Car broken into

Slunk

Just looking for some advice. I got a call today to say our car had its window smashed and ransacked today from the LL.Landlords office is underneath our place and we have 'secure' parking out the back. There is a set of steel gates which all tenants have keys for. The LL was popping in for a few minutes and left these gates open and that's when they broke in. She admits she left them open cause she was only a few minutes.
Also, the security cameras on the wall do not work. She said they hadn't been connected in a long time. I've since had the window fixed on insurance but autoglass only do glass. I need a part the broke inside the door too which will cost.
Where do I stand on this. She is brushing it off saying it was only five minutes open and 'ah sure them cameras haven't worked in ages'

To be honest, listening to stories from other tenants it's not the first time. Someone tried the door to their apartment not so long ago.

In the contract, they can terminate due to non payment, bad behaviour or general fear of something bad going to happen. Do I have the same rights. Fear of something going to happen. Fear that my place or car will be targeted again.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers.

hfallada

A majority of criminals are opportunitists. They see an opportunity and take advantage of it, in your case the open door of the car park. Even if they had CCTV it probably wouldn't have been useless( a majority of CCTV cameras in Ireland are like old camera phone qualities).

I can't see you entitled to anything. You parked at your own risk. The same if you parked in a shopping centre car park and you were broken into. The shopping centre won't pay out. I presume you must have had valuables in clear view for them to have a reason to break into your car. Never have anything visible even if your in a safe area.

I seriously can't see them breaking into your car again. It's was an opportunity crime and not a tiger kidnapping planned for months.

Slunk

Absolutely nothing visible in the car. Nothing was taken. The thing is, I'm paying for secure parking. Its not secure if gates are left open and the cameras don't work.

Paulw

Slunk wrote: »

The thing is, I'm paying for secure parking. Its not secure if gates are left open and the cameras don't work.

And, just curious, but, what is the definition of this "secure parking"? Is it that parking is 100% secure 100% of the time?

Nothing is ever fully secure. People can always get in.

There is almost nothing you can do.

Slunk

But if the gates were locked they wouldn't have had the opportunity to break in

djimi

Unless the lease guarantees 100% the security of your vehicle (which it wont) as opposed to "secure parking" (which amounts to little more than a gate usually) then I dont see how anyone will be seen as being liable for this unfortunately. Even if the landlord admitted to leaving the gate open, the reality is that if anyone wanted in badly enough they would just wait until someone was coming out and sneak in.

jimmycrackcorm

Slunk wrote: »

But if the gates were locked they wouldn't have had the opportunity to break in

Would you like to put a time limit on how long the gates can be left open before you can say they're not secure? What about the amount of time it takes you to go in and park before going back to lock them ?

Secure parking does not mean you park in Fort Knox.

gurramok

"general fear of something bad going to happen" is in your rental contract? Thats a new one! If so, well you have proof and grounds to raise this issue as a reason to move out.

To be honest, if said crims did that to your car(or any other) just upon seeing said gates open, i'd move anyway. They are more than likely from another estate nearby, usually is. That means they are local and said violence can happen again.

the_syco

Slunk wrote: »

She admits she left them open cause she was only a few minutes.

I'd use it to break the lease, and get out with your deposit. If your car got broken into when the gate was only open a few minutes, it probably means the gate is within site of a couple of scumbags who'll target it again!

foggy_lad

hfallada wrote: »

I can't see you entitled to anything. You parked at your own risk. The same if you parked in a shopping centre car park and you were broken into. The shopping centre won't pay out.

They will pay out if they had security personell employed to monitor the car park as it would be due to their negligence that the theft took place, this could be seen as the same situation as the cameras give a false sense of security which if known they did not work or that the landlady was in the habit of leaving the security gate open the op may have reconsidered parking where they did!

Ray Palmer

foggy_lad wrote: »

They will pay out if they had security personell employed to monitor the car park as it would be due to their negligence that the theft took place, this could be seen as the same situation as the cameras give a false sense of security which if known they did not work or that the landlady was in the habit of leaving the security gate open the op may have reconsidered parking where they did!

No they won't.

Moonbeam

did you know that the cameras were not working?

Slunk

Nope, only found out when the gaurds asked for footage. I asked her again to keep the gates closed and she said she will try but it may inconvenience her in and out. Try the inconvenience of your car been broken into ffs.

_Kaiser_

Slunk wrote: »

Nope, only found out when the gaurds asked for footage. I asked her again to keep the gates closed and she said she will try but it may inconvenience her in and out. Try the inconvenience of your car been broken into ffs.

