OT: Burglary Damage in Rented Flat: Who Pays?

[pb21]

I think I have found the relevant text from our tenancy agreement:

4.5 The Tenant will be liable for the reasonable cost of repairs where the need for them is attributable to the Tenant's failure to comply with the obligations set out above in clauses C4.1 and C4.2 or where the need for repair is attributable to the fault or negligence of the Tenant, any Member of the Tenant's Household or any of the Tenant's visitors.

I guess it depends on whether the broken Yale lock is attributable to us not using the mortice lock, even though we couldn't use it (but the landlord didn't know this).

I would say the broken Yale lock is attributable to the burglar attempting to forcibly gain entry?

 

[Triggaaar]

Seriously? £100? Pay up and keep your home secure

His home is secure, he had the lock fixed.

use the mortice lock in future and hopefully ensure you get to stay put and don't annoy your LL too much.

Nice attitude.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think I have found the relevant text from our tenancy agreement:

"4.5 The Tenant will be liable for the reasonable cost of repairs where the need for them is attributable to the Tenant's failure to comply with the obligations set out above in clauses C4.1 and C4.2 or where the need for repair is attributable to the fault or negligence of the Tenant, any Member of the Tenant's Household or any of the Tenant's visitors"

I guess it depends on whether the broken Yale lock is attributable to us not using the mortice lock, even though we couldn't use it (but the landlord didn't know this).

I would say the broken Yale lock is attributable to the burglar attempting to forcibly gain entry?

If it says in clause C4.1 or C4.2 that you must use the deadlock at all times (even when you're in, which in itself could be a fire hasard), then your landlord may have a case.
But it doesn't, does it.
Is the need for the repair due to your negligence? - no.

How long have you been at the property, and when did the deadlock stop working?

 

[pb21]

If it says in clause C4.1 or C4.2 that you must use the deadlock at all times (even when you're in, which in itself could be a fire hasard), then your landlord may have a case.
But it doesn't, does it.
Is the need for the repair due to your negligence? - no.

How long have you been at the property, and when did the deadlock stop working?

C4.1 and C4.2 talk about taking reasonable care of the property, heated/ventialted etc. and not to make alterations. It doesn't talk about locks specifically, unless not using the mortice lock is an example of not taking reasonable care of the property?

We have been at the property for 18 months, the deadlock has never worked, although this isn't stated on the inventory when we moved in, that's probably partly why we didn't report it as we never got used to using it and our previous property didn't have one fitted.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Triggaaar]

C4.1 and C4.2 talk about taking reasonable care of the property, heated/ventialted etc. and not to make alterations.

Fair enough.

It doesn't talk about locks specifically, unless not using the mortice lock is an example of not taking reasonable care of the property?

No of course it isn't, that would be ludicrous. We don't use ours (we have a decent yale style lock as well as the mortice).

We have been at the property for 18 months, the deadlock has never worked, although this isn't stated on the inventory when we moved in, that's probably partly why we didn't report it as we never got used to using it

Indeed, that's what I expected. There's no way you are responsible for that. If you open the door, does the lock then work (turning the key makes the metal block pop out and back) or does that not even work?

It's very clear to me from clause 4.5 that you are NOT responsible for this. It's clear because the clause shows which repairs you are responsible for, and this is not one of them.

If someone (not you or anyone you know) set fire to the building causing over £100k worth of damage, do you think you'd be liable for that? No, of course not, that would be ridiculous. It would be your landlord's responsibility to have buildings insurance to cover such a thing.
Your case is just the same, except a lot less money.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Whilst there are some very good and correct answers above, the real culprit for the damage is the burglar [criminal damage].

If they caught the scrote, go after him for the full £100 -if that's not possible, then beware of the policy excess before progressing with any claim.

 

[FatSuperman]

[MENTION=16399]pb21[/MENTION] Based on the above (as Trig is saying) then you are not liable for this. The mortice lock debate is nothing to do with the damage to the Yale lock - there is simply no relevance. If the question was 'would the burglar have gained entry if both locks were used', then it would be a different question (we still wouldn't know). But we are not debating the entry, we are simply asking 'who pays for the damage to a lock, if the damage was caused by a burglar'.

The answer lies within section C4.5 of the tenancy agreement;
Where the need for repair is attributable to the fault or negligence of the Tenant, any Member of the Tenant's Household or any of the Tenant's visitors.

I guess the only question left is, PB21 - was the burglar visiting you or someone from your household?

 

[FatSuperman]

Whilst there are some very good and correct answers above, the real culprit for the damage is the burglar [criminal damage].

If they caught the scrote, go after him for the full £100 -if that's not possible, then beware of the policy excess before progressing with any claim.

Absolutely! The landlord should definitely go for the burglar.

Tenant gets repaid by the landlord
Landlord files damage against the burglar (if they were caught)
Landlord fixes mortice lock

 

[pb21]

Thanks for the replies. I will go back to the letting agent/landlord and see what they say.

 

[Papak]

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?

I think you are missing my point. For the relatively small sum of money involved I don't think it is worth pursuing the LL too hard if he isn't keen to make things right from his own pocket which is pretty clearly the case here.

I'm trying to put myself in the tenant's shoes by gauging what type of LL he has based on the information provided so far.

As I said initially as a LL I would pay for something like this immediately to maintain a good tenant / LL relationship.

Just like I always put a bottle of Champagne in the fridge for any new tenants so we hopefully get off on the right foot.

 

[FatSuperman]

[MENTION=424]Papak[/MENTION] but the point I am making is why should the tenant just suck it up to keep the landlord happy? It's the landlord who should suck it up in the event that there is ambiguity. They are the supplier here. They are the ones earning money from the customer each month.

I grant you, if I were the tenant and my landlord was good and we had a good relationship, I'd certainly chalk it up as one I pay - assuming there is give and take with the LL. But we don't know if £100 is a big deal to pb21, we also don't know if the LL has ever given them an inch.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

I think I have found the relevant text from our tenancy agreement:



I guess it depends on whether the broken Yale lock is attributable to us not using the mortice lock, even though we couldn't use it (but the landlord didn't know this).

I would say the broken Yale lock is attributable to the burglar attempting to forcibly gain entry?

Is there an argument to suggest that the landlord has a responsibility to check the locks are all working at the start of a tenancy and such checks should form part of the inventory of the property? If this was done properly the landlord would have become aware of the faulty mortice lock.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

With regard to terms and conditions I would suggest using notice lock does fall into the category of taking all reasonable precautions. When you took out insurance for the contents insurers normally require a 5 lever notice or equivalent as minimum at the point of entry. Did you you state that when identifying the security of the flat? Also, if it wasn't working did you report it and if not, why not?

At the end of the day is £100 worth jeopardizing your tenancy and/or relations with your landlord?

Edit: just seen post 64. Still don't understand why you didn't mention it to landlord/agent?

 

[Papak]

Thanks for the replies. I will go back to the letting agent/landlord and see what they say.

Any update pb21?

 

[pb21]

Any update pb21?

Going through the landlord's official complaints procedure. Basically they are saying we are liable as we didn't use the mortice lock, we are saying the landlord are liable as that fact didn't cause the lock to break. Should get their final thoughts soon before we potentially get the independent ombudsman involved...

 

[Albion my Albion]

When you eventually move........

...........lock the door from the outside and take the key with you. The landlord must then replace the lock. Or he'll come to you for the key and you can tell him the cost is £100