Landlord's Insurance and Dogs

kitschkitty

ValHaller wrote: »

Oh, I have been caught out by a Freudian slip have I? Should I have said that it was not the dog, it was the letter box which attacked them?

The essence of the point is that showing that it was the letterbox and not the dog just takes you to the same argument for the letterbox as for the dog. Establishing that it was the letterbox takes OP no further forward. And I cannot see that OP and LL are less responsible for the letterbox than OP is for the dog.

Again you're making my point for me, the dog owner is responsible for the actions of their pet dog as it has the capacity to do dangerous things including attack someone and the owner must do everything to minimise risks & take responsibility if the dog causes an accident or injury.

A letterbox is an inanimate object, which (ideally) should be kept in good condition if you expect people to be using it, but unless the owner has made it deliberately dangerous, anyone wishing to use it (i.e. put something in it) should use their own common sense and caution of they think it looks dodgy (e.g rusty, or put together wrong etc) & if no apparent hazard can be seen (but it still caused an injury) it was an accident.

powerful_Rogue

They don't have any claim.

They entered your property to deliver an item you didn't ask for,. They wasn't invited by you.

The dog was doing as dogs do and protecting it property.

Someone mentioned postmen, they are different as we all expect postmen and they have a perceived right of access to the property.

These people are chancers.

G_M

Wow! I read the OP and came tomy conclusion. Then read the thread.... oops!

Whether the dog actually bit the person, or caused the injury indirectly by its actions, the dog was resonsible.

If a dog runs at me in the street and scares me into falling over, then it was the uncontrolled dog that caused me to fall. Like many people, I am scaredof dogs and if they are noton a lead, run /chase me, I panic. I even hate dogs on leads that owners allow to jump up and say hello "He's just being friendly". No he's not- he's scaring me!

Postmen are regularly bitten by dogs. Either walking up the front path or pushing lettersthrough the box. As a dog owner, you know people are going to use your letter box(that's why it is there) and you know what your dog is like (excitable when letterscome). You are responsible. It is part of responsible dog ownership.

As for the landlord, unless it can beshown the letter box was faulty in some way, he, and his insurer, are not responsible for the actions of your dog.

(now I'll sit back and wait for the dog-lovers' responses....)

kitschkitty

G_M wrote: »

Wow! I read the OP and came tomy conclusion. Then read the thread.... oops!

Whether the dog actually bit the person, or caused the injury indirectly by its actions, the dog was resonsible.

If a dog runs at me in the street and scares me into falling over, then it was the uncontrolled dog that caused me to fall. Like many people, I am scaredof dogs and if they are noton a lead, run /chase me, I panic. I even hate dogs on leads that owners allow to jump up and say hello "He's just being friendly". No he's not- he's scaring me!

Postmen are regularly bitten by dogs. Either walking up the front path or pushing lettersthrough the box. As a dog owner, you know people are going to use your letter box(that's why it is there) and you know what your dog is like (excitable when letterscome). You are responsible. It is part of responsible dog ownership.

As for the landlord, unless it can beshown the letter box was faulty in some way, he, and his insurer, are not responsible for the actions of your dog.

(now I'll sit back and wait for the dog-lovers' responses....)

I agree except in the case that if the dog was contained on the owners property (renting is irrelevant) by the front gate/door/baby gate etc. and the person it scared was the other side of the door/gate. The owner couldn't have done more to stop someone being scared by the dog (which was in it's own home).

If the (uninvited) visitor was past the front gate (assuming there is a front garden or forecourt) it seems more complicated, I'm guessing the owner is held accountable in that situation still.

If the owner knows it's dog can or will grab post or bite at anything put through the letterbox then the owner should put measures in place be it a mail cage, or a way of stopping the dog getting near the door/letterbox to avoid injuries.

Angela

When I was an area manager for the delivery of free newspapers I trained all my distributors that it is possible to deliver a paper/leaflet without putting your fingers through the letterbox and make sure it goes right through and not does not stick out the door after delivery.
Ignore it its a chancer and he should complain to his manger for lack of training/or having no common sense of his own.

artbaron

G_M wrote: »

If a dog runs at me in the street and scares me into falling over, then it was the uncontrolled dog that caused me to fall.

You'd have a seriously hard time proving that in court. You'd lose for sure unless the hound was clearly trying to bite you or cause havoc and you had witnesses to that. The OP would have nothing to worry about but I suspect their kindness will count against them and be seen as a possible admission of guilt. That said, I can't imagine what the idiotic charity bag person would claim for. What losses have they suffered? What trauma? If I were the OP I'd see them in court.

geri1965_2

OP, do you have contents insurance? That usually covers your personal liability.

I don't feel you have been negligent here.

BitterAndTwisted

My question to the solicitor would be "What actual, financial loss has your client suffered? In my opinion it would be the price of a sticking plaster, so about ten pence maximum."

The reason people seem so keen to sue retail businesses and local authorities is because they have Public Liability insurance plus those organisations find it cheaper to settle than employ legal bods to defend the claims.

Don't give this cheeky chancer a bloody penny! If they are so incompetent that they can't post something through a letter-box without injuring themselves, they should stay safely at home 24/7 !!!!!!

[Deleted User]

1) The fact that a 'charity' collection service has someone who is willing to jump and within 24 hours go to a personal injury solicitor for what the OP describes as a cut on their hand makes the 'charity' pretty suspect.

If I was the OP, I'd be doing some research into the 'charity' to see if they really are legitimate, registered as a charity, actually do either donate clothes or sell them to raise funds for charitable services (look for registration as a charity and their accounts).

I won't be at all surprised to find there is little evidence of legitimacy, which will throw the collection person under an unfavourable light.

If they want to claim an injury has been caused, ask to see medical reports etc demonstrating that a) they have a dog bit b) that the injury (if not a dog bite but a scratch as the OP describes) was caused at their door, after all, it could have occurred elsewhere.

A good samaritan is allowed to offer assistance without that being seen as a sign of culperability.

The 'victim' is on very very dodgy ground.

However, I would strongly recommend that you install a cage around the letterbox to protect your mail if nothing else.

ajayre

It's been almost a year so I wanted to give an update on this.

I called the doglaw.co.uk solicitor. He was very reassuring and agreed with what most people on this thread told me. He give me an outline of what to put in a response letter to the charity worker's solicitor, which I did.

That was last May. Since then I have not heard back.

The phone call cost me about £25 but it was well worth it for the detailed advice.

We immediately obtained Dogs Trust membership for peace of mind in the future.

Thanks, Andy