I'd tell her you're moving out so and expect your full deposit, or if you're happy otherwise with the place, that you'll be sending her the bill the next time it happens because of her negligence. She'd be quick enough to charge you for damage to the cooker I bet, nor do I think she'd take the same line if it had been her car that had been broken into.

I can't stand these BTL types who think that because you're renting you aren't entitled to a bit of security (physically and otherwise) and basic respect.

D3PO

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I can't stand these BTL types who think that because you're renting you aren't entitled to a bit of security (physically and otherwise) and basic respect.

Your no more entitled to security than anybody else. Its not the LL's job to guarantee your security, once the property is secure and that's not in dispute here.

The OP has no right to bill or threaten to bill the LL for their car being broken into unless there's a specific guarantee in any lease agreement that says their car wont be broken into which of course there isn't because it would be a nonsense clause to have.

Its bad luck that their window was smashed but that's it could happen anywhere and arguing that it wouldn't happen if the gate was closes is a joke.

That's no more reasonable a statement than somebody saying they shouldn't be responsible for crashing into somebody elses car because if they weren't driving it at the time it wouldn't happen ....

Marcusm

D3PO wrote: »

Your no more entitled to security than anybody else. Its not the LL's job to guarantee your security, once the property is secure and that's not in dispute here.

The OP has no right to bill or threaten to bill the LL for their car being broken into unless there's a specific guarantee in any lease agreement that says their car wont be broken into which of course there isn't because it would be a nonsense clause to have.

Its bad luck that their window was smashed but that's it could happen anywhere and arguing that it wouldn't happen if the gate was closes is a joke.

That's no more reasonable a statement than somebody saying they shouldn't be responsible for crashing into somebody elses car because if they weren't driving it at the time it wouldn't happen ....

The damage seems to be a direct result of the choice of the landlord to remove the security (leaving the gate unlocked) and there is a potential cause of action depending on the detail of the contract for the provision of a secured parking space. It's not a guarantee but the link between causation and result is notable.

D3PO

Marcusm wrote: »

The damage seems to be a direct result of the choice of the landlord to remove the security (leaving the gate unlocked) and there is a potential cause of action depending on the detail of the contract for the provision of a secured parking space. It's not a guarantee but the link between causation and result is notable.

If the OP wants to pay for a solicitor and see where they get there free to do so. I think it would be a waste of money.

Secure parking is not a guarantee that nothing will happen to your vehicle any more than an alarm is a guarantee that your property wont get robbed.

A LL isn't libel if a tenant had property robbed from a house or apartment because the alarm in the property was not working and there are PRTB rulings to that effect, I don't see this as any different.

foggy_lad

D3PO wrote: »

If the OP wants to pay for a solicitor and see where they get there free to do so. I think it would be a waste of money.

Secure parking is not a guarantee that nothing will happen to your vehicle any more than an alarm is a guarantee that your property wont get robbed.

A LL isn't libel if a tenant had property robbed from a house or apartment because the alarm in the property was not working and there are PRTB rulings to that effect, I don't see this as any different.

But surely where the landlady's negligence caused the incursion and damage she then becomes liable just as when a car park has security but they fail to prevent damage to cars from kids messing around with trolleys the management become liable for the damage.

D3PO

Not locking a gate is not negligence, unless contractually they have agreed that the gate will remain locked at all times. Which there is no suggestion is the case here.

foggy_lad

D3PO wrote: »

Not locking a gate is not negligence, unless contractually they have agreed that the gate will remain locked at all times. Which there is no suggestion is the case here.

I thought the gate was left wide open and not just unlocked?

D3PO

its not clear from the opening post you might be right. Either way I still don't believe its negligence. Is it worth paying a solicitor to find out bearing in mind the cost, the likelihood of winning, plus the damage to the relationship with the LL ?

Probably not, but if the OP does Id be interested in hearing the outcome.

_Kaiser_

D3PO wrote: »

Your no more entitled to security than anybody else. Its not the LL's job to guarantee your security, once the property is secure and that's not in dispute here.

Nor are you entitled to LESS security because your landlord can't be bothered to close the gate after them because it might "inconvenience" her (her words per the OP). By doing so she voided the security of the property

The OP has no right to bill or threaten to bill the LL for their car being broken into unless there's a specific guarantee in any lease agreement that says their car wont be broken into which of course there isn't because it would be a nonsense clause to have.

Its bad luck that their window was smashed but that's it could happen anywhere and arguing that it wouldn't happen if the gate was closes is a joke.

