Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

Innys1

emmatthews wrote: »

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".

You must be mistaken - all landlords are millionaires who exploit tenants, according to the general public.

jjlandlord

Legally I am not completely sure though, IMHO, there is a good argument that the tenant is liable.

Morally, the tenant's claim that the landlord or the emergency services should pay is untenable.

The rest is just propaganda.

csgohan4

While I agree the cost for the lock should be taken from the deposit as it was damage caused to property while the tenant was living there. Whether it was unintentional or intentional it still happened while the tenant was contracted there.


Perhaps the LL can show some leniency/moral judgement in this case, it's not like the door was kicked down because they were cannabis farmers.


Baring in mind it's not just the medical condition, but also mental health here at play.

However for those that blame the tenant for their situation, remind me not to treat you for your lung cancer or heart attack because it's clearly your fault, you've had too many pork pies/ cigarettes or inhaled too much passive smoke.

chris_m

jjlandlord wrote: »

Legally I am not completely sure though, IMHO, there is a good argument that the tenant is liable.

Legally, surely, the tenant is required to return the property in the same condition, less normal wear and tear, as it was when the tenancy commenced and recompense the landlord at the end of the tenancy for the costs of repairing any damage beyond normal wear and tear.

Subsequently, if the tenant believes that a third party is responsible for the damage then it is up to them, not the landlord, to seek redress from that third party.

I would expect some exclusions to be considered - e.g. if a car comes off the road and crashes into the property, then in that instance the cost of repairs should be arranged between the driver (or their insurance company) and the landlord as owner of the property.

silvercar

Sometimes it is worth looking at what an owner occupier would do in the same circumstances.

Could they claim that the emergency services should pay? I doubt it.

The idea that landlords could or should investigate the state of health of would be tenants is amoral. The idea that those in poor health are discriminated against in the rental market is not desirable.

jjlandlord

chris_m wrote: »

Legally, surely, the tenant is required to return the property in the same condition, less normal wear and tear, as it was when the tenancy commenced and recompense the landlord at the end of the tenancy for the costs of repairing any damage beyond normal wear and tear.

Subsequently, if the tenant believes that a third party is responsible for the damage then it is up to them, not the landlord, to seek redress from that third party.

That's your opinion, but it is not based on the law.

Landlords have repairing obligations. If damage falls within these obligations they have to repair then see if the cost may be recovered from the tenant or a third party.

fed_up_and_stressed

So i'm wondering what the response would be if the question was

"My tenant got stabbed in my flat by a psycho and my carpet is ruined but the tenant wants his deposit back"

moneyistooshorttomention

Innys1 wrote: »

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.

True - that I had no legal right to know their health status and I was aware of that - but just assumed they would all be responsible enough not to come and lodge with someone if their health problem might impact on someone sharing a home with them.

I only subsequently became aware of health status of two of my lodgers - one when she casually mentioned that she had had an illness some years back, which had gone, but if it came back was of somewhat of an infectious nature (at which point - cue for gritted teeth on my part - but, thankfully, it never did come back). Another one turned out to have some sort of mental health problem - but, fortunately for me, as I was beginning to realise their conduct was a bit odd and felt threatening to me they gave in their notice and left anyway.

So, I think there could well be a case for someone who is going to be a lodger in someone else's home to be required to say if they have a health problem that might impact on the home-owner in some way. Also if they plan on house-sharing (as their flatmates would be at risk in some way with some health problems). Obviously not though in the case of them renting self-contained accommodation.

Person_one

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

but just assumed they would all be responsible enough not to come and lodge with someone if their health problem might impact on someone sharing a home with them.

So, I think there could well be a case for someone who is going to be a lodger in someone else's home to be required to say if they have a health problem that might impact on the home-owner in some way.

The mind boggles, it must have a real experience for those lodgers sharing with you! :cool:

Colincbayley

As a Portfolio Landlord and a Type 1 Diabetic, I would just fix the lock/door and move on. Just be thankful the tenant is alive and well. We are not talking about mega ££ and there was a risk that the tenant could have died.