Being sued but no "letter of action" - will they not get costs?

Guardsman

Similar question posted under different usernames.

Savvy_Sue

From reading the other threads, worth noting that the padlock was fitted to the OP's INTERNAL door, which was presumably insecure, and he is incensed because the EXTERNAL door was undamaged.

So his flat was externally secure from the street, but once through the external door it was not secure.

Does that make a difference to the advice?

Guardsman

If the police could not contact him in a reasonable time then I believe they acted in accordance with regulations.

unholyangel

Shouldn't it be.....

Guardsman wrote: »

[STRIKE]Similar[/STRIKE] same question posted under [STRIKE]different[/STRIKE] similar usernames.

unholyangel

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

From reading the other threads, worth noting that the padlock was fitted to the OP's INTERNAL door, which was presumably insecure, and he is incensed because the EXTERNAL door was undamaged.

So his flat was externally secure from the street, but once through the external door it was not secure.

Does that make a difference to the advice?

Using common sense......if the crook managed to get through the external door without damaging it the first time, then it isn't secure. Providing that was point of entry ofc.

However I would imagine that police are far more aware than your average joe/jane about whether a property is "secure" or not. They'll witness more burglaries than probably all of us put together. Therefore they should be aware of weak spots that the thief will likely go for.