Jump to content

landlords liability


wayne

Recommended Posts

It would be good for your daughter to receive compensation for her property lost in the fire BUT even if she does its not all plain sailing. Insurers can make the process lengthy and time consuming because they need to ensure checks and balances are in place.

* She will probably have to provide some sort of proof of ownership or proof of purchase.

* Anything salvagable will have a value and may be taken into account.

* She will not necessarily receive replacement value. For example, a 5 year old TV may be valued at under £50....that may be what she will receive. A new one may cost £300.

She is still likely to be left seriously out of pocket as the compensation she receives is unlikely to be enough to allow her to replace all of her losses.

I'd suggest she starts, if she hasn't already, listing out each individual item, the price paid, its replacement cost, whether she has proof of ownership or purchase etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Public Liability is usually to cover the LL, if the LL so chooses to have such cover, in the event of injury on the property. Eg the Postman falls into a pot hole, I wouldn't view your Daughter as a member of the public in her own home.

It may be understandable to be emotional but now see where the "I'll show them" attitude gets you, or more importantly your Daughter.

It isn't just hindsight that shows you all these things that were unsuitable, it's only now you consider them to be so important rather than earlier when if it was so important it may have had more benefit.

Life's a bitch, if you were a LL you would understand that better.

You'll have me tears Cor..!!

Presumably you have to have a bit of money behind you to become a LL??

Question...my daughter has two enormous trees in her garden which we have asked to HA to cut down or at least trim...one is over 70' high and only 15 ' from the kitchen window.

HA says...if you want them trimmed do it yourselves...fair enough.

Now then...windy night....daughter, grandson, in house, tree falls damages house cuts her and grandson badly. she has to have time off work. incurs property losses.......because she was in the house does that stop her being a member of the public? Are you saying that the HA OR LL is not responsible?? or does this go down as life is a bitch or an act of god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question...my daughter has two enormous trees in her garden which we have asked to HA to cut down or at least trim...one is over 70' high and only 15 ' from the kitchen window.

HA says...if you want them trimmed do it yourselves...fair enough.

Now then...windy night....daughter, grandson, in house, tree falls damages house cuts her and grandson badly. she has to have time off work. incurs property losses.......because she was in the house does that stop her being a member of the public? Are you saying that the HA OR LL is not responsible?? or does this go down as life is a bitch or an act of god?

Now then trees is something I know about having just successfully had a tree on adjacent land felled......but it did take me 7 years to achieve this result. It came after numerous successfull compensation claims by me for root damage to garden structures and damage caused by falling branches.

The tree belongs to your landowner ....the HA. They have a statutory obligation to ensure that the tree is safe. If the tree fell during a bad storm then thats a one off/ act of God. If the tree was damaged or unsafe then they are liable. I don't know which of those scenarios is appropriate for your situation......perhaps you do. Usually the landowners insurance will pay out for any valid claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies, they were very unfortunate to be below the tree on that windy night.

T moves into property and very reasonably expects the home environment to be a safe and secure one.

A situation occurs where there is property damage, it is considered by the T that the lack of maintenance of the property has been the cause, although there may be some dispute by the LL or indeed his insurance as sometimes things just go wrong and are reasonably not foreseeable. Still there may be a liability.

The property damage of the T's has some value. Is the LL liable for the total value regardless ?

There are furnishings,

a laptop,

a couple of watches. The sort of things developed in a usual living environment. Now the liability here may seem reasonable.

Then there are claimed to be a couple of Rembrants stored in the loft. The liability here to the LL now seems unreasonable. Surely had the T considered these to be of such high value the T should have insured.

In principle the value should be irrelevant as there should be a principle of liability and where would you draw the line ?

My thoughts are that to expect a LL to reimburse for Rembrants is unreasonable and as I am unaware of any maximum liability there would be no liability.

