OT: Burglary Damage in Rented Flat: Who Pays?

[Triggaaar]

Shelter suggests it's usually the landlord's responsibility, what does usually mean?

Usually means what is, er, usual, but without checking your particular contract to check if you've taken the responsibility.

My guess would be that the landlord is responsible, although whether you paid the going rate or should have contacted him/her first I don't know.

 

[Notters]

[MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] is it worth posting a pic of the bike on here too?

 

[drew]

The Landlord may wish to have buildings insurance but doesn't have to.

I'd pay for the new lock, if the Landlord, but I'm not scum.

Be a complete tool not to have insurance!! A big investment to lose for the sake of a few quid in premium.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Nasty to have your place burgled and sounds like your landlord is taking the p***

 

[Cheshire Cat]

The most pertinent bit I can find is this:

"Section F: Additional terms between the landlord and tenant 1. As a condition of entering into this Tenancy Agreement the Tenant shall: Obtain and maintain a policy of insurance to provide a suitable level of cover for accidental damage to the landlord’s contents, furniture, fixtures and fittings at the property as described in the attached inventory; and upon request provide the Agent with a copy of the insurance certificate and consent to divulge any notice of cancellation. The Tenant should note that the Landlords insurance policy will not cover the Tenants personal possessions."

We have contents insurance, we might be able to claim for the locks on that actually, but I can't see anything in the agreement who pays for burglary/criminal damage to the building itself.

That isn't relevant as burglary damage cannot be regarded as "accidental". It is the tenant's responsibility to insure their own contents, but as the landlord owns the building (including the door), it should come from his buildings policy. The front door and the lock are not "contents".

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

The flat we rent was broken into and in the process the front door lock was broken. This cost £100 to fix. We had to pay this as we had to get in a locksmith to fix the door on the evening of the burglary.

Now the landlord is saying that they aren't liable for this cost as burglary damage is the tenant's responsibility.

Is this correct?

Shelter suggests it's usually the landlord's responsibility, what does usually mean?

Don't give him the new set of keys until he reimburses you the cash. Or just take it out your next months rent.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

As a landlord I would pay for it unless the idiots left the door or window open etc. but then it wouldn't be the lock that was damaged so in this case reckon it's quite clear

 

[OzMike]

Landlord claims for damage to the property and you claim for anything of yours that is damaged/stolen.

 

[knocky1]

Be a complete tool not to have insurance!! A big investment to lose for the sake of a few quid in premium.

I am a big tool and I did it for 18 months. The insurance company didn't send reminders and it went off my radar. Only discovered when compiling a tax return. Luckily all was ok.......

 

[Official Old Man]

My commercial property got broken in to but luckily nothing of value taken. Only damage was to the rear door, value £1200. Landlords insurance paid out but to the landlord who has refused to pay me and so the door remains damaged.

 

[father_and_son]

The contractual position and the moral position are different here...

Based on the wording of the contract OP posted, the tenant is required to obtain insurance protection for fixtures and fittings (which would include the door). The fact the the cost would be below the excess is incidental, the obligation is still there to protect the landlord's property.
The claim resulted from a burglary, so the repair of the door would be covered under a CONTENTS policy, not a BUILDINGS one.

Contractually, TBH, the OP is liable for the repair of the damage.




That said... Its a pretty scummy landlord who would refuse to pay and willingly leave his tenant in an insecure property. Plus, given that rents in B&H are ridiculous and [generally] produce an excellent yield when a tenant is in, but cost a fortune if they remain empty for any length of time, then a landlord is a fool to risk p*ssing off a good tenant for the sake of about 2 days rent!

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Not sure I'm scum. A bit grumpy sometimes but scum is stronging it somewhat

In answer to the question I wouldn't dream of making a tenant pay...

I've never considered myself to be scum either, I don't have a bath very often, but from what I remember, I don't float on the top. As far as the door/lock is concerned, for the sake of £100, I wouldn't dream of asking the tenant to pay it either.

 

[pb21]

Sorry for reviving this but it's still ongoing and I suspect in the landlord's favour.

Basically we didn't use the additional mortice lock on the door, just the Yale lock. The mortice lock wasn't working, although the landlord wasn't aware of this.

So as we didn't use the mortice lock are we liable and not the landlord? Possibly relevant is that had the mortice lock been engaged the burglar wouldn't have gained entry but still would have broken the Yale lock attempting to break in.

We obviously would accept liability if not using the mortice lock means that, but still aren't sure.