That's no more reasonable a statement than somebody saying they shouldn't be responsible for crashing into somebody elses car because if they weren't driving it at the time it wouldn't happen ....

Again you're missing the point here.. the incident happened because opportunistic thieves saw a secured gate left open by the OP's landlord (again by her own admission) and took advantage of it.

That makes her negligent, lazy (something she admits twice - "only there a few minutes", closing it might "inconvenience" her) and liable IMO

jimmycrackcorm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Nor are you entitled to LESS security because your landlord can't be bothered to close the gate after them because it might "inconvenience" her (her words per the OP). By doing so she voided the security of the property



Again you're missing the point here.. the incident happened because opportunistic thieves saw a secured gate left open by the OP's landlord (again by her own admission) and took advantage of it.

That makes her negligent, lazy (something she admits twice - "only there a few minutes", closing it might "inconvenience" her) and liable IMO

It wasn't that the landlord couldn't be bothered but that it was unexpected that a car could be broken into with the gates open for five minutes. As there is no contract of absolute security then the landlords actions would be very reasonable.

D3PO

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Again you're missing the point here.. the incident happened because opportunistic thieves saw a secured gate left open by the OP's landlord (again by her own admission) and took advantage of it.

That makes her negligent, lazy (something she admits twice - "only there a few minutes", closing it might "inconvenience" her) and liable IMO

it makes her lazy but lazy is not negligent.

As for it happening because opportunistic thieves who took advantage of a situation you cant prove that, your probably right but cannot prove that it wouldn't have happened even if the gates were closed.

So the whole argument falls apart. Like I said the OP is free to engage a solicitor but it is very likely to be a waste of money.

Lets put it this way would you loan the OP the money for the legal fees with the agreement that you would get the money back plus 10% if they win but get nothing back if they lose the case ? I don't think anybody would yet if it was as black and white as you try to make it seem then it would be a no brainer right ?

_Kaiser_

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It wasn't that the landlord couldn't be bothered but that it was unexpected that a car could be broken into with the gates open for five minutes. As there is no contract of absolute security then the landlords actions would be very reasonable.

There is a locked gate there for the purposes of maintaining security in the complex. By her own admission the OP's landlord left this gate open as she "was only there 5 minutes" and when the OP asked (post break-in) that she not do this in future she said she'll "try but it may inconvenience her" (which logically then is why she didn't close/lock it behind her in the first place)

That's the very definition of couldn't be bothered/lazy. You can be sure that if it had been her own car that the thieves had targeted she wouldn't be taking such a blasé approach to it, but what annoys me more about this story is her "still can't be arsed" attitude after the fact.

Dependent on cost I personally would take her to court for the damage to the car, if only to make the point to the lazy <insert term of choice here>

D3PO

you cant sue somebody for being lazy though Kaiser. It would be a waste of money by the OP.

I don't disagree with anything you have just posted but you cant just expect to sue somebody and win for that reason.

_Kaiser_

D3PO wrote: »

you cant sue somebody for being lazy though Kaiser. It would be a waste of money by the OP.

I don't disagree with anything you have just posted but you cant just expect to sue somebody and win for that reason.

Could you not take it through the small claims court? I'm no legal expert and I've never used it but I think it's fairly cheap. At this point for me it'd be more about modifying her attitude to damage to my property as a result of her laziness - especially as I'm paying her for the privilege.

It would be worth the OP reading his lease/complex rules though to see what it says in relation to the gate as well.

foggy_lad

D3PO wrote: »

you cant sue somebody for being lazy though Kaiser. It would be a waste of money by the OP.

I don't disagree with anything you have just posted but you cant just expect to sue somebody and win for that reason.

If the gate was left opened on a regular basis by all and sundry and everyone and their aunty knew the code to open it there would be no expectations of security but because the gate was/is kept locked by the people in the complex then the op has a reasonable expectation of it being secure. This security was removed by the landlady's negligence by leaving the gate open because ahe was lazy/bone idle/too important to close gates behind herself.

D3PO

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Could you not take it through the small claims court? I'm no legal expert and I've never used it but I think it's fairly cheap. At this point for me it'd be more about modifying her attitude to damage to my property as a result of her laziness - especially as I'm paying her for the privilege.

It would be worth the OP reading his lease/complex rules though to see what it says in relation to the gate as well.

Im not a legal expert but I don't think this would fall under the remit of the small claims court. I could be wrong though.

D3PO

foggy_lad wrote: »

If the gate was left opened on a regular basis by all and sundry and everyone and their aunty knew the code to open it there would be no expectations of security but because the gate was/is kept locked by the people in the complex then the op has a reasonable expectation of it being secure. This security was removed by the landlady's negligence by leaving the gate open because ahe was lazy/bone idle/too important to close gates behind herself.

