Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Car broken into

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    alibaba12
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    OMD
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #38
    D3PO
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,394 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement