Tenant threatening to sue for falling in the yard!

[tubs]

But first, you have to put it all in writing to the PM.

That you have NOT authorised them to waive their electricity bills, nor act on your behalf in this situation. The second bit is the most important. You have to make it clear that you were NOT consulted over this, or even told about the potential issue. Then if it ever comes up again you have got it in writing.

Then change agents immediately, because on the off chance it comes to court, the obvious question would be why you stayed with the agents if you claim to disagree with their decision.

Hardly doubt they'd sue. If $600 of electricity bills was enough for them then she can't have been injured too badle.

 

[kathryn d]

About 3 years ago we had a tenant threaten to sue when he allegedly slipped on ice in the parking lot of our apartment building.
Our insurance company said they would take care of it, and would most likely pay them $2500 as a settlement, because it was cheaper than going to court.
We would have nothing to do with it.The tenant was lying, and trying to get easy money.
We ended up taking all of our insurace to another company.
If the insurance company still wanted to pay, that was their business, but they weren't going to increase our premiums because of it.

I don't know what happened, because we evicted the tenant, because they stopped paying rent.
Last I heard they are now on their fourth child, living on welfare.

 

[fokas]

What would you have done?

You didn't mention whether the mother was injured, whether they had supporting documents for afore mentioned injury, and whether the mother was on the lease or an actual visitor.

Seeing as they never mentioned this 'potential hazard' before, I would have told them to politely rack off. That is, after getting the PM to pay for the 6months of elecricity bills which they authorised!!

 

[eskimo]

TL;DR

Has probably been mentioned before but here goes anyway...

From an insurance perspective (my line of work) you should notify your insurer and forward any written demands or correspondence to them. Do not pay the bills as negotiated by your dopey PM, as this could be misconstrued as an admission of liability. You pay your premiums for exactly this type of event/situation, and i can guarantee your insurer won't be very happy about the PM's actions... Let your insurer handle the rest.

The trend with minor liability claims over the last few years is for the insurer to avoid the courtroom by settling the 3rd party for costs. This naturally enrages many insureds, as it appears like the claimant gets a win against them when there may have been no negligence at all on the insureds behalf. Its just a commercial decision though - paying a claimant $2000 to avoid the minute chance of defeat makes sense to the insurance companies.

Good luck.

 

[Dazz]

The trend with minor liability claims over the last few years is for the insurer to avoid the courtroom by settling the 3rd party for costs. This naturally enrages many insureds, as it appears like the claimant gets a win against them when there may have been no negligence at all on the insureds behalf. Its just a commercial decision though - paying a claimant $2000 to avoid the minute chance of defeat makes sense to the insurance companies.

...marvellous trend indeed....

and where exactly does the insurance co. recover that 2K from, such that it can maintain dividends to it's shareholders. Hey presto - I'll have a crack and guess by whacking all policy holders with a 15% premium rise when CPI is about 3.4%.

Not bad eskimo, nice work if you can convince people to play your game. Losers and lies get paid out and the honest winners keep quivering in the corner and forking out the dosh. It's tax deductible, what the hell.

As you say, it's just a commercial decision.

 

[Rob Williams]

Not sure it's limited to recent years, either. I used to work in personal injury claims over 25 years ago.
If you had absolutley nothing wrong with you and you had a lawyer, you got $10,000 just for signing a release form.
If you didn't have a lawyer, you still signed a release, but you only get between $500 and $1,000 for the effort.
The costs of fighting it were just way too high. The lawyers on both sides of the fence were the only winners. The claimant did alright, but nothing close to what the lawyers got out of the deal.

 

[Token Funder]

totally agree!! have you seen this "hole"? does it exist? is it big enough to trip someone or was the person just being negligent to their own welfare.

you can only be sued if it was proven that you were aware of the problem beforehand and did nothing about it.

this fear of "being sued" makes me so angry because it just feeds the leeches.

Not so much. Proving liability does not require that the property owner know about the specific risk. Generally speaking (usual caveats apply), your obligation is to keep the property in a safe state of repair and to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable risks of harm to the tenant, visitors et al.

If you allow grass to grow to a length such that a person walking through it is unable to see undulations, holes, snakes , rakes, broken glass or whatever, I don't think it's stretch to make the case that such injuries were foreseeable should they ultimately occur.

 

[RedPanda]

Good points. Thanks all. According to my agreement with the agent, I need to give one month notice if I want to end the agreement. I suspect when I give notice to my agent, the agent may become lax and I don't want my property to be vacant for so long or being let to a dodgy tenant. Thus I want the existing agent to first let the property and then I'll give notice to them.

 

[Ausprop]

If you allow grass to grow

what if the tenant allows it and the owner goes to inspect the property and incurs injury - could the owner sue the tenant?

what if the owner tripped on some of the tenants junk? such as an old bike.

of course the tenant probably only has a plasma and an SS to their name - but in theory...

 

[Lil Skater]

Good points. Thanks all. According to my agreement with the agent, I need to give one month notice if I want to end the agreement. I suspect when I give notice to my agent, the agent may become lax and I don't want my property to be vacant for so long or being let to a dodgy tenant. Thus I want the existing agent to first let the property and then I'll give notice to them.

Why would you have to give them notice?

Is this in your contract?

If they've breached the contract first you don't need to honour the contract with them, plus if they know you're going to dump them as your PM they'll just put any tenant in and you may be stuck with a bad tenant that you can't get rid of for how ever long the tenancy agreement goes for.