But the OP admits it wasn't the first time or even the second time the gate was left open therefore the expectation of total security as you mention in the first part of your post would be negated.

Ray Palmer

This is just a classic case of people saying what should happen in their eyes versus reality. Limited liability applies.

djimi

foggy_lad wrote: »

If the gate was left opened on a regular basis by all and sundry and everyone and their aunty knew the code to open it there would be no expectations of security but because the gate was/is kept locked by the people in the complex then the op has a reasonable expectation of it being secure. This security was removed by the landlady's negligence by leaving the gate open because ahe was lazy/bone idle/too important to close gates behind herself.

Theres almost no such thing as 100% security though. Even with the best will in the world, the gate will open from time to time, and there is always a chance that someone will be able to sneak in or out without being noticed. The landlord in this case comes across like a complete arsehole, but Id be absolutely amazed if any court would find them legally liable in this instance.

foggy_lad

D3PO wrote: »

But the OP admits it wasn't the first time or even the second time the gate was left open therefore the expectation of total security as you mention in the first part of your post would be negated.

It was mentioned to the landlady who said she would try to improve the situation, this is the issue here, she is personally liable due to her negligence in the same way if i left something in your house and it got stolen because you left your front door open all night. The landlady has a certain duty of care towards her tenants including their security and failed in her obligation.

djimi

foggy_lad wrote: »

It was mentioned to the landlady who said she would try to improve the situation, this is the issue here, she is personally liable due to her negligence in the same way if i left something in your house and it got stolen because you left your front door open all night. The landlady has a certain duty of care towards her tenants including their security and failed in her obligation.

No she doesnt; not in this instance anyway. If she came along and left the front door of the OPs house open then they might have a case, but as I have already said no complex gate is ever 100% secure, there is always the chance that someone could be lurking for the chance to sneak in when a car is driving in/out, so unless the landlord had given a specific guarantee, in writing, that nothing would ever happen to the OPs car while it was parked in the car park, I really dont see how there is any chance of the landlord being found legally liable.

D3PO

foggy_lad wrote: »

It was mentioned to the landlady who said she would try to improve the situation, this is the issue here, she is personally liable due to her negligence in the same way if i left something in your house and it got stolen because you left your front door open all night. The landlady has a certain duty of care towards her tenants including their security and failed in her obligation.

Would try is not a guarantee. As Ray has said its a case of people posting what they think should happen as opposed to the reality of what the LL is legally responsible for.

alibaba12

Recent case I seen of a tenant moving out of a shared apt. The tenant had 5 people moving her out and they were in and out of the apt all day. As a result the other tenants stuff when missing, although she did not take the stuff herself, she was deemed to be responsible and had to pay for the items taken.

IMO this is the same case, the tenant has a reasonable expectation of security by the gates being closed after each entry by a tenant or landlord. As the gates where left open, regardless of the cameras working or not, the landlord is liable, as the expectation of security was not met due to her negligence.

OMD

alibaba12 wrote: »

Recent case I seen of a tenant moving out of a shared apt. The tenant had 5 people moving her out and they were in and out of the apt all day. As a result the other tenants stuff when missing, although she did not take the stuff herself, she was deemed to be responsible and had to pay for the items taken.

IMO this is the same case, the tenant has a reasonable expectation of security by the gates being closed after each entry by a tenant or landlord. As the gates where left open, regardless of the cameras working or not, the landlord is liable, as the expectation of security was not met due to her negligence.

If someone else, other than the landlord left the gate open who would be responsible, the landlord, the person who left the gate open or nobody?

D3PO

OMD wrote: »

If someone else, other than the landlord left the gate open who would be responsible, the landlord, the person who left the gate open or nobody?

Nobody. Limited Liability applies.

Ray Palmer

alibaba12 wrote: »

Recent case I seen of a tenant moving out of a shared apt. The tenant had 5 people moving her out and they were in and out of the apt all day. As a result the other tenants stuff when missing, although she did not take the stuff herself, she was deemed to be responsible and had to pay for the items taken.

IMO this is the same case, the tenant has a reasonable expectation of security by the gates being closed after each entry by a tenant or landlord. As the gates where left open, regardless of the cameras working or not, the landlord is liable, as the expectation of security was not met due to her negligence.

The difference there is the person let certain people in. She decided who to allow in by invitation and would be deemed responsible for these peoples' actions.

Massively different to somebody trespassing because a gate was open. The LL did not invite the person in.