Hi, I own a rental property in QLD which was recently broken into.
Question is, who is responsible for paying for damage to the dwelling caused by the thieves? It's about $1,000 so not worth lodging an insurance claim. Don't know if it's relevant but the tenant left the security screen door unlocked which enabled the thieves to break in through the front door.
Why on Earth would the tenant be responsible for fixing your property after someone broke in? It's your investment, it's your risk, so your responsibility.
Probably because the OP feels like it's the tenant's fault because the tenant left the security door unlocked and enabling the thieves to break in.
If the main lock on the main door was engaged then it would be OPs responsibility to pay, surely.
If all locks were left open, there would be no damage to the premises, only the tenants goods would likely be taken.
If the locks were open then i'm confused as to why there is break and enter damage.
Unless it was a really uncoordinated thief.
not hard to follow
2 doors, one locked, one not locked. they kicked in the locked door.
OP issue 100%
by OP's logic if the security door had been secured then they wouldn't have been able to force the main door open.
then we'd be talking about the security door and who'd pay for that instead :D :D
But there is no risk with property investing…. All Australians know that!
/s
If you rent a car, park it somewhere and someone comes along and smashes the window, you're considered responsible for it even though it's not your fault. I don't think you'd be able to argue that it's the rental company's property so they're responsible for fixing it (because it was in the renter's care at the time).
That pretty much applies to anything you can rent - you hand it back in a similar condition, less wear and tear, otherwise you have to pay up for any damage (regardless of whether it was directly your fault or not).
What's the difference with a home?
Looking at articles for this situation it says the landlord is responsible. If the door wasn't locked then maybe it would be the tenant, but the door was locked. The tenant is responsible for anything they own that was broken or taken, the landlord is responsible for the house even though the house was leased to the tenant at the time.
Yeh, I'm not doubting that you're saying. I'm just wondering why the difference for renting a house vs everything else?
@bobbified: because in this case, presumably the "risk" of damage to the property is "fixed" in that you can't actually move the property. For this reason alone, you would know how much crime, potential for fire and other hazards are and the tenant would have little/no contribution towards this.
on the other hand, with a car, where it is parked, what contents are visible from the outside and heaps of other potential scenarios can be presented such that the owner of the car cannot reasonably be able to predict where you might or might not take the car (how would you apportion "risk", you can't know if someone is going to go racing with the car vs someone renting the car to just drive it to the shops).
Consider that with the property, if the landlord were staying in there themselves, it would be completely the norm if they themselves experienced the breakin, or flood damage or whatever. Whether the house is being occupied by the landlord, or the tenant has had little contribution to the damage. Conversely with the car example, who rents your car will have a significant impact upon whether or not the car is going to be returned in the same condition
@peter05: I get what you're saying.. but, the risks that you've highlighted re a car is all factored into the insurance policies that they take out. The premium that the company pays reflects these risk factors and they pass on those costs to the people hiring it (and hence the reason car insurance usually costs so much more than home insurance, even thought a home would cost a shitload more to replace).
The Consumer Affairs website actually says that it's the landlord's responsibility if the damage is not the tenant's fault, so there's probably some legal thing behind it which means that they can't go against it in any of the agreements.
The only logical reason I can think of is a home could be seen as an "essential" that requires extra rules/protections while cars and everything else isn't?
@bobbified: I get what you mean by the costs and I've had another think about it actually.
I believe when you rent a car, the insurance/responsibility is still the owner's responsibility but they are "apportioning" or charging you the privilege of using their policy. I don't have a recent one on hand to confirm
So it potentially is a moot point in that the responsibility I believe always lies with the owner (they have the most skin in the game anyway) but a separate agreement is in place to "pass" the costs down in the event of an accident or problem otherwise.
For example in all developed countries other than united states, the car is always insured, you are only reducing the excess. In the US you literally have no insurance if you don't opt in :D
I'm sure the tenant will be keen to close and lock the security door in the future if they had stuff taken.
Just have to suck it up as it is your property (and responsibility) to repair.
I mean the poor tenant is living in a place where people rob homes and break down doors.
