Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

Gingernutty

The tenant's claim that the emergency services are liable only goes to show up how mentally ill they are.

I live in a nasty area where the police have busted down doors and the tenants have done a runner rather than pay the landlord.

The police also secure busted doors and the tenants/owner occupiers are expected to pay them.

I don't blame the tenant for his/her illness, I'm not suggesting he/she deliberately did this, but the fact remains the landlord's property has been damaged as a result of actions taken by the tenant and the steps taken to remedy the situation.

The deposit is there for just such an occasion.

Person_one

Gingernutty wrote: »

Self neglect and denial are the tenant's fault, necessitating the breaking down of the door to take him/her to hospital where the medics agree that the tenant's condition merited the action.

It's the tenant's fault that this happened. The cost must come from the deposit.

Gingernutty wrote: »

I don't blame the tenant for his/her illness, I'm not suggesting he/she deliberately did this

I'm really pleased that you've reconsidered your stance. Type 1 diabetes can veer out of control alarmingly quickly even in the strictest, most well controlled cases when circumstances conspire, and mental illness only serves to make physical illness much much harder to manage.

If you google, there are plenty of statistics showing that people with poor mental health are at increased risk of poor physical health too. It can be a real perfect storm.

Homeownertobe

Gingernutty wrote: »

The tenant's claim that the emergency services are liable only goes to show up how mentally ill they are.

I live in a nasty area where the police have busted down doors and the tenants have done a runner rather than pay the landlord.

The police also secure busted doors and the tenants/owner occupiers are expected to pay them.

I don't blame the tenant for his/her illness, I'm not suggesting he/she deliberately did this, but the fact remains the landlord's property has been damaged as a result of actions taken by the tenant and the steps taken to remedy the situation.

The deposit is there for just such an occasion.

Quite right too. It's high time people - even the alleged 'vulnerable' - are held to their responsibilities.

suroben

A few more details might be helpful. Obviously the tenant needed to be attended to so the emergency services are in no way liable but many people seem to think the landlord should pay.


The landlord may not have received rent since the tenant was taken to hospital however long ago that might be, may have mortgage payments that are barely covered by the rent or may even suffer from mental health problems and/or diabetes.


Why are so many people suggesting the landlord should pay costs that could be around £500 for a double glazed door to be replaced? Landlords need an income too and nobody can judge on the information given that the landlord is an unfeeling money grabber, they could be barely making ends meet themselves.

Innys1

suroben wrote: »

A few more details might be helpful. Obviously the tenant needed to be attended to so the emergency services are in no way liable but many people seem to think the landlord should pay.


The landlord may not have received rent since the tenant was taken to hospital however long ago that might be, may have mortgage payments that are barely covered by the rent or may even suffer from mental health problems and/or diabetes.


Why are so many people suggesting the landlord should pay costs that could be around £500 for a double glazed door to be replaced? Landlords need an income too and nobody can judge on the information given that the landlord is an unfeeling money grabber, they could be barely making ends meet themselves.

Because it's far easier to focus on someone else who, at first sight, is comfortably off, than take responsibility for one's self?

Slinky

If a landlord is expected to cover the costs of the emergency services breaking in and presumably saving this person's life, perhaps the next lot of legislation will be requiring tenants to have a health report at their cost before they move in and anybody who isn't in perfect health will find themselves unable to rent? Clearly a ridiculous idea.

Whilst I have sympathy for the tenants problems, their health issues are not something the landlord should have to pay for IMO.

[Deleted User]

I have type one diabetes. Collapse can be caused by low blood sugar or too high blood sugar (or ketoacidosis). Low blood sugars can occur without symptoms.., normally you do get symptoms but not always. This is exacerbated by the need to keep blood sugars between 5-7mmol/l.., to prevent long term health problems. You are hypo (low blood sugar) if your blood sugar hits 3mmol/l or less. I have collapsed with blood sugars of 2.8mmol/l. There is not a great deal of difference between 3-5mmol/l.., my blood sugar can drop this amount in 15 minutes. I recently went hypo badly in my sleep.., my children had to call an ambulance. This was in spite of taking blood sugars regularly and eating properly. NOT a situation caused by neglect, would never ever have wanted this to happen. I have gone hypo (rarely) while awake and not had a clue.., you don't always get symptoms or the symptoms can be very vague - this is particularly true if your control is good because there is so little difference between 'good' blood sugars and low blood sugars. Obviously you only get symptoms if you are hypo.., and when you are hypo your brain is not operating on full capacity. If the tenant has mental health problems as well.., it could make control very difficult (at times my diabetes has me pulling my hair out and as far as I am aware, I am not sectionable as yet).

