Who Would be Responsible?

[Clitheroekid]

Surely approaching a Solicitor and asking him/her to check her insurance contract and then draft a letter to the tenant won't cost a fortune and this should remove any personal difficulty. It should also gently deter him from pursuing her for compensation. Surely it's a minor cost in running a business and should provide peace of mind for this lady?

It's obviously up to her to take whatever action will give her peace of mind. But if she goes to a solicitor there is unfortunately these days a significant chance that the solicitor will make the situation seem much more complicated than it is and charge her a few hundred quid for some `advice' and preparing a letter.

There's also the danger of `feeding the troll'. If the tenant receives a solicitor's letter it may have exactly the opposite effect of what you're anticipating. He may think that she must be worried, otherwise she wouldn't spend money on a solicitor.

If I'm chasing a debt for someone I'm always delighted when I receive a letter from their solicitor for that very reason. It means that the debtor has assets that are worth paying to protect. If I receive no response to my `bowel-loosener' letter then it generally means that the debtor doesn't give a toss, as he has no assets and has probably papered his living room with debt collection letters and County Court judgments!

As she's his landlord anyway she will presumably have fairly constant contact with him, and I'd advise her just to say to him that she's checked with her insurers and that they've said the policy doesn't cover the damage; and that she's also checked with a solicitor who's said that as the flood wasn't caused by her negligence she's not liable to him. Very sorry and all that, but c'est la vie.

Of course the tenant may well go to a solicitor himself, but he's likely to receive the same advice (or more correctly, he should do, though again I'm afraid there are all too many firms now that will give him false hope and take his money to pursue a hopeless claim).

In case you think I'm being hard on my brethren I'm afraid that a lot of High Street firms are in a dire financial position, and need whatever money they can get. And the firms that she might think of going to - those that advertise no win no fee etc - are the hardest hit of all. That's because for the past 20 years or so they've been making a very handsome living out of whipcash claims, but the gravy train has now hit the buffers very hard, and they're desperately looking for alternative sources of income.

[Lootman]

If I'm chasing a debt for someone I'm always delighted when I receive a letter from their solicitor for that very reason. It means that the debtor has assets that are worth paying to protect. If I receive no response to my `bowel-loosener' letter then it generally means that the debtor doesn't give a toss, as he has no assets and has probably papered his living room with debt collection letters and County Court judgments!

Or he wants to create the illusion of being broke and judgement-proof.

I have dodged a few debts in my time by simply not responding to ever more aggressive demand letters whilst making myself scarce and anonymous. Post office boxes and accommodation addresses are very useful in that regard (although obviously not for a landlord which in any event I have not had since 1978). I've always taken the view that just because I do business with someone does not mean that they have any legitimate need to know where I live or how to track me down.

[Clitheroekid]

I have dodged a few debts in my time by simply not responding to ever more aggressive demand letters whilst making myself scarce and anonymous. Post office boxes and accommodation addresses are very useful in that regard (although obviously not for a landlord which in any event I have not had since 1978). I've always taken the view that just because I do business with someone does not mean that they have any legitimate need to know where I live or how to track me down.

That may be so - but why do you also take the view that just because you've done business with someone means that you don't have to pay them? Do you consider that `dodging debts' is an entirely legitimate business practice?

[Lootman]

I have dodged a few debts in my time by simply not responding to ever more aggressive demand letters whilst making myself scarce and anonymous. Post office boxes and accommodation addresses are very useful in that regard (although obviously not for a landlord which in any event I have not had since 1978). I've always taken the view that just because I do business with someone does not mean that they have any legitimate need to know where I live or how to track me down.

That may be so - but why do you also take the view that just because you've done business with someone means that you don't have to pay them? Do you consider that `dodging debts' is an entirely legitimate business practice?

Not at all and I have paid well over 99% of the debts I have ever owed.

But when the other party acts immorally and you are not confident that the legal system will back you, then it is useful to have more than one trick in your book. And a good starting point is relative anonymity and non-cooperation.

I could give examples but do not want to sidetrack the topic. Basically I was agreeing with you.