Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

elsien

A slightly unusual one, any help appreciated.
Tenant was in a private rental. There were concerns about his physical and mental health so the emergency services drilled/forced the lock to gain access. Tenant was found collapsed due to diabetes and on arrival in hospital was also sectioned under the mental health act. They have now had to give up the tenancy due to length of time in hospital, and want to know if it is legal to have any expenses for repairing the door and/or lock deducted from their deposit? They don't believe it was necessary for the emergency services to break in (medics opinions differ on this) so don't think they should be liable for the costs.

Dan-Dan

elsien wrote: »

A slightly unusual one, any help appreciated.
Tenant was in a private rental. There were concerns about his physical and mental health so the emergency services drilled/forced the lock to gain access. Tenant was found collapsed due to diabetes and on arrival in hospital was also sectioned under the mental health act. They have now had to give up the tenancy due to length of time in hospital, and want to know if it is legal to have any expenses for repairing the door and/or lock deducted from their deposit? They don't believe it was necessary for the emergency services to break in (medics opinions differ on this) so don't think they should be liable.

It`s sad , but is there a reason the LL should pay for it?

POPPYOSCAR

Sorry but I have to say this.


They were found collapsed suffering from Diabetes were kept in hospital and the cost of replacing the locks is being questioned?


I find this quite incredible.

moneyistooshorttomention

I admit I thought a collapse from diabetes happened because of someone with that neglecting to take appropriate self-responsibility - ie "I feel woozy - must deal with it fast" type.

Can anyone who has diabetes tell us what the position is on that - ie are there warning signals that signal "collapse is imminent" for people who have that??

My feeling would tend to be that - with the combination of two different health problems - then the breaking-in was done with the best of intentions for their sake and its pushing it rather to expect costs of dealing with the lock to be dealt with by anyone other than them. Most people (if not all) would be glad that someone had been taking that much concern for their welfare.

Its understandable that most people will take an obvious default position of "They would want to receive help" - because most people would. Those people who would rather be left to get well (or otherwise) of themselves do really need to flag up that fact. Otherwise - its entirely understandable/commendable that that default position of "They must want to be helped" would be taken in extremis.

Mallotum_X

Doesn't seem unreasonable for the deposit to cover the repair and the remaining deposit returned.

Given the rest of the circumstances surely the tenant and those close to them are thankful for the intervention and assistance provided.

When_the_going_gets_tough

Your tenant is clearly very vulnerable. In the circumstances if you can afford it it would be kind if you could avoid a dispute with him at this time. appreciate though that this is not always possible.

mrginge

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I find this quite incredible.

why?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

Mojisola

elsien wrote: »

Tenant was in a private rental. There were concerns about his physical and mental health so the emergency services drilled/forced the lock to gain access. Tenant was found collapsed due to diabetes

They don't believe it was necessary for the emergency services to break in (medics opinions differ on this) so don't think they should be liable for the costs.

The tenant could have died if not found and treated.

moneyistooshorttomention

Nope - I can perfectly understand why PoppyOscar finds it incredible - and, in all honesty, the vast majority of people would do so.

As I said - it IS the default position to assume most people would want to be helped and I do believe that that is the case.

I would certainly not seek to "penalise" anyone who had helped me with the best of intentions (even if I was personally thinking "They got it wrong - and I didn't want to be helped"). You do have to give credit to people for trying - and not penalise them (ie in this case trying to get the helpers to pay the cost of doing so).

Many of us do "dive in" there automatically on pure reflex action to help someone if we think they need it - and that is entirely commendable (even if it turned out they didn't actually want that help).

It's a sort of unspoken contract that most of us basically have with Society as a whole = if I seriously obviously need help then you will provide it and vice-versa. Hence why we tend to be shocked if someone is being attacked by a stranger and no-one comes to their aid - because that unspoken Contract is that that is what we do.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

There are some warning signs of an impending low blood sugar crash, such as excess sweating, but this can be confusing during warm weather. Sugar levels can drop dangerously overnight without the sufferer being aware. If someone is new to the condition it takes time to learn how to manage it, and that will be complicated by mental health problems.

I would personally write off the costs as a freak incident if I were the LL, but appreciate that others view everything in life as profit/loss columns in a spreadsheet.

G_M

They have now had to give up the tenancy due to length of time in hospital

Under what circumstances? Was there a fixed term? Dates?
Was notice given? How much?

Whether the landlord charges rent in lieu of notice (i'm guessing till that's clarified), and/or charges for damage to the door is a matter for the LL. He may take a sympathetic approach, or a purely business/financial approach.

Another option would be to claim on insurance. Many policies (but not all) cover damage by the emergency services. Of course, there's likely to be an excess to pay (£50 - £200?) as well as increased premiums in the future.