Being hypo is a risk.., normally your liver will release glycogen which is metabolised into glucose and you will wake up on your own.., but there is a risk that the liver won't have enough glycogen stored and you don't wake up. The risk is slight, but it does exist. I am assuming the tenant is relying on this. In the bad old days with pork and beef based insulin I could go hypo and collapse for 18 hours, and wake up eventually with no ill effects. But there is a risk that this won't happen. But it also indicates the tenant is in a bit of denial about his diabetes.., because emergency services WOULD have to break in to check on him because the risks DO exist, however small. I make sure that someone close to me has a key so this has not needed to be done, just in case. I've had diabetes for over 40 years and I've not had to be broken into. But if the OP's friend has mental health problems, this sort of planning may be beyond them. The LL must have known the tenant was vulnerable. So one could imply he knew what he was taking on. One doesn't have to be a social worker to want to reduce their LL costs.., he could have made provision to prevent this happening himself, as much as the tenant could have done.

Being collapsed and hypo or hyperglycemic do not automatically denote the tenant is guilty of mismanagement of their condition. He was not able at the time to give consent to the break in. Neither was the Landlord because he/she wasn't contacted. The emergency services were fulfilling their obligations. So who should pay is unclear. The only way to figure it out is to go to court.., but I suspect the costs of doing this would be higher than covering the costs of the lock breaking. I would assume the LL either had insurance and/or a profit built in to renting his property to cover occasional costs like this. Perhaps the LL and tenant could split the costs.

moneyistooshorttomention

Thank you for that clear explanation of how things are re diabetes.

I would disagree with the landlord must have known about the tenants state of health - why would he/she? I never asked any health questions when I took in lodgers years back and they never volunteered any information about their health and that was people who were living in my own home with me. I just assumed they were healthy.

Landlords only factor in costs that apply to maintenance costs of the accommodation, not maintenance costs of the tenant so to say. The tenant is responsible for their own "maintenance costs" wherever they live (ie all costs relating to their own health care). There will be times when people with health problems have non-strictly health costs because of those health problems (eg transport costs to get from A to B when a healthy person could have walked it/costs of having to get a cleaner in when a healthy person could have done their own cleaning etc). Having to meet the cost of a damaged door in the circumstances that the damage occurred because of their health problem is just another one of the costs that they have to pay themselves that a healthy person wouldn't have to pay - and its because it relates to their health and is nothing to do with anyone else (be it landlord/emergency services/etc).

Basically - I don't even really see why the landlord OP knows is even questioning in their own mind whether they should pay towards their tenants' cost for this. I'd just take it from the deposit - making sure I kept receipt for repair costs in case of need - and generally keep records as to why the damage occurred (ie just in case that tenant did try to dispute a damages deduction for their damage). The tenant is unlikely to "get legal" to try and get someone else to cover their bill for them - and, if they did, I very much doubt any Court would tell them "Okay then...you can have other people cover your costs for you".

The landlords responsibilities in this context are purely that of any one person to any other person (ie to ensure they get the help they need).

KRB2725

My friend is a landlord. She had to move out as she became disabled and could no longer manage stairs. She makes a loss each month and now lives in a tiny ground floor flat as it's all she can afford with the shortfall between her mortgage out/rent in.

It is a massive assumption that landlords have a "built in profit".

Innys1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Thank you for that clear explanation of how things are re diabetes.

I would disagree with the landlord must have known about the tenants state of health - why would he/she? I never asked any health questions when I took in lodgers years back and they never volunteered any information about their health and that was people who were living in my own home with me. I just assumed they were healthy.

Landlords only factor in costs that apply to maintenance costs of the accommodation, not maintenance costs of the tenant so to say. The tenant is responsible for their own "maintenance costs" wherever they live (ie all costs relating to their own health care). There will be times when people with health problems have non-strictly health costs because of those health problems (eg transport costs to get from A to B when a healthy person could have walked it/costs of having to get a cleaner in when a healthy person could have done their own cleaning etc). Having to meet the cost of a damaged door in the circumstances that the damage occurred because of their health problem is just another one of the costs that they have to pay themselves that a healthy person wouldn't have to pay - and its because it relates to their health and is nothing to do with anyone else (be it landlord/emergency services/etc).

Basically - I don't even really see why the landlord OP knows is even questioning in their own mind whether they should pay towards their tenants' cost for this. I'd just take it from the deposit - making sure I kept receipt for repair costs in case of need - and generally keep records as to why the damage occurred (ie just in case that tenant did try to dispute a damages deduction for their damage). The tenant is unlikely to "get legal" to try and get someone else to cover their bill for them - and, if they did, I very much doubt any Court would tell them "Okay then...you can have other people cover your costs for you".

The landlords responsibilities in this context are purely that of any one person to any other person (ie to ensure they get the help they need).

One's health status is, according to the Data Protection Act, classified as "Sensitive Information". As such, a landlord requesting and receiving this information, must comply with the highest standards in terms of its security, maintenance and accuracy.

IMHO, that's an unreasonable expectation of a landlord.