Tenants baby broke window that didn’t meet current building standards. Who pays?

It is an old house and met building standards when it was built in the 70s. The building standards have changed since, requiring low level windows to be safety glass. The glass in the bedrooms is only 3mm and not safety glass. It was not mandatory for the landlord to replace it when the standards changed, however landlord had replaced other low level windows in a recent renovation.

The tenants baby was walking next to the bed, and fell threw a low level bedroom window that was only 3mm thick and not safety glass. The baby was unhurt. But the tenant is refusing to pay to replace the window, stating that as the window didn’t meet current building codes they are not liable for the breakage.

The tenant also thinks the breakage occurred because the glass was thin, not tenant negligence. The property manager disagrees and thinks the tenant is