And Op is like he should pay 1k to me.
Sarcasm I hope ?
Of course it’s sarcasm. But this is OzBargain, very little sympathy for renters around here, and lots of praise for property investors.
It sounds like the front door behind the screen door was locked. It's not the tenants fault.
Will need OP to confirm.
We all know how landlords and renters always want to blame the other person about who’s at fault.
You forgot to mention increasing the rent to cover the cost..
Landlord.
Don't you have a property manager to answer these questions? What are you paying them for?
If the door was unlocked, what damages did they do? Did they come in and smash the oven or something?
Happened to me a few years ago. Druggies smashed through the back wire screen and took the purses of the tenants from the kitchen table. Thankfully the ladies were upstairs and none the wiser. I immediately installed a crim safe mesh door for their safety and was able to write the amount off as a tax deduction.
Have a heart OP. They’ve just been stiffed and now you’re contemplating doing the same.
Good on you.
However note that you can't write off the amount off as a tax deduction (in one go) as it was a new door. You can only depreciate the costs.
"But Mr Tax Commissioner, I replaced the old security door with a new crim safe mesh door"
"If that's the case Mr Lunarboogie, you can write it off'
It was over 14 years ago now. At the time, I rang the ATO hotline and explained the situation. The guy who answered considered it to be a repair of the old fly screen door which had been kicked down and not a new installation, so I did what he said. Not sure if the guidelines have changed since then.
Is the security door rated.
Lots of security doors are secure as you think
Maybe you should have put a better lock on the front door?
I had a break in at one of my IPs a few years ago. The tenants were out, I think.
I paid for the lock to be replaced. I'm just glad my tenants weren't hurt.
This
BuT ThE TeNAnt Is At FAulT
IT'S mY InVEStmEnT
If it's damage to your house then it's on you, contents on them.
It'll be covered by your landlord insurance - hopefully you have some.
The tenant didn't ask to be robbed.
What is the damage?
If the damage is to the house then its to be claimed through home insurance where the perp cannot be found.
If the damage is to contents then its on the tenant to handle.
OP's next thread: My tenants didn't leave the front door and security door open. This caused thieves to break the doors to get in. Because the tenants didn't leave the doors open to stop thieves from breaking them to gain entry, how do I go about claiming repairs to the doors back from their bond?
Your house, your rental property, your problem. And it's pretty shit form by trying to wedge in an angle by suggesting the tenants contributed to this because they didn't lock the screen door. Just be thankful it's only one door and not the security door as well. You really think those thieves would have tired the security door and thought, "oh well, it's locked, better move on"…??
Ok all, thanks for the comments. Clearly this is an emotive topic for some, I didn't realise the sensitivity. The property manager told me that they weren't sure who was responsible for the damage to the front door because the security screen had been left unlocked, I thought I'd raise it here to see if anyone knew better. I will now humbly retreat…
Don't worry about it. A bit of a silly question possibly, but that OK, you got the answer.
If some people were offended, that is their problem, not yours.
I guess in theory, you could put in the lease terms that the screen door should be locked when not home.
Yeah that's what I thought to property managers usually dont have a single clue. All they do is collect rent, and their portion and bring up tenant's problems to landlords.
Going forward it’s best to assume that the victims of a crime are probably likely to be emotional or sensitive especially considering break ins can cause life long traumas and distrust for some.
Perhaps it would be easier to understand if you had loaned a handbag to a friend, and then that friend had been threatened with a knife and lost their purse, hundred of dollars, their favourite photo of their children with their now deceased partner, and a very expensive pen received as a graduation gift from their now deceased mother (can not replace these two). So you’re worried about your spare handbag (don’t worry it’s not your favourite one that you use, it’s just a spare from the closet) so you ask your good friend Jingles if you should try to get the money for the spare handbag back from the other friend. Jingles says “When I was 12 someone broke into our home and stabbed my brother while he was sleeping in a shirt of mine he had borrowed. When my brother woke up in hospital, he apologised for the shirt being ruined. I told him the shirt was replaceable but he wasn’t and that I was just grateful for him to be alive. Maybe you should think about how traumatic it is to have a crime committed against you before you ask for reimbursement from the victim”
It’s a spectrum, but generally after a crime, if you are seeking whatever you can get from the victim, or prioritising finances and assets over human safety and well-being, people will respond with disgust as people with empathy prioritise someone who has been drastically hurt and wronged over someone who is trying to expand their wealth.
