

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

What? Do you think he did it by post?

Hell, if somebody came to kill you in your house and fires a shot from the street, will you classify him as a visitor? What if he knows you, does he then become a visitor? What if he went out with your daughter at some point in the past, does he then become a visitor?

What if he breaks into the house and strangles you, does he become a visitor?

Think from the position of the tenant in this case.

You have no leg to stand on.

angelsmomma

This has now escalated into a much more serious matter and as such I feel I should not comment further at this time.

Chuck Norris, I agree with you and what you suggest is near enough to what I was thinking. Thank you