 

[RedPanda]

My Contract states that I need to give 30 days notice to end the agreement. I thought it was a standard clause in most agreements in Queensland.

I am concerned for getting the property tenanted asap and with a reasonable tenant. They are already screening applicants. Also the agent is in the process of getting some repairs organised. I am inclined to let things settle down and then talk of the breach of agreement and the electricity bill because I fear things may get ugly as they may not agree to either to begin with and as a result my property may suffer and I may incur a bigger financial loss and stress.

 

[Lil Skater]

I am concerned for getting the property tenanted asap and with a reasonable tenant.

I am inclined to let things settle down and then talk of the breach of agreement and the electricity bill because I fear things may get ugly as they may not agree to either to begin with and as a result my property may suffer and I may incur a bigger financial loss and stress.

Your choice, i just think if they've breached the contract first you can say to the too bad. They don't have to agree to anything in my opinion they're in the wrong and it's their problem.

Hopefully they'll get you a good tenant and once you've given notice not just leave it for the next PM.

 

[RedPanda]

Thanks Skater. I know you are right. I'm just trying to take the path of minimum resistance till my primary concern is addressed.

 

[Peterw]

Redpanda, I have read this thread with interest, as I have fought a few battles with so called injured tenants over the years. The act for free lawyers seem to enjoy the "I hurt myself" cries, as they do seem on most occassions get some thing.
While, from what I have read, it does appear that the agent went a bit to far with the negotiations, however if they had the genuine desire to protect you but, perhaps its worth having a chat with them first. Now that you are a bit more aware of things, asking them to explain the reasons for their actions, and then make your decision on whether they shoul dbe replaced or not. Just my 0.02 worth.

 

[Kath Russell]

I feel for you in every sense of anger, stress, confusion, disappointment etc. Having gone through the experience myself the last 12 months & getting as far as having to fly thousands of km's to sit before a Magistrate, I agree with everyone's comments.

Bear this in mind:
1. The tenant has another 6 years to decide if they want to make a further claim against you - and they may.
Keep everything you have to do with this matter saved, printed, at hand for 6 years. If they're anything like the tenants I had, they may come back to bite you. I've even got the PM's records to ensure they don't destroy them. Do that before you cancel your agreement with the PM.

I fear

Don't fear anything. Just do what's right for you.

Good luck.

 

[RedPanda]

Thanks Peter and Kath.

I want to know one more general thing.

If the landlord has contracted something and given a responsibility to the agent to maintain something, e.g. mowing of lawns every month. And the yardsman fails to turn up for a few days because of his personal reasons and a mishap happens. Does the responsibility fall

A. On the landlord, as it is his property. Tenant can sue the landlord and landlord can sue agent for his incompetence.
B. On the Agent, as that's what agent has been hired for and contracted for.

I think the answer is A. But are there cases or situations where B might be true?

 

[Token Funder]

what if the tenant allows it and the owner goes to inspect the property and incurs injury - could the owner sue the tenant?

what if the owner tripped on some of the tenants junk? such as an old bike.

of course the tenant probably only has a plasma and an SS to their name - but in theory...

Tenants have obligations themselves as the occupier of the property, so, depending on the circumstances, yes.

 

[Peterw]

Redpanda, sorry I thought you had followed what people have said in this thread. We do not have a Justice system, we have a legal syatem. Please do not confuse rights obligations responsibility etc, with what people may end up being encouraged to do.

My understanding is, you are responsible under law, for what you knew, or failing that should have known, and then did not act "under your duty of care". If the mower man did not arive, it us usual that the tenant will attempt to sue .. the agent, the owner as well as the mower man. The problem will be, which of the insurers will, and Rob said, throw so money at them to go away.

I would stand my ground, however I can only do that, if I choose not to tell my insurance company, and take them on my self. Then I have to ask myself, do I feel "lucky".

On the up side, I do believe most lawyers will not take on these sort of cases, so most of them do not get off the ground. Again, I suggest talk to your PM, and go through the
exercise, what did we leearn from tha, and what will we do differently next time.

Yes, you can sue a tenant in the circumstance your discribed, however if them dont have 2 two bobs to rub together .... well you can guess from there.

Lifes like a box of chocolates ..

 

[sash]

My response would be right....okay off you go.......

As Dazz (god forbid) these sort of claims need to be proven! However, your agent should know better....I would immedialtely sack this one for incompetence.

Most people will not proceed as most lawyers would need onus of proof ....this costs money. And most lawyers won't take these sort of cases without substantial chance of winning. And if they do they will want a substantial deposit.

The insurance lobby has really closed the loophole on frivilous lawsuits....

 

[kathryn d]

My response would be right....okay off you go.......

As Dazz (god forbid) these sort of claims need to be proven! However, your agent should know better....I would immedialtely sack this one for incompetence.

Most people will not proceed as most lawyers would need onus of proof ....this costs money. And most lawyers won't take these sort of cases without substantial chance of winning. And if they do they will want a substantial deposit.

The insurance lobby has really closed the loophole on frivilous lawsuits....

Not the ambulance chasing lawyers.
They will gladly take on this case, as they know your insurance will settle.
They will take a percentage of money recovered.

Our insurance company didn't think anything wrong with wanting to setle. We did. That's why we took our business elsewhere. Since then, our insurnace needs have grown substantially.