hi all
in reading of purchases of old properties the positive cashflow type under $100000.
i have wandered how landlords are protected in relation to duty of care.
for example i read sometime ago that a property had been burgled and the tenant sues the landlord for not having locks on the windows and thus had not shown a duty of care and had not done what is reasonably practicable.
Interested in your comments how one protects themselves with these type of things
locks on windows
smoke alarms (these are fairly easy)
security doorsIs there room for litigation with these sort of things from the tenant.
regards
alfHi Alf,
A bit different to what you’re talking about, but we try to instal a safety switch, and smoke detectors if they are not already installed.
Helps us sleep better at night.
Del
Duty of care is a sticky one and as a teacher we get the major brunt of it looking after all your little darlings.
“Duty of care = you taking reasonable care to make sure everything is in order and safe”
Duty of care in regards to a tenant should mean that you have made sure the residence is safe and secure to normal state regulations. I don’t recall there being a law saying that there has to be locks on windows. Having locks on windows is up to the individual owner. In the tenant agreement, often there is a clause stating that the landlord takes no responsibility for theft or damage to contents of the property and that the owner recommends the tenant take out contents insurance.
Your duty of care as a landlord should not extend to the fact that if the tenant were callous enough to leave a window open and they were robbed well it should their own bad luck!
As long as your residence is in working order (meaning the windows could have been locked), I don’t think there should be a problem.
Alf, did you read if they won or not?? If they did win, on what precedence was it?
CHeers
Steph.Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
hi all
steph in answer to your question i didn’t follow it at the time as i was only doing some enquiries with the landlords association in south australia and i recall a brochure citing the case.
duty of care was not what was the determing factor as i recall it was “resonably practicable” the landlord had not done what was reasonable practicable to ensure the windows could not be opened from outside something like that. (There were no windows smashed).
The laws have favoured the tenants from my understanding over here so it doesnt surprise me that a court would rule that way.
Maybe there are those more enlightened on this sort of thing that may add some comment.
regards
alfSorry Alf, can you explain what sort of window it was? I mean, aren’t windows s’pose to be unopenable from the outside anyway??? In the viewing shouldn’t the tenant also bring up any concerns they have with the windows to give you the option to fix or change it?
Surely if the window had not been smashed meant the tenant did not take care in closing it properly. It is laughable that the landlord gets stung on something so patheic. Oh well, the only thing you could do to stop that is to just install window locks for your own piece of mind then. Maybe it would be cheaper long term than putting up with that rubbish.
Anyway, I am interested to see others views as well.
Steph.Success is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
The topic ‘duty of care’ is closed to new replies.
