<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Police Broken Door</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.keywee.co.uk/archives/2694/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.keywee.co.uk/archives/2694</link>
	<description>Residential Landlord and Tenant Legal Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 21:12:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.keywee.co.uk/archives/2694/comment-page-1#comment-105</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.keywee.co.uk/?p=2694#comment-105</guid>
		<description>From your email, I thought the tenant had sent a text to his sister and his sister called the police? (see quote above). In which case, I would submit the tenant caused the police to attend and therefore liable.

However, the question of compensation is really whether the police acted properly. If they received information that he might kill himself (whether that was true or not) they will have relied on s.17 which allows forced entry where it is necessary for “saving life or limb”. This is entirely different if for example they broke into the wrong house, in which case compensation would be payable.

Adrian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From your email, I thought the tenant had sent a text to his sister and his sister called the police? (see quote above). In which case, I would submit the tenant caused the police to attend and therefore liable.</p>
<p>However, the question of compensation is really whether the police acted properly. If they received information that he might kill himself (whether that was true or not) they will have relied on s.17 which allows forced entry where it is necessary for “saving life or limb”. This is entirely different if for example they broke into the wrong house, in which case compensation would be payable.</p>
<p>Adrian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maggie Barker</title>
		<link>http://www.keywee.co.uk/archives/2694/comment-page-1#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>Maggie Barker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.keywee.co.uk/?p=2694#comment-103</guid>
		<description>My reason for writing to you was that the damage occured through no fault of the tenant. The Police acted properly but their information was spurious. 
This resulted in a significant loss to the tenant (c£400) plus the upset of having your home broken into and the inconvenience of it not being properly secured pending major repairs.
The insurance excess is £250 which is still a considerable sum.
Maggie Barker, Plymouth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My reason for writing to you was that the damage occured through no fault of the tenant. The Police acted properly but their information was spurious.<br />
This resulted in a significant loss to the tenant (c£400) plus the upset of having your home broken into and the inconvenience of it not being properly secured pending major repairs.<br />
The insurance excess is £250 which is still a considerable sum.<br />
Maggie Barker, Plymouth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

