Landlords building insurance excess to be covered by tenant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Landlords building insurance excess to be covered by tenant

    The police had to break into a property my mother was renting in an attempt to save her life. Unfortunately after three weeks in hospital she passed away.

    I’m her son who is dealing with her estate and currently ending her tenancy agreement.

    The landlord is requesting the excess on the buildings insurance is covered by the tenant’s deposit to cover damages caused by the police breaking into the property.

    I appreciate this isn’t the landlords fault, but at the same time it isn’t my mother’s fault or mine.

    I have a 12 year old assured shorthold tenancy agreement which I believe is still valid as I believe a new one wasn't ever issued.

    There is one clause in the agreement which I believe may cover the landlord - please see the attached image.

    Would this imply the tenant is liable to pay for excess (£100) in this circumstance?

    Should I dispute this with the deposit protection service?

    Thanks for reading.

    #2
    Since neither you nor mum decided there should be any excess, or indeed any insurance, you would not be found liable.

    Police broke door, not you or mum, not your responsibility. Expect LL thinks you're an easier party to go after.

    What a twit of on insensitive , disgraceful, stupid landlord! (If landlord viewing please let us know your views on the matter).

    Sorry about mum.
    I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

    Comment


      #3
      If your dead mother's landlord of 12 years is trying to claim £100 for the excess of an insurance claim caused by the emergency services breaking the door down to try and save her life, I'd send him some lubricant to help him shove his tenancy agreement up his ar5e.

      Essentially he's probably right legally - ignoring the tenancy clause (which is probably unfair) and the liability of the emergency services (they're probably liable), a tenant is responsible for returning the property in the same condition as they received it, less normal wear and tear and the landlord is entitled to compensation for any loss arising as a consequence.

      But for someone to try and enforce that, given the circumstances, seems pretty disgusting, frankly. Particularly after receiving 12 years of income.

      I had a death in the family recently, so I'm possibly a bit raw, but even so...
      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

      Comment


        #4
        No lubricant for a b+st+rd like this!

        And people wonder why landlords have a bad reputation.
        I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

        Comment


          #5
          Agree with the posters, but if you want peace and walk away without any more stress at a difficult time, just pay it (via the deposit) and then at least you don't need to deal with the LL again.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
            If your dead mother's landlord of 12 years is trying to claim £100 for the excess of an insurance claim caused by the emergency services breaking the door down to try and save her life.
            The tenancy agreement I have states this excess of £100, however the lettings agent have said the tenancy agreements issued as of today are for the sum of £350. Therefore the landlord is requesting the sum of £350. I will contend this amount.

            The bit I feel disappointed at is my mother was a perfect tenant (i'm actually a landlord myself for a single property). She keep the property spotless and always paid her rent on time, but yet this hasn't counted for anything.

            The amount in question which the landlord is contending (£350), is such a small sum in comparison to the value of assets held by the private limited company (the landlord). In researching the company on companies house, I've found that the company holds £4.2m in "investment properties" and £4.1m in "cash at the bank". I'm all for people being entrepreneurial, however given the sensitivity of the circumstance I thought he could let this one fly given he isn't cash strapped.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by ash72 View Post
              Agree with the posters, but if you want peace and walk away without any more stress at a difficult time, just pay it (via the deposit) and then at least you don't need to deal with the LL again.
              Yes, this is something I'm considering.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                Sorry about mum.
                Thank you for your sympathies.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Bjc53 View Post

                  The tenancy agreement I have states this excess of £100, however the lettings agent have said the tenancy agreements issued as of today are for the sum of £350. Therefore the landlord is requesting the sum of £350. I will contend this amount.
                  No, they can't claim more just because their documentation has changed in the meantime.
                  That's even more insulting.

                  If you're the executor you have a duty to maximise the value of your mother's estate (no one ever tells executors what they're meant to do, people are somehow expected to just "know" during a really unpleasant and stressful time).

                  I'd point out to the agent that attempting to claim £350 when they know full well that the maximum possible claim is £100 (which you are also disputing) is an attempt at fraud.
                  People can't just make up debts and try and claim them.

                  The emergency services are forever breaking into people's properties for one reason or another.
                  It's not as if it's a mystery who is actually liable, and the agent should know that - it won't be the first time it's happened to them (or the landlord from the sound of it).

                  As an aside, it's actually quite difficult for a company to initiate legal action to claim a small debt, it's one of the (unspoken) reasons that companies use debt collection agencies rather than suing people in the small claims court.
                  Legal notices usually need two directors to sign them and only certain people can represent the company at a trial, or they have to pay a solicitor and can't recover the costs.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I'm sorry for your loss OP.

                    for each and any claim on the landlord's policy resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the tenant .... in breach of this agreement
                    Not just because the landlord have to make a claim, the claim have to had resulted from a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant (or their guest). What part of the tenanacy agreement says the tenant cannot be in an emergency such that the emergency service have to make forced entry for life saving reasons?

                    I'll challenge even the £100. They definitely don't have a claim to £350.
                    I am not a lawyer, nor am I licensed to provide any regulated advice. None of my posts should be treated as legal or financial advice.

                    I do not answer questions through private messages which should be posted publicly on the forum.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Counter claim for harassment, a criminal offence, as well as civil
                      I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                      Comment


                        #12
                        So sorry for your loss. I would use your deposit protection scheme's dispute resolution service, you don't have to deal with the LL directly. I don't think they can make you pay it as she hasn't breached the tenancy agreement. It's up to the LL to prove you owe it.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          [QUOTE=royw;n1168976]So sorry for your loss. I would use your deposit protection scheme's dispute resolution service, you don't have to deal with the LL directly. I don't think they can make you pay it as she hasn't breached the tenancy agreement. It's up to the LL to prove you owe it. [/QUOTE

                          thank you for your sympathies. I think handling this through the deposit protection scheme is probably the best solution to resolve any disputes.

                          Comment

                          Latest Activity

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X