OT: Burglary Damage in Rented Flat: Who Pays?

[pb21]

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?

The metal bit of the lock that normally moves when you turn the key was stuck inside the Yale body, turning the key or handle didn't do anything to release it.

I suspect that it would have been broken regardless of the mortice lock, but I dont know and I wouldn't know how to prove an engaged mortice would mean that it still would have broken, or for that matter wouldn't have broken!

 

[pb21]

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!

Yes I have now also asked there after doing a bit of googling, thanks for the thought though!

 

[Return of the Rev]

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...

Another non scum here

 

[bluenitsuj]

When you eventually move take the door with you.

 

[FatSuperman]

The metal bit of the lock that normally moves when you turn the key was stuck inside the Yale body, turning the key or handle didn't do anything to release it.

I suspect that it would have been broken regardless of the mortice lock, but I dont know and I wouldn't know how to prove an engaged mortice would mean that it still would have broken, or for that matter wouldn't have broken!

Can you explain further? Do you mean the metal latch was recessed inside the mechanism, so somehow the ne'er do well has jammed something into the gap and forced the latch to get stuck inside the mehanism? In which case, surely the mortise lock is irrelevant here - it may have stopped entry but wouldn't have stopped the damage?

Isn't this irrelevant. It's about housing contract law - is the lock the responsibility of the tenant or landlord. It is surely the landlords responsibility so the debate is then about whether the damage was caused by the tenant or not? Depending on how much £100 (or the principle) means to you, then I would absolutely not be paying that. I'd pay £100 less in my rent and let them chase me.

 

[Triggaaar]

So as we didn't use the mortice lock are we liable and not the landlord?

Not unless it says that in the contract.

Possibly relevant is that had the mortice lock been engaged the burglar wouldn't have gained

That is hearsay. They may have smashed the door down or smashed windows, we cannot tell what they would have done.

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

I think that's very unlikely unless it says so in the contract.

 

[pb21]

Can you explain further? Do you mean the metal latch was recessed inside the mechanism, so somehow the ne'er do well has jammed something into the gap and forced the latch to get stuck inside the mehanism? In which case, surely the mortise lock is irrelevant here - it may have stopped entry but wouldn't have stopped the damage?

Isn't this irrelevant. It's about housing contract law - is the lock the responsibility of the tenant or landlord. It is surely the landlords responsibility so the debate is then about whether the damage was caused by the tenant or not? Depending on how much £100 (or the principle) means to you, then I would absolutely not be paying that. I'd pay £100 less in my rent and let them chase me.

Your interpretation of the damage is correct as is your thought regarding the mortice lock, i.e if it was locked the damage will still have occurred, but the burglar not gained entry.

It's weird on the other forum Templeton Peck suggested someone has said that all building damage is the tenants responsibility, regardless of who causes it, including if a burglar damages the property?

 

[FatSuperman]

Your interpretation of the damage is correct as is your thought regarding the mortice lock, i.e if it was locked the damage will still have occurred, but the burglar not gained entry.

It's weird on the other forum Templeton Peck suggested someone has said that all building damage is the tenants responsibility, regardless of who causes it, including if a burglar damages the property?

I'm not a landlord or lawyer, but how can that be remotely possible? If that were the case landlords would be coming over when you're asleep, smashing the place up and charging you for new things!

 

[FatSuperman]

[MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] what's the latest with the LL then - they are just saying it's your responsibility? What is their reasoning? What does your contract say?

 

[Papak]

Seriously? £100? Pay up and keep your home secure, use the mortice lock in future and hopefully ensure you get to stay put and don't annoy your LL too much.

I'm a landlord and although I would pay for the repairs without hesitation others might not be so thoughtful and you might be served notice for being awkward.

 

[FatSuperman]

Seriously? £100? Pay up and keep your home secure, use the mortice lock in future and hopefully ensure you get to stay put and don't annoy your LL too much.

I'm a landlord and although I would pay for the repairs without hesitation others might not be so thoughtful and you might be served notice for being awkward.

You have a ridiculous attitude. The tenant did not damage the lock. This isn't about the burglary, it's about who is responsible for the damage to the lock.

"Don't annoy you're LL too much"
"You might be served notice for being awkward"

Absolutely ridiculous statements. Surely a decent landlord wants tenants to stay put, as long as they are paying the rent and looking after the place, minor costs like these are part and parcel of the business and you can write them off anyway! If a tenant gets upset at your behaviour and leaves then you need someone in ASAP or you are losing income. It's all irrelevant anyway, it's about what the CONTRACT says. Not your opinion or my opinion.

 

[Papak]

You have a ridiculous attitude. The tenant did not damage the lock. This isn't about the burglary, it's about who is responsible for the damage to the lock.

