Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

Innys1

JencParker wrote: »

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!

Why should the landlord be held liable for the cost?

Try and look past your bigotry for a moment. I appreciate it may be hard, but give it a shot.

BrassicWoman

I'm guessing the landlord knew nothing of this until after the event or they'd have been round with their spare key.

So LL is in no way liable - only found out after - and is due money for repairs.

Innys1

BrassicWoman wrote: »

I'm guessing the landlord knew nothing of this until after the event or they'd have been round with their spare key.

So LL is in no way liable - only found out after - and is due money for repairs.

You DO know some of the posters on this site recommend that tenants immediately change the locks once they are granted a tenancy, don't you?

Daerve

Regardless of whether the tenant thought the entry was necessary, it was lawful which means the emergency services won't pay.

££sc££

Sorry but I think this is down for tenant to pay not LL. I'm v surprised tnt is questioning emergency services for breaking in. What were they supposed to do if there were concerns for welfare and tnt not answering door? I guess if it's not much money and a keen hearted LL they may decide to swallow the cost. I hope you're friend is better soon

mrginge

JencParker wrote: »

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.

It appears your rampant prejudice and anger has left you with the inability to read.

moneyistooshorttomention

On reading subsequent post from OP - it is clear this tenant thinks the emergency services should pay (not the landlord).

That is frankly ridiculous. The last thing the emergency services need is to feel wary of responding to a callout in case they come on the receiving end of a claim for costs of some description by the person in trouble.

They have been called out to do a job of work and what they are paid for and are performing their duties in the most appropriate fashion in the circumstances.

G_M

My feeling is this thread has covered all angles now:

* the landlord/tenants' legal positions
* the emergency services liability (not)
* the 'responsibility' of the tenant for their own health
* the landlord's possible moral dilemma
* the right or otherwise of a patient to refuse help
etc

So to tangent off, I gather some fire services are considering charging for rescuing animals eg

* somenone's pet p ussy stuck up tree
* farmer's catle escape & wander onto main road
* mad hobbyist's pet anaconda escapes
etc

Putting aside the practicalities of getting payment (before rescue? afterwards? Identifying owner?), once emergency services start charging, where should it stop?

kinger101

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.

The emergency services forced entry into the property because they believed the tenant's life was in danger. Given they had diabetes, and had collapsed, it would seem likely that the tenant might not be here today if it were not for their actions. I find the assertion that the emergency services (taxpayer) should have to pay for the locks absurd in the extreme.

The tenant's claim that forced entry was not necessary is likely to carry little weight legally, given (a) they had collapsed at the time and (b) they were subsequently sectioned under the mental health act.

Red-Squirrel_2

JencParker wrote: »

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.

If you re-read the post you quoted, the OP states that they are not the landlord.

If the deposit is protected, in a scheme, I would expect they would have a policy regarding this or at least would be the best party to decide if a deduction would be reasonable or not. That seems simplest.