 

[FatSuperman]

Hi [MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] can you please remind us what is at stake? Is it still the cost of the repairs, or has it escalated at all?

Cheers

 

[pb21]

Hi [MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] can you please remind us what is at stake? Is it still the cost of the repairs, or has it escalated at all?

Cheers

It's just the £100 cost to replace the Yale lock broken. We have paid that at the moment as we couldn't lock the door the night following the burglary.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Sorry for reviving this but it's still ongoing and I suspect in the landlord's favour.

Basically we didn't use the additional mortice lock on the door, just the Yale lock. The mortice lock wasn't working, although the landlord wasn't aware of this.

So as we didn't use the mortice lock are we liable and not the landlord? Possibly relevant is that had the mortice lock been engaged the burglar wouldn't have gained entry but still would have broken the Yale lock attempting to break in.

We obviously would accept liability if not using the mortice lock means that, but still aren't sure.

I would say that if you can prove that the Yale lock would have been broken even if the mortice lock was being used, then you shouldn't have to pay. If, however, the Yale lock was broken through, say, brute force, then that probably wouldn't have happened if the mortice lock was engaged - in which case, it's probably your cost, because you didn't use all the locks the landlord provided. As you imply, the landlord can't be blamed for a non-working mortice lock if they didn't know that it wasn't working.

Irrespective, for £100, the landlord should do the decent thing and reimburse you (morally).

 

[robinsonsgrin]

The flat we rent was broken into and in the process the front door lock was broken. This cost £100 to fix. We had to pay this as we had to get in a locksmith to fix the door on the evening of the burglary.

Now the landlord is saying that they aren't liable for this cost as burglary damage is the tenant's responsibility.

Is this correct?

Shelter suggests it's usually the landlord's responsibility, what does usually mean?

when you leave, take your lock with you... you paid for it.. it is your possession!!

 

[pb21]

I would say that if you can prove that the Yale lock would have been broken even if the mortice lock was being used, then you shouldn't have to pay. If, however, the Yale lock was broken through, say, brute force, then that probably wouldn't have happened if the mortice lock was engaged - in which case, it's probably your cost, because you didn't use all the locks the landlord provided. As you imply, the landlord can't be blamed for a non-working mortice lock if they didn't know that it wasn't working.

Irrespective, for £100, the landlord should do the decent thing and reimburse you (morally).

So it potentially comes down to whether or not the burglar knew the mortice lock wasn't used? The way I see it there are three scenarios:

1) the burglar didn't know and they attempted to break in and broke the Yale lock, but then couldn't gain entry into the flat because of the mortice lock. Therefore the landlord is liable.

2) the burglar didn't know and they attempted to break in and broke the Yale lock, and then gained entry because the mortice lock wasn't used. Therefore the tenant is liable.

3) the burglar did know the mortice lock wasn't used, therefore the tenant is liable.

I have had a look and you cant tell from either looking or moving the door when closed if the mortice lock is used. I guess the burglar could have put something down the door to check prior to breaking the Yale lock but that also may not have happened!
but because the mortice lock wasn't working we are liable?

 

[Goldstone1976]

So it potentially comes down to whether or not the burglar knew the mortice lock wasn't used? The way I see it there are three scenarios:

1) the burglar didn't know and they attempted to break in and broke the Yale lock, but then couldn't gain entry into the flat because of the mortice lock. Therefore the landlord is liable.

2) the burglar didn't know and they attempted to break in and broke the Yale lock, and then gained entry because the mortice lock wasn't used. Therefore the tenant is liable.

3) the burglar did know the mortice lock wasn't used, therefore the tenant is liable.

I have had a look and you cant tell from either looking or moving the door when closed if the mortice lock is used. i guess the burglar could have put something down the door to check prior to breaking the Yale lock but that also may not have happened!
but because the mortice lock wasn't working we are liable?

No, I wasn't implying anything about whether the burglar knew that the mortice lock wasn't engaged. Rather, whether the Yale lock would not have been broken had the mortice lock been engaged, irrespective of the burglar's knowledge.

If an engaged mortice lock would have prevented the Yale lock being broken when the burglar tried to get in, then I suspect you're liable for not using it. If the Yale lock would still have been broken, irrespective of the position of the mortice lock, then you don't. imo.

You haven't described how the Yale is "broken". In what way is it broken?

 

[Templeton Peck]

I was going to suggest trying the landlordzone forums, but looks like you have...

Always found them to be really helpful. Blunt; but will give you all the right advice you need!