Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

theartfullodger

Quite: HOW was the tenancy ended??

Unless tenant agrees to a deduction (were I he I would not) it will go to adjudication

moneyistooshorttomention

Difficult...difficult....but that tenant is being seriously unreasonable imo in the circumstances.

It really was up to that tenant to take personal responsibility. I've come from a family where heart attacks could "knock us to the ground in six instantly" out of the blue - to the extent we can be on our feet dancing one minute and the next one gone. That makes it MY personal responsibility to realise that most people would see themselves as helping me if I keeled over in front of them. It then makes it MY personal responsibility to get it down there - on official record - that actually I don't want them to do so and would rather just "go" if it comes to it.

I would be furious if A.N. Other saw me keel over and dialled for an ambulance - but that is down to me personally that they went against my wishes - as they would have no way of knowing that that is what they are doing. I think that - possibly - what has happened is that tenant also has a "Just let me go IF" position and is refusing to acknowledge that that means its down to THEM to think that one through and ensure no-one else suffers because they have taken that view. They should not be taking out on the landlord.

It really is the responsibility of anyone who doesn't want "help" if it comes to it to make that quite clear - and then realise that no-one (in the heat of the moment) will have any way of knowing that fact. If you don't actually want "help" then its down to you (and only you) to get that fact down there in writing and then accept that other people wont actually have any way of knowing that you've done so in extremis.

I think that is the responsible thing to do if you don't take the conventional view on these things - and, that way, you leave "helpers" totally in the clear - whatever they decide to do.

vuvuzela

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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.

Just a thought before everyone rushes in the castigate the tenant :
The tenant may not have know they had diabetes. There are potentially a vast number of people in the UK (maybe 1 in 70) that doesn't know they have the condition - https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/News_Landing_Page/warning-about-the-one-in-70-people-who-have-undiagnosed-diabetes/

While in some cases it might be 'self-inflicted' due to lifestyle, in other cases it is not.

silvercar

Whether the tenant was aware they knew they could keel over is irrelevant. The fact is that they were deemed to be at risk and the police took a decision to break in. Tenant can't return property in the state it was when tenancy first started, so either tenant should claim from police the cost of entry or pay themselves.

Assuming an unsympathetic landlord.

JencParker

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure why you find it incredible - don't forget we are talking about a landlord!!!!!


Disgusting,, but not incredible.

JencParker

When_the_going_gets_tough wrote: »

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.

It is always possible.....


Kind and landlord are not terms that go together it would seem.

I can't quite believe a landlord would be so self centred in spite of their reputation. Perhaps the other alternative would have been to have left the tenant to go into a diabetic coma - that would have safeguarded the landlord's precious property!

elsien

Mallotum_X wrote: »

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

Without going into detail, the tenant thinks intervention was unnecessary. I am just trying to clarify on their behalf, given that regardless of that belief the doctors believe the emergency services acted correctly. Tenant is querying whether the emergency services should pay, given in tenants opinion they broke in unnecessarily.
Ref how the tenancy was ended, I don't have full details however it is likely to be by agreement on both sides, if that makes a difference. I am not the landlord or the tenant.

I would prefer not to get into judgements, but stick to the legal position if possible. Although I realise there may not be enough information to go on.

zebulon

Very interesting.
No way I would think the LL should have to cover this. Then as a tenant I 'd certainly feel upset to have my deposit cover this. But ultimately unless some insurance could cover this, I would understand it has to from the deposit.

The whole responsibility thing for the diabetes is weird and not relevant.
Say Mrs tenant is warned she's just at BMI limit of being at higher risk (on paper) of clot and heart problems with combined contraceptive pill... If something happens in the flat well Mrs is probably responsible for eating too many potatoes cooked in goose fat hence big hence higher risk ... I mean where does it stop!

JencParker

elsien wrote: »

Without going into detail, the tenant thinks intervention was unnecessary. I am just trying to clarify on their behalf, given that regardless of that belief the doctors believe the emergency services acted correctly. Tenant is querying whether the emergency services should pay, given in tenants opinion they broke in unnecessarily.
Ref how the tenancy was ended, I don't have full details however it is likely to be by agreement on both sides, if that makes a difference. I am not the landlord or the tenant.

I would prefer not to get into judgements, but stick to the legal position if possible. Although I realise there may not be enough information to go on.

An emergency is an emergency. Irrespective of what the tenant thinks - the emergency services made the decision.

Do you not have insurance to cover this eventuality?


If not, and you want someone else to pay for it, then you're going to have to take it off someone who already seems vulnerable.

Voyager2002

With all sympathy to the tenant in this case, it is usual for the deposit to cover damage to the property during the tenancy. The landlord cannot charge for damage that is normal wear and tear, nor for "betterment" (replacing something worn or broken with an equivalent that is new and/or of higher quality), nor for anything that is the landlord's fault. None of these exceptions apply here, so I cannot think of any reason why the landlord should have to meet this cost.