Deposit and forced entry by emergency services

Innys1

Colincbayley wrote: »

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.

So where would you draw the line?

There's a reason professional landlords have inventories completed at the check-in and check-out stages of a tenancy.

kinger101

fed_up_and_stressed wrote: »

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"

First, I'd use your straw man to soak up the blood. Then, (once the psycho had put down the knife), I might ask him how he intended to pay for my carpet.

FBaby

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.

Totally agree with what you written, but surely the conclusion is very clear. It is not because it wasn't the tenant's fault that the situation arose that it is not his responsibility to pay for the damage.

The other day, a tree fell on my neighbours fence as a result of the bad weather. Certainly not my fault, but I didn't tell him to claim the money to fix it from mother nature (ps: couldn't claim on insurance as only pay up if buildings are damaged, not fences...). I had to pay because it was my responsibility, end of.

moneyistooshorttomention

Person_one wrote: »

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

People are not entitled to risk "sharing" their health problems (inadvertently) with someone else. Some health problems are of a type that would be most unlikely to impact on nearby strangers - eg arthritis/eye problems/etc. Other health problems might impact on someone else and it is then the responsibility of the person with the health problem to tell anyone who might potentially be affected (eg because its infectious on the one hand or might cause them to damage someones property/peace of mind/etc on the other hand).

People are not entitled to damage someone else's finances/health/etc because of anything to do with them personally and that's of a nature that they could reasonably be expected to know about it.

Its called = being responsible.

"Responsible" has equalled I was entitled to be put out that someone had moved into my home with an infectious potentially recurring illness etc. "Responsible" has also equalled that, when another lodger had an accident (their fault) and screamed for my help that I duly took them off to hospital and stayed with them whilst the medics sorted them out on the other hand.

Person_one

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

"Responsible" has also equalled that, when another lodger had an accident (their fault) and screamed for my help that I duly took them off to hospital and stayed with them whilst the medics sorted them out on the other hand.

Give the women a medal! :rotfl:

Marvel1

Make a claim from the from DPS, the tenant appeals, then let the DPS decide.

So does that mean, with what I read, if you have an accident let's say car accident as you jumped a red light and are in bad shape, does that mean NHS shouldn't treat you and you should pay and go private as it was your fault?

kinger101

FBaby wrote: »

Totally agree with what you written, but surely the conclusion is very clear. It is not because it wasn't the tenant's fault that the situation arose that it is not his responsibility to pay for the damage.

The other day, a tree fell on my neighbours fence as a result of the bad weather. Certainly not my fault, but I didn't tell him to claim the money to fix it from mother nature (ps: couldn't claim on insurance as only pay up if buildings are damaged, not fences...). I had to pay because it was my responsibility, end of.

This is the crux of the argument. There is no fault on part of either the tenant, landlord or the emergency services. There is only a responsibility for someone to make good the damage. I think GM already suggested that both parties should check their insurance policies as a first port of call. If one of these has a policy which covers it, then the damage at least may be reduced to the excess on any particular policy.

The rest you can argued with the relevant deposit protection scheme (after reading the tenancy agreement carefully).

silvercar

cjdavies wrote: »

Make a claim from the from DPS, the tenant appeals, then let the DPS decide.

So does that mean, with what I read, if you have an accident let's say car accident as you jumped a red light and are in bad shape, does that mean NHS shouldn't treat you and you should pay and go private as it was your fault?

The NHS can reclaim the costs of treating you from your motor insurance. The insurer can then come after you if they believe you were negligent.

GaleSF63

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.

I am curious to know why they thought it was unnecessary as they had collapsed. What would have happened if the emergency services hadn't broken in?

Colincbayley

Innys1 wrote: »

So where would you draw the line?

There's a reason professional landlords have inventories completed at the check-in and check-out stages of a tenancy.

Yes professional landlords use inventories, but its not a case of 'where to draw the line' its just a judgement call based on this set of circumstances. Being a landlord is not as clear cut as black or white.