I can give another example if you’d like, maybe it’s easier to see on someone else. You see a car in front of you drive through a green light, as another car comes speeding through a red light and smashes loudly into the side of the car. The driver of the car in front is bleeding profusely from the head and chest and may be seriously fighting for his life. You pull out your phone and dial 000, and shortly after an ambulance arrives and two paramedics jump out of the van. The first paramedic goes to the back window of the car, there is a sticker that signifies it is owned by a rental company, and he pulls out his phone to dial Europcar. The other paramedic is at the drivers side of the car, assessing the damage. You stare in bewilderment, the man in the car is clearly dying but the paramedic is relaying information of the damage to the car to the other paramedic on the phone. You scream at the paramedics “He’s dying! Help him!” Both paramedics scowl at you with disgust. “How do you think you would feel if your Toyota Yaris had panel damage to the drivers side door? That’s going to take at least a week at the wreckers, lord knows they may even have to write it off!” The man bleeds out and passes away in the crumpled Yaris as the paramedics discuss the damage and you watch helpless and confused. The first paramedic gets off the phone and calls to his partner “it’s alright, it had high kilometres anyway, it wasn’t going to be in the fleet much longer, and he bought the full insurance, so they should be able to go after his family for the excess”. Thank god we have people like this that will put their lives at risk to protect the most important thing in this world… our assets.
If a human is hurt and/or has had a crime committed against them, the priority is human life and health, not assets or financial gain. If you are focusing on the latter, then it is more of an indication of your personal values rather than others sensitivity. I’d say that’s what people are reacting to. They are shocked that someone would focus on reimbursement from a victim. I know it’s a bit ridiculous but sometimes scaling up the intensity of a scenario can help you realise that your approach was not sensitive, rather than assuming that everyone who is responding to you is overly sensitive.
Let me know how sensitive the commenters get when your tenant is murdered in a break in and you chase up their housemate for cleaning costs.
Wow, what dribble :)
I was just trying to help you understand why most of the comments seem to be geared at you being selfish and inconsiderate, as your response was to accuse the commenters of being sensitive despite you being the one to approach the topic in a self serving manner. I find the most success explaining concepts through exaggerated metaphors, so I can understand that it may seem a bit extreme, but you were obviously struggling to sympathise even though most of the comments represent the notion that you are being insensitive and cold hearted towards your tenant who has rented your property where the security on the door has failed to protect them. Surprise surprise, the response is typically narcissistic, dismissive of any criticism… just as you dismissed the genuine feelings of commenters as being overly sensitive. You are more than welcome to see this as more dribble. Just please try to think about the dribble later and what it might mean if most people are responding in a way that seems sensitive and someone is trying to explain why, and that person is just being sensitive too… maybe they’re actually being reasonable and you are being sensitive because your actions and beliefs have been challenged by the majority of responders.
If the security screen was locked, then you will have more damage to fix. Or are you saying the security screen is indestructible and can absolutely prevent the thieve from breaking in?
But in any case, it does not make any difference to the principles: Who needs to pay for damages not caused by tenants?
For example, if a stranger throws a rock and shatter a glass window, do you expect the tenant to be responsible? That kind of things are covered by building insurance. The landlord holds the building insurance, not the tenant.
This is what Landlord insurance is for…
The landlord of course. Can’t believe you are asking unless youre a slumlord…
Is OP's question really that silly? I'm not an investment property owner myself so I don't know.
The situation doesn't seem that different to when someone hire's a motor vehicle. If thieves break into the car, the person who's hired the car is responsible for the damage to the car because it was in their care at the time - just like the home was in the tenant's care.
OP is asking who's responsible (not insisting it's tenant's responsibility).
