Burglary at flat - Landlord/Agent liable?

SJI85

csgohan4 wrote: »

Security doesn't need to be cheap. Lights/TV on timer for example, ensuring everything is LOCKED before going away. Neighbour to check on your house every now and again.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was an insurance job tbh with the state of the story so far.

Lights were left on a timer.

Insurance job? Considering the cost of goods is only 300 quid new and I do not even have insurance nor could claim if I had it?

The state of the story? What is meant by that?

Guest101

SJI85 wrote: »

Lights were left on a timer.

Insurance job? Considering the cost of goods is only 300 quid new and I do not even have insurance nor could claim if I had it?

The state of the story? What is meant by that?

It sounds as though you've invented this situation to try con money out of the LL....

SJI85

Guest101 wrote: »

Talking such absolute rubbish.


Mitigating losses? No you weren't mitigating losses. Unless this is an inside job?! Mitigating losses = You've suffered a loss and do your best to contain that loss.


Why would you have not recovered your 'losses' if you insurance? What exactly got stolen, 2 kilos of Columbian pure?!

An Xbox 360 and blu rays.

Because an insurance company is unlikely to pay out if no sign of forced entry. Getting insurance on a poorly secured property is difficult. Excess and additional Premium would probably be the same as loss.

SJI85

Guest101 wrote: »

It sounds as though you've invented this situation to try con money out of the LL....

Which is the difficulty. The officer thought it odd the xbox was taken but not the Wii. With no sign of forced entry it is suspucoous. I am of good chatacter and assure this is not the case.

I came here for feedback. Not be accused of a crime. I appreciate peoples frustrstion but people have got too focused on the locks. I am referrin to general poor security not just the locks.

What I really want is an apology from the landlord or agents and admit that my concerns were valid and to rectify the security promptly. Not money. I would also be quite happy to be given the lost goods not cash.

If this wax an inside job it would e a !!!! poor one considering I had no insurance, admitted there was a chance I was negligent and I have my most valuable belongongs.

csgohan4

SJI85 wrote: »

Which is the difficulty. The officer thought it odd the xbox was taken but not the Wii. With no sign of forced entry it is suspucoous. I am of good chatacter and assure this is not the case.

I came here for feedback. Not be accused of a crime. I appreciate peoples frustrstion but people have got too focused on the locks. I am referrin to general poor security not just the locks.

What I really want is an apology from the landlord or agents and admit that my concerns were valid and to rectify the security promptly. Not money. I would also be quite happy to be given the lost goods not cash.

If this wax an inside job it would e a !!!! poor one considering I had no insurance, admitted there was a chance I was negligent and I have my most valuable belongongs.

Apology from the LL/ Agent for what exactly? For your own fault for not securing the door or insuring your property?

Say the door had signs of forced entry, would you still claim from them? I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

You had a chance to get insurance, you didn't and you lost the bet on chance. Your now wanting to blame someone else for your own shortcomings i.e the LL.

No matter what you do, you won't prevent a burglar from getting in your house and taking your stuff. Unless you shut yourself from the world.

If I had a choice between an Xbox and a WII, I'd take the Xbox. The Wii is worthless, I couldn't sell it for much if I wanted to.

I know you didn't have insurance, my comment was an expression to mean you are perhaps not being forthcoming with the story or trying to con the LL.

If I was renting and got broken into, the first thing I would think about is not blaming the LL, but wondering what could I do to ensure this doesn't happen and/or minimise personal loss in future.

AdrianC

SJI85 wrote: »

As explained in my post, I am offering a reduced rent payment. The stipulated rent minus the cost of goods lost.

...but I don't expect the LL to pay.

<scratches head>

marksoton

SJI85 wrote: »

Which is the difficulty. The officer thought it odd the xbox was taken but not the Wii. With no sign of forced entry it is suspucoous. I am of good chatacter and assure this is not the case.

I came here for feedback. Not be accused of a crime. I appreciate peoples frustrstion but people have got too focused on the locks. I am referrin to general poor security not just the locks.

What I really want is an apology from the landlord or agents and admit that my concerns were valid and to rectify the security promptly. Not money. I would also be quite happy to be given the lost goods not cash.

If this wax an inside job it would e a !!!! poor one considering I had no insurance, admitted there was a chance I was negligent and I have my most valuable belongongs.

NOT going to happen,as you've been told so many times. Just accept it !!!!!!.

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

G_M

Good grief is this thread still ongoing?

Everything's been said that can be said.

OP should now go off and do whatever he decides to do, preferably without telling us (I know - usually we like to hear the outcome) as whatever he says will just lead to more pointless comment.........

SJI85

Celifein wrote: »

So, you didn't feel the flat was secure. You thought there was a risk of being burgled. You considered this risk significant enough to remove your most valuable valuables, but left £370 worth of less valuable valuables behind, and you are now trying to claim the cost of these (current worth? cost of buying new?) from the landlord.

At the same time, you stayed in this unsecured flat beyond your initial fixed term because:



So you felt safe. You didn't think you'd get burgled. But you took your valuables with you, but not all of them...

Honestly, your story is a mess.

This is the story.

I moved in and was concerned by the lack of security. I made several request to the agents but limited work was done. I was nevertheless confident that crime is hatdly rampant and I would not be burgled. I took reasonable steps that I could do to improve security. I was told the locks had been changed and was assured by this.

I began spending less time at the flat. As a result it is a good idea to take valuables you do not need and store them elsrwhete. I kept basic entertainment equipment I still use when at the flat.

The burglary occured. I have since discovered the locks were not changed.

I then come on this site which is clearly pro landlord and come under attack. No one here woyld be happy with the security at that flat. It was my belief that landlords do have increased responsibilotes following the Housing Act 2004.

As a conclusion I have taken this on board. I am unlikely to withold rent but if It is correct that landlords have to make badic or reasonable steps to ensure a property is secure it would be appreciated.

chris_m

SJI85 wrote: »

I then come on this site which is clearly pro landlord

Just because you have not got the answers for which you were hoping does not make this site "clearly pro landlord".

If anything, I'd say it was somewhat more pro tenant - but not when the tenant happens to be wrong.