"Don't annoy you're LL too much"
"You might be served notice for being awkward"

Absolutely ridiculous statements. Surely a decent landlord wants tenants to stay put, as long as they are paying the rent and looking after the place, minor costs like these are part and parcel of the business and you can write them off anyway! If a tenant gets upset at your behaviour and leaves then you need someone in ASAP or you are losing income. It's all irrelevant anyway, it's about what the CONTRACT says. Not your opinion or my opinion.

Yes of course they do. This has been going on for 2 weeks now so it sounds like there is an inpasse so it would seem the tenant / landlord relationship is not ideal.

Are you a landlord?

If so, how many properties and what is your average occupancy level?

You seem clueless tbh.

*also it is your not you're

 

[Papak]

I'm not a landlord or lawyer, but how can that be remotely possible? If that were the case landlords would be coming over when you're asleep, smashing the place up and charging you for new things!

Just noticed you are not a LL so just wondering what you are bringing to the party by way of experience.

 

[pb21]

[MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] what's the latest with the LL then - they are just saying it's your responsibility? What is their reasoning? What does your contract say?

Yes, the landlord is refusing to pay as the mortice lock wasn't used. The contract doesn't say anything specific regarding this matter so it's really not clear. We have asked them to show us where it states liability is on the tenant but they haven't yet.

 

[pb21]

Seriously? £100? Pay up and keep your home secure, use the mortice lock in future and hopefully ensure you get to stay put and don't annoy your LL too much.

I'm a landlord and although I would pay for the repairs without hesitation others might not be so thoughtful and you might be served notice for being awkward.

We have paid and we will use the mortice lock in future. Also we are not trying to annoy the landlord, and don't want to as that could clearly backfire, although we probably are. We are just trying to ascertain who is liable; if we are the we should pay if the landlord is liable they should pay.

 

[Papak]

We have paid and we will use the mortice lock in future. Also we are not trying to annoy the landlord, and don't want to as that could clearly backfire, although we probably are. We are just trying to ascertain who is liable; if we are the we should pay if the landlord is liable they should pay.

Are you dealing with the LL direct or through a letting agent?

I wish you well. The rental market is on it's arse at the moment so any LL worth his salt will be keen to retain tenants.

 

[FatSuperman]

Just noticed you are not a LL so just wondering what you are bringing to the party by way of experience.

What relevance does that have? I've spent many years being a tenant, I've had brilliant landlords and absolute dipsticks, so I'm bringing a load of experience as a tenant. I also bring what I like to believe is common sense, as well as an eye for fairness and decency. If anything I'm over-qualified for this debate, whilst you are simply acting like a sanctimonious ass.

I hardly think your stunning advice to the effect of 'just pay and be happy you still get to live there' shows you in a particularly good light. The landlord is providing a product for a paying customer, you are not doing your tenants any favours by housing them, they do not owe you any favours. Unless you are one of those landlords that charge nothing for their property. If so, then please accept my apology and do you have any four beds available?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

What relevance does that have? I've spent many years being a tenant, I've had brilliant landlords and absolute dipsticks, so I'm bringing a load of experience as a tenant. I also bring what I like to believe is common sense, as well as an eye for fairness and decency. If anything I'm over-qualified for this debate, whilst you are simply acting like a sanctimonious ass.

I hardly think your stunning advice to the effect of 'just pay and be happy you still get to live there' shows you in a particularly good light. The landlord is providing a product for a paying customer, you are not doing your tenants any favours by housing them, they do not owe you any favours. Unless you are one of those landlords that charge nothing for their property. If so, then please accept my apology and do you have any four beds available?

Indeed sounds like a Cashley Cole to me

 

[FatSuperman]

Yes, the landlord is refusing to pay as the mortice lock wasn't used. The contract doesn't say anything specific regarding this matter so it's really not clear. We have asked them to show us where it states liability is on the tenant but they haven't yet.

In that case, at the end of the tenancy I would simply pay £100 less in rent for the final month. I may be biased, but it seems the morality of the argument is on your side here - the landlord is trying to avoid paying for the repair on the basis of a technicality - that you didn't use the mortice lock. Regardless of the fact that the mortice lock has nothing to do with the damage done to the other lock. If the burglar had broken a window to get in, would he not pay for the window because the mortice lock wasn't engaged?

Despite all of that, contractually it is the landlords responsibility so the technicality is nonsense. If you shirk your responsibilities on the contract, would the landlord be happy to cover things instead of you? Of course not.

There are many, many brilliant landlords out there, but sadly a lot of them think they can just do what they like.

 

[Chicken Run]

I'm extremely lucky to have a lovely landlord although I appreciate that can change at anytime, to be honest after a burglary I'm not sure how I'd feel but I most certainly would secure the property, I'm not sure I'd bother the landlord for £100 though, I would inform them of the incident though.