I think the key difference is that the car rental contract is very specific about the liability of the renter when it comes to damages.
If the property rental agreement had a similar clause then, yes the tenant would be responsible.
Ultimately it boils down to the agreement entered into between the two parties
Hired cars are insured. But the rental agreement specifies that the renter must pay an excess, can be 0 but normally not.
I think for some reason the property rental agreement does not have that clause.
Hired cars are insured.
Investment properties are usually insured too (by the landlord) so it's a comparable situation. But the tenant doesn't have to pay the landlord's insurance excess.
The rules say that the landlord "must organise and pay for all repairs if the damage is not the renter’s fault", so they probably can't include that clause in the agreements. I still wonder why though.
who's to say that if both the security door and the main door were both locked the thief wouldn't have broken both doors?.
Time to up the rent to help pay for the damage.
They'll lock the door from now on. ;)
It’s a grey area, because the tenants didn’t lock all the doors they do have some responsibility but unless your screen door was a crimsafe or similar it probably wouldn’t have stopped the burglar.
Given you are responsible for ensuring the premises are safe and secure. If you don’t want to claim in insurance then it’s probably less hassle if you just pay to get the door fixed and make the place secure.
At least you don’t have to repair a damaged screen door too.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking too. It's only about $1K of damage to the front door so not worth claiming on insurance. This has been a really problematic tenant so I was getting frustrated. A few weeks ago someone drove into the roller door (another $1K) and they claimed they had no idea how it happened..
In this instance (as with the garage door) safety and security were the immediate priorities so I arranged emergency repairs out of hours which of course costs more, just putting that out there for the anti-landlord trolls. You may have a thing against landlords but seriously, you should see some of my tenants..
A few weeks ago someone drove into the roller door (another $1K) and they claimed they had no idea how it happened..
hmmm… so when thieves broke in through the front door, did any of the tenant's belongings go missing? Did they lodge a police report?
If nothing went missing and nothing else seemed to be disturbed, there could be a remote possibility that the tenant broke the door after locking their keys in there, perhaps?
The main door can often just pulled shut and locked, but the screen door usually requires the key to lock. So on the way out, they pull the main door shut and realise they can't lock the screen door because the keys are inside. So instead of calling a locksmith, they break down the main door and blame it on thieves. No need to touch the screen door though because that wasn't locked.
I have a wild imagination, i know! 😂
Yep, police involved, not much stolen but the tenant was of course upset by the intrusion. Protection personal property is really up to the individual, I know that when I leave my house the security screens are always locked. You cant be too careful
Oh and in this house, with previous tenants, there was one occasion where they had accidentally locked the keys inside and then broke a window and claimed it was a burglary. Fun times :) This s a pretty decent suburb, close to the cbd and mostly young families. Not much crime in general, now that rentals are in more demand I think I might start looking around for better tenants
there was one occasion where they had accidentally locked the keys inside and then broke a window and claimed it was a burglary.
ha! I guess my imagination isn't that wild then!
If the current tenant is shit and the last one was the same, you might need to change agencies to one that does a proper job in screening potential tenants!
If they had locked the security door, you'd just be up for fixing two doors?
If the tenants left the windows open and someone threw a a piece of crap in and it cost $1000 to clean up, or a rock that did $1000 worth of damage to walls, who's responsible?
In my experience it depends on whether there is a police report or not
Okay so I have a scenario I’d be interested to get feedback on. I’m a tenant & live on my own. I had my house keys stolen from my car parked at the railway station. The doors are keyed alike so one key fits all doors. There was also a remote for the garage on the keying. I asked the landlord if they would replace the locks but got told it was up to me to cover the costs. I’ve had one quote for ~$300 to change the locks only (not sure about the remote as I was hoping I could just buy one off eBay & reprogram it myself but that is proving to be harder than first thought.
Not sure on this but would be changing those locks quickly. Your car may have had papers in it that showed your home address. I'd take care of that first before working out who will ultimately cover the costs
Thanks will have to find someone that offers Afterpay :-(
The landlord.. Being you
Edit - actually the person who did the damage is responsible for making good the damage