Adjudication case study: Burglary dispute

Burglary dispute

In the event of a dispute over the deposit at the end of a tenancy, our alternative dispute resolution service provides an impartial adjudication facility to landlords, agents and tenants.
Head of Dispute Resolution, Suzy Hershman reviews an adjudication decision of a dispute over burglary.

Case summary – Landlord vs tenant

Background: The case involved damage caused to the door of the property as a result of a break-in. The intruder entered the property through an open front room window and caused damage to the front door when they exited the property.

Disputed deposit value: £425.00

Dispute details: The tenant admitted that the window had been left open when she left the property to go out, but the window was locked in place for ventilation. The landlord claimed that because there was no sign of forced entry, the window must have been completely open. The tenant argued that the landlord was not willing to claim on his insurance because of an increase in his premiums. The landlord submits that he contacted his insurance company who, having assessed the damage, refused to settle.

Outcome: Following the adjudication process; £425.00 was awarded to the landlord.

Key topics: Under the Tenancy Agreement there was a duty on the tenant to adequately heat and ventilate the property and also an obligation to ensure the property and the windows, were locked and secured if and when the tenant left the property empty.

Evidence

The landlord provided an invoice to demonstrate a loss incurred in repairing the damage to the door. There was also some correspondence between the parties discussing the break-in and who, if any one was responsible and a report from the insurance company refusing the claim.

Adjudicator’s findings

The adjudicator was satisfied that the landlord had proved that there had been a breach of the Tenancy Agreement by the tenant as it seemed that the window had not been left on the secure lock. This was supported by an admission from the tenant that the window was left open and the property was empty when she left. Furthermore, the adjudicator was satisfied, by the landlord’s own admission, that he had insurance on the property and contents and that he had done all he could to mitigate his own and the tenant’s liability by attempting to make a claim.

Note: Had the landlord not provided his insurance documents and a report to support his claim, an adjudicator may have not awarded him the money as this may have resulted in double recovery (allowing the landlord to claim twice for one issue).

What we’ve learnt from this case

• This case highlights the importance of having adequate insurance and using that insurance when required. Providing evidence of any insurance documents you may have which show what the policy covers is also imperative.
• Had the adjudicator been satisfied that the landlord attempted but failed to get cover by his insurance for the break-in or had he provided evidence that showed any potential claim for this would not be successful, the outcome would have been different.

Note: All ADR services recognise that dispute cases vary, therefore the outcome will depend on the interpretation of the evidence presented.