BTW "Presumably you have to have a bit of money behind you to become a LL"

what I have or don't have is totally irrelevant and none of your concern, what there is is mine and if another has less they have no right to expect some of mine to be passed to them. They may ask but should not be disappointed at the likely response.

Now, you have many opinions here and clearly you don't like them. Of course if you ask enough people for their opinion using your persuasive attitude you will eventually find some one that will agree with your view. I am sure this will encourage you to stand proud for your Daughter. I do wonder where the hell you were before hand though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caravanj

Our 2010 built large & expensive detached house has externally beaded double glazing which I queried with FENSA who said it was still permitted & is still in common use. The current gasket & taping system means that it's very hard to get the glass out without being inside the property to push it out. External beading is not an insurance issue.

As a retired director of an electrical installation company I can say that there is no legal requirement for the electrical system to be checked every 10 years, it's only advisory but, like a vehicle MOT or a Gas Safe check , it only confirms that the vehicle or system is safe on the day of the check. The very next day a serious fault could develop so checks will never prevent these events from occuring.

Student accomodation, in my area, is subject to an annual electrical inspection but you don't seriously think that the LL pays do you? The cost of the check is built into the rent so if legislation is passed requiring an annual electrical inspection you daughter's rent will just increase by £50 a month.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"if legislation is passed requiring an annual electrical inspection you daughter's rent will just increase by £50 a month."

But that's not fair She can't afford it, so someone else should pay.wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caravanj

"if legislation is passed requiring an annual electrical inspection you daughter's rent will just increase by £50 a month."

But that's not fair She can't afford it, so someone else should pay.wink.gif

You are a rascal but I like you!!

Harmonics can cause an dramatic increase in the neutral current draw enough to melt the terminal,but I'll bet that the Fire Service investigators haven't even heard of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is possibility that the neutral was loose, but I would expect the effect to show up earlier.

A forensic examination at a lab could 'perhaps' identify if the terminal was incorrectly torqued, deciding from a visual is far from conclusive.

My thoughts are that the contacts within the RCD would be a more likely cause for increased resistance due to pitting.

A little confusing is the effect of the neutral being of poor contact I would expect some nuisance tripping of the RCD when energised at night.

Would you expect harmonics on a resistive load ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our 2010 built large & expensive detached house has externally beaded double glazing which I queried with FENSA who said it was still permitted & is still in common use. The current gasket & taping system means that it's very hard to get the glass out without being inside the property to push it out. External beading is not an insurance issue.

As a retired director of an electrical installation company I can say that there is no legal requirement for the electrical system to be checked every 10 years, it's only advisory but, like a vehicle MOT or a Gas Safe check , it only confirms that the vehicle or system is safe on the day of the check. The very next day a serious fault could develop so checks will never prevent these events from occuring.

Student accomodation, in my area, is subject to an annual electrical inspection but you don't seriously think that the LL pays do you? The cost of the check is built into the rent so if legislation is passed requiring an annual electrical inspection you daughter's rent will just increase by £50 a month.

I will emphasise again that these are SINGLE glazed unit's...one pane of glass sitting on a thin 3mm rubber seal. I know they are still in use..my daughters house has them!! I will state again...wait until you are burgled, entry gained by removing exposed beading..then see if the insurance company wriggle when they find out that you have external beading!!!

I will say again.....just because electrical installations are not regulated unlike gas does not make it right!!!!! I'm absolutely 100% positive that my daughter would pay a little bit more on her rent knowing that the electrical equipment is inspected regularly, rather than being woken up at 3.30 in the morning with her home on fire.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sympathies, they were very unfortunate to be below the tree on that windy night.

T moves into property and very reasonably expects the home environment to be a safe and secure one.

A situation occurs where there is property damage, it is considered by the T that the lack of maintenance of the property has been the cause, although there may be some dispute by the LL or indeed his insurance as sometimes things just go wrong and are reasonably not foreseeable. Still there may be a liability.

The property damage of the T's has some value. Is the LL liable for the total value regardless ?

There are furnishings,

a laptop,

a couple of watches. The sort of things developed in a usual living environment. Now the liability here may seem reasonable.

Then there are claimed to be a couple of Rembrants stored in the loft. The liability here to the LL now seems unreasonable. Surely had the T considered these to be of such high value the T should have insured.

In principle the value should be irrelevant as there should be a principle of liability and where would you draw the line ?

My thoughts are that to expect a LL to reimburse for Rembrants is unreasonable and as I am unaware of any maximum liability there would be no liability.

BTW "Presumably you have to have a bit of money behind you to become a LL"

what I have or don't have is totally irrelevant and none of your concern, what there is is mine and if another has less they have no right to expect some of mine to be passed to them. They may ask but should not be disappointed at the likely response.

Now, you have many opinions here and clearly you don't like them. Of course if you ask enough people for their opinion using your persuasive attitude you will eventually find some one that will agree with your view. I am sure this will encourage you to stand proud for your Daughter. I do wonder where the hell you were before hand though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caravanj

Well we are getting a bit bitter and twisted.........TWO independent FORENSIC investigators examined the remains of what was the distribution board AND BOTH CONCLUDED INDEPENDENTLY ON DIFFERENT DAYS THAT THE FIRE HAD STARTED IN THEREIN.

Nothing to do with The Fire service. Obviously these two know what their talking about...I would presume....but I'm not a LL.

I'm puzzled by your 'bitter & twisted' comment since your problem, to be quite blunt, is of no concern of mine or any other forum member since we've neither anything to lose nor gain by the eventual outcome. You've chosen to ask a question on a self-help forum as I did some time ago & I too got some differing views.

You will get a range of opinions from members who genuinely like to help where they can.

I'm not saying that the forensic investigators didn't prove that the fire started in the consumer unit, what they would not be able to prove, if pushed in court, is that a loose screw in the neutral side of the RCD breaker caused the overheating.

Also I have to say that in all my years in the industry I have never personally come across a case of storage heaters causing problems but I have come across numerous cases of mains spikes blowing up appliances such as washing machines, TVs, fridges, consumer units & causing fires and the electrical supply companies usually tried to apportion blame elsewhere.

As I said originally, the annual Gas Safe check & an annual electrical safety check will not guarantee permanent safety any more than does a vehicle MOT or an appliance PAT test. All these checks merely prove that the a vehicle, appliance or installation was safe on the date of inspection.

Finally, regarding insurance, it was your daughter's responsibility to be insured & I've lived in houses with externally beaded single & double glazing, internally beaded single & double glazing, single glazing held by putty, secondary double glazing & I've never been refused insurance or even asked about it so it could be more to do with where she lives combined with the glazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm puzzled by your 'bitter & twisted' comment since your problem, to be quite blunt, is of no concern of mine or any other forum member since we've neither anything to lose nor gain by the eventual outcome. You've chosen to ask a question on a self-help forum as I did some time ago & I too got some differing views.

You will get a range of opinions from members who genuinely like to help where they can.

I'm not saying that the forensic investigators didn't prove that the fire started in the consumer unit, what they would not be able to prove, if pushed in court, is that a loose screw in the neutral side of the RCD breaker caused the overheating.

Also I have to say that in all my years in the industry I have never personally come across a case of storage heaters causing problems but I have come across numerous cases of mains spikes blowing up appliances such as washing machines, TVs, fridges, consumer units & causing fires and the electrical supply companies usually tried to apportion blame elsewhere.

As I said originally, the annual Gas Safe check & an annual electrical safety check will not guarantee permanent safety any more than does a vehicle MOT or an appliance PAT test. All these checks merely prove that the a vehicle, appliance or installation was safe on the date of inspection.

Finally, regarding insurance, it was your daughter's responsibility to be insured & I've lived in houses with externally beaded single & double glazing, internally beaded single & double glazing, single glazing held by putty, secondary double glazing & I've never been refused insurance or even asked about it so it could be more to do with where she lives combined with the glazing.

The comment regarding bitter and twisted referred to the intimation that the fire service don't know what they are up to...which seems a bit derogatory? And this did not refer to Fire service Investigators doing the examination in any case.

I think I'll disagree with the court part...I think a forensic investigator could persuade a court beyond reasonable doubt that what he thinks started the fire would be accepted and photographs showing the middle screw of the five, being 2/3 mm higher than the other 4 which were still gripping their wire's would be quite good evidence ....it's what TWO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS concluded any way. I suppose if you hunted hard enough you could find one to disagree, who knows.

As regards the insurance aspect....I fully accept that houses all over the country have glazing of all sorts. If and when a burglary occurs and the entry gained has been by removing external glazing beading especially on Upvc as it just 'pops' out and the other 3 beads can be removed almost with your fingers, and does not need extra work to get over nails etc etc....then see if the insurance company don't wriggle. I'll lay odds that they will reduce any pay out!

The car MOT thing is a point I had made earlier....if a car and it's driver crash into you and your car because the steering joint breaks two days after his car has an MOT, does it stop his insurance company paying for your injuries/ damage/loss of earnings?? No...he's deemed to be at fault!

Lastly read an article on line by Mark Hobbs of the Sussex Fire Service...it will surprise you and knocks your storage heater comment for six!!!! And it's got pictures!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you will not benefit from the opinion of others so as not to cause more offence than I already have I shall refrain from further comment.

It may be that others will have interest to be updated on developments as you may experience, always wishing to be receptive to new learnings I would.

I look forward to reading more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you will not benefit from the opinion of others so as not to cause more offence than I already have I shall refrain from further comment.

It may be that others will have interest to be updated on developments as you may experience, always wishing to be receptive to new learnings I would.

I look forward to reading more.

Thanks again....I will certainly keep you posted of the outcome but don't expect anything this side of summer......the HA still haven't made their minds up as to whose going to do the repairs or when!

So technically she's still homeless as the place in deemed uninhabitable.dry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google s.4 Defective Premises Act 1972 for your answer.

Thanks for that input LAW.....I take it from that ACT and the input in Schedule 7 Paragraph 2 the material time is from when the HA took possession of the house as regards any 'relevant defect' at the material time..ie when they acquired the house for letting.

That is prior to my daughter moving in..yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

correct in addition subsection 4 of section 4 is particularly useful as s.11 Landlord Tenant Act 1985 implies landlords right to enter premises to undertake repairs. Its a very powerful piece of legistlation and in many cases negates the need to show a breach of duty of care arising out of common law negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

correct in addition subsection 4 of section 4 is particularly useful as s.11 Landlord Tenant Act 1985 implies landlords right to enter premises to undertake repairs. Its a very powerful piece of legistlation and in many cases negates the need to show a breach of duty of care arising out of common law negligence.

Once again LAW...thanks very much for that....hopefully any solicitor I employ will know about those relevant parts of legislation..! If they don't I will certainly inform them. Thanks again.smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caravanj

The comment regarding bitter and twisted referred to the intimation that the fire service don't know what they are up to...which seems a bit derogatory? And this did not refer to Fire service Investigators doing the examination in any case.

I think I'll disagree with the court part...I think a forensic investigator could persuade a court beyond reasonable doubt that what he thinks started the fire would be accepted and photographs showing the middle screw of the five, being 2/3 mm higher than the other 4 which were still gripping their wire's would be quite good evidence ....it's what TWO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATORS concluded any way. I suppose if you hunted hard enough you could find one to disagree, who knows.

As regards the insurance aspect....I fully accept that houses all over the country have glazing of all sorts. If and when a burglary occurs and the entry gained has been by removing external glazing beading especially on Upvc as it just 'pops' out and the other 3 beads can be removed almost with your fingers, and does not need extra work to get over nails etc etc....then see if the insurance company don't wriggle. I'll lay odds that they will reduce any pay out!

The car MOT thing is a point I had made earlier....if a car and it's driver crash into you and your car because the steering joint breaks two days after his car has an MOT, does it stop his insurance company paying for your injuries/ damage/loss of earnings?? No...he's deemed to be at fault!

Lastly read an article on line by Mark Hobbs of the Sussex Fire Service...it will surprise you and knocks your storage heater comment for six!!!! And it's got pictures!!

My storage heater comment is quite valid since I said I han't come across this problem . I didn't say that the Sussex Fire Service hadn't come across it.

I had a steering failure on a car ( Renault 16 ) in the 1970's which was proven to be an unforseeable fault & beyond anyone's control. My insurers DID NOT pay out for the 3rd party damage caused.

I've double checked with my insurers & there is no additional loading or excess for any particular type of glazing so maybe your daughter needs to shop around.

As Cor has said, I think there is little point in any further comment on this post but it will be interesting to hear of the final outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My storage heater comment is quite valid since I said I han't come across this problem . I didn't say that the Sussex Fire Service hadn't come across it.

I had a steering failure on a car ( Renault 16 ) in the 1970's which was proven to be an unforseeable fault & beyond anyon'e control. My insurers DID NOT pay out for the 3rd party damage caused.

I've double checked with my insurers & there is no additional loading or excess for any particular type of glazing so maybe your daughter need to shop around.

As Cor has said, I think there is little point in any further comment on this post but it will be interesting to hear of the final outcome.

Did you stay with the insurance company or did it load your premiums after your accident? Having dealt with many many vehicular accidents and appearing at court to give evidence as regards their cause you were, in my opinion, very lucky!

My daughter did shop around...and £59.99 per month was the cheapest she could get for £25,000 of cover. She has no convictions. No rent arrears. Is employed and has been since leaving school.

I did not say there was extra loading with your insurance company. What I did say is...if your house is broken into via the exposed beading on your SINGLE glazed Upvc windows then IT WILL WRIGGLE SUBSTANTIALLY on it's payout...ie it will use the entry point as a lever to reduce it's payout as it will deem your house ' insecure '.

I know how insurance companies work. The day I met the loss adjuster for the HA and mentioned her claim for her bedding etc he moved onto the back foot and started to hum and har but changed his tune when I intimated that I knew what HIS COMPANIES forensic investigator had found.

Like HA's, Insurance companies are a business and want your money but shrink away when they have to give some back. I'll keep your forum posted....maybe this time next year!! Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caravanj

Did you stay with the insurance company or did it load your premiums after your accident? Having dealt with many many vehicular accidents and appearing at court to give evidence as regards their cause you were, in my opinion, very lucky!

My daughter did shop around...and £59.99 per month was the cheapest she could get for £25,000 of cover. She has no convictions. No rent arrears. Is employed and has been since leaving school.

I did not say there was extra loading with your insurance company. What I did say is...if your house is broken into via the exposed beading on your SINGLE glazed Upvc windows then IT WILL WRIGGLE SUBSTANTIALLY on it's payout...ie it will use the entry point as a lever to reduce it's payout as it will deem your house ' insecure '.

I know how insurance companies work. The day I met the loss adjuster for the HA and mentioned her claim for her bedding etc he moved onto the back foot and started to hum and har but changed his tune when I intimated that I knew what HIS COMPANIES forensic investigator had found.

Like HA's, Insurance companies are a business and want your money but shrink away when they have to give some back. I'll keep your forum posted....maybe this time next year!! Take care.

I had the car examined & photographed by a vehicle engineer & it was fairly obvious that the trackrod end had failed & the wheels were splayed out before the impact. The Renault 16 had a side mounted radiator which blew heat onto the trackrod end which caused the nylon bush to degrade.

Your post has made me check my windows with Fensa, the installation company & my insurers so if the worst happens at least I can prove I've taken all reasonable steps to ensure they comply, so it's been useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...