Burglary at flat - Landlord/Agent liable?

mrginge

Are you only interested in feedback that tells you what you want to hear?

SJI85

ognum wrote: »

The cost of a bolt is minimal, you could have put two bolts on the back door that you never use and it would have been secure.

I did have two cheap locks installed on the back door when I moved in. However, with such a poorly fitted and weak internal door this did not provide much additional security. Unfortunately the additional locks did break and I was due to replace them when I returned from my time away.

Did you ask permission to change the locks or add a bolt?

As mentioned above, I did add two additional locks. I could not afford to change the locks, given that one was an expensive double lock. I did not ask permission.

SJI85

I should also say that my landlord is a solicitor. A Director of a small local firm. I'm sure she'll have some expertise in the matter...

Kynthia wrote: »

You have zero proof that a previous tenant robbed you. You are also recommended to have contents insurance to protect yourself.

It is speculation, admittedly. I only have my certainty that the back door was locked when I last checked it and I live alone (so no one else, beside the landlord, could have used it). Plus the burglary was very "clean", as if they knew the layout. If the door was locked this leaves forced entry (but with no or only subtle signs of forced entry), the agents left the door unlocked, or previous tenant.


If the poor locks and doors are not enough to show the landlord is liable and my case has no chance, than fair enough. What I am asking now is what have I got to lose by not paying the rent? From what I can see: -


1) Landlord/agent is more picky about other aspects of the property and could take even more from the deposit - a possibility but I don't see what they can find. If this happens then it happens.


2) Bad reference - not an issue as I will be living with my fianc!e and be a homeowner soon.


3) Eviction - Only have a few weeks of the tenancy left and can move into my fianc!e's tomorrow if necessary.

My flat was broken into once. Initially it was claimed that the communal door showed no signs of forced entry so the freeholder blamed the residents saying one of us had left the door unlocked. However a locksmith employed to change the locks confirmed that the door had been forced.

Sorry to hear about that. I hope your losses were not great. The embarrassment I felt at the time, and feeling I was wasting the officer's time. Only to then realise that forced entry can be subtle, not to mention previous tenants. I guess I'll never know.

ognum

SJI85 wrote: »

I should also say that my landlord is a solicitor. A Director of a small local firm. I'm sure she'll have some expertise in the matter...





It is speculation, admittedly. I only have my certainty that the back door was locked when I last checked it and I live alone (so no one else, beside the landlord, could have used it). Plus the burglary was very "clean", as if they knew the layout. If the door was locked this leaves forced entry (but with no or only subtle signs of forced entry), the agents left the door unlocked, or previous tenant.


If the poor locks and doors are not enough to show the landlord is liable and my case has no chance, than fair enough. What I am asking now is what have I got to lose by not paying the rent? From what I can see: -


1) Landlord/agent is more picky about other aspects of the property and could take even more from the deposit - a possibility but I don't see what they can find. If this happens then it happens.


2) Bad reference - not an issue as I will be living with my fianc!e and be a homeowner soon.


3) Eviction - Only have a few weeks of the tenancy left and can move into my fianc!e's tomorrow if necessary.






Sorry to hear about that. I hope your losses were not great. The embarrassment I felt at the time, and feeling I was wasting the officer's time. Only to then realise that forced entry can be subtle, not to mention previous tenants. I guess I'll never know.

I am aware that circumstances change but from not having enough money to buy contents insurance or change a lock to being a home owner within 18 months is a big change!

BrassicWoman

I think you will find the BURGLAR is liable. Unless you find them you'll need to suck it up.

SJI85

ognum wrote: »

I am aware that circumstances change but from not having enough money to buy contents insurance or change a lock to being a home owner within 18 months is a big change!

The house, a very modest two up and two down in an ex colliery village of East Durham, was bought by my partner prior to me meeting her. I have long term health conditions but after an improvement in my health I have just started a good job. I will be moving in and sharing the mortgage. I did not buy the house.

Or maybe I came into money such as an inheritance. It is a big change but these happen and should not be viewed with such suspicion.

Also as I have said many times I likely would not be able to claim on insurance and the excess would be too large.

I still believe the law is no longer as pro landlord is being suggested and also my circunstances at the time are a mitigating factor (disability including depression). The question seems to be did I take all reasonable steps to secure the property as well as I could have.

1. Added additional locks on the back door. These locks failed due to the poor quality of the door.
2. Left lights on (a timer) when not in the flat.
3. Reported my concerns several times to my agent who failed to fix the blind or change the doors.

I was incorrectly told the locks had been changed but could not have afforded to replace them anyway.

I accept I could have been more firm with the agents however.

theartfullodger

Clearly the burglar (if there was one ** - or whoever it was..) is liable for your losses. Good luck catching them, even more good luck successfully suing them...let us know how you get on.

** It does sound like someone with a key did this.. ex-tenant, old tradesman, old agent - who knows...

p00hsticks

SJI85 wrote: »

. The question seems to be did I take all reasonable steps to secure the property as well as I could have.

The way I see it is that if you didn't even bother to check that the door was locked immediately before you left for the weekend you fail at the first hurdle.

marksoton

SJI85 wrote: »

I still believe the law is no longer as pro landlord is being suggested and also my circunstances at the time are a mitigating factor (disability including depression).

Then stop messing around on here and make a claim in a court of law. You seem pretty sure you'll win.

I suspect you'll be disappointed.

davidmcn

theartfullodger wrote: »

It does sound like someone with a key did this.. ex-tenant, old tradesman, old agent - who knows...

The OP doesn't seem sure that the door was even locked, or that entry was gained with a key. And even if it was someone with a key, that doesn't make a case, given that the landlord isn't obliged to change the locks, and the OP couldn't have afforded to do so anyway.

Despite the paranoia often displayed on this board about changing locks on a change of occupant, I've never heard of a theft being carried out by someone apparently using a spare key (while I have heard of several cases of burglars walking in through unlocked doors).