Door Smashed who to repair?

SnooksNJ

silvercar wrote: »

Glass can smash through normal usage.

Being a little handed is not normal usage.

martyn05

It can not be proved either way, I would suggest that you offer to pay half the cost, keeps everyone sweet.

Better_Days

MisterB1959 wrote: »

there WAS a reason it broke, the op swung the door shut and didn't close it properly using the handle, if they had closed it using the handle, it wouldn't have happened

why is everyone looking for a reason to shirk their responsibilities, or give someone else the idea its ok to do so?

if the op had come home to find the glass smashed or the glass smashed when the door was closed for some unknown reason, then that's a different matter.

and as for glass suddenly breaking in a conservatory, it might have been fitted incorrectly and not allowed for any movement of the conservatory frame as it expands and contracts, difficult to believe someone would just fit a new double glazed unit at their cost just because youre nice people, but if you say they did ......

Sorry, but you don't know that it wouldn't have happened anyway, however OP closed the door. As others have said the glass may have been incorrectly fitted or the frame slightly twisted and it put uneven pressure on the glass.

I'm not sure why you think an installer wouldn't replace a faulty unity at their cost, surely if they fit something that doesn't do the job then it is their responsibilty to sort it out. Which our installer did without complaint. He'd been doing this sort of work for long enough to know this sort of thing occassionally happens.

I don't think it is possible to say with any certainty where the fault lay which is why I suggested 50/50 split.

tea-bag

martyn05 wrote: »

It can not be proved either way, I would suggest that you offer to pay half the cost, keeps everyone sweet.

How does it keep the landlord sweet? she broke it and that might put the LL in the red for the month.

Kolokial

Thanks all for the replies everyone. I'm looking to have the door replaced on Monday, and then will settle it with the letting agent afterwards. At best I am hoping it's split, but am sort of expecting to have to absorb the cost myself.

pmlindyloo wrote: »

if you are absolutely sure that this is not your fault and can prove that the door was already faulty (is this documented in your inventory when you started your tenancy?)

I have emails requesting the letting agent to repair the door.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Toughened glass shouldn't simply shatter.

You are correct, it shouldn't. The glass was not tempered nor toughened.
The door itself was likely installed while the original owner was living there, in the victorian era.

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

The door didn't bang anything then when you let it swing?

It's entirely possible that due to the pin loosening the door could well have hit the bottom of the step. (which is what used to happen when any attempt to close it was made) That just says the repair job was terrible, and that the door should have been replaced in that instance.

splishsplash wrote: »

OP, it sounds like you slam the door to shut it. That is not how you are supposed to close a door. No wonder it smashed. You should pay, unless you can show the pin caused the door to catch.

If that was the case though, then the door wouldn't have been closing prior to that and would have already been reported, wouldn't it?

No, I don't slam the door, I swing the door (I think that's what hinges allow it to do?). Which requires little effort on my part, and once it reaches about 45 degrees of its 'swing', I let go and let Newtons first law of motion do the rest. It clicks into place with the lock.

As for it being reported, I wish I could say that one of the other tenants were vigilant enough to have report it, however it's likely they didn't.

martyn05 wrote: »

It can not be proved either way, I would suggest that you offer to pay half the cost, keeps everyone sweet.

An amicable way to end this situation.

MisterB1959 wrote: »

why is everyone looking for a reason to shirk their responsibilities, or give someone else the idea its ok to do so?

I'm not trying to "shirk" my responsibility, and shame on you for suggesting so. Trying to be informed about the situation and know my own rights, correct course of action and possible outcomes is not me 'shirking' my responsibility. But for you I'm sure that isn't the case as everything must be black and white, otherwise people are shirking their responsibilities. If that's all you have to offer, then kindly sod off.

greenface

Kolokial wrote: »

You are correct, it shouldn't. The glass was not tempered nor toughened.
The door itself was likely installed while the original owner was living there, in the victorian era.

depending on size and proper location in the door . It should have been either toughened glass or if the old glass wasn't able to be replaced then shatter filmed . If its just a small pane the get it done its not going to be expensive but you may need it to be toughened if your replacing it today . I wouldn't do it any less (or put my name to it if I did )

martyn05

tea-bag wrote: »

How does it keep the landlord sweet? she broke it and that might put the LL in the red for the month.

How do you know that she broke it? Yes it broke while she was using it but if it was poorly fitted then its not her fault but it is the landlords responsibility to fix it.

It is my understanding that it can not be proved either way so paying half the costs each does not burden one person with the entire bill. The tenant will not have buildings insurance but the landlord should have.

If the tenant had to pay the repair bill then it could put her in the red for the month, just the same as you said for the landlord.

Like I said, can not be proved either way, pay half each and get it repaired promptly.

silvercar

How do you know that she broke it? Yes it broke while she was using it but if it was poorly fitted then its not her fault but it is the landlords responsibility to fix it.

Which is why the landlord should pay if he can't show that it was the tenant that caused damage.

tea-bag

silvercar wrote: »

Which is why the landlord should pay if he can't show that it was the tenant that caused damage.

NO NO NO!! She needs to prove the door was faulty.

jjlandlord

The landlord will have to fix the door in any case.

Now, let's say that the check in schedule of condition says that the door is in good condition or, at least, does not explicitly states that it is in poor condition.

If the dispute goes to arbitration or court, I can see the landlord winning more often than not, especially if the tenant has admitted that he was handling the door at the time.

Otherwise, would a tenant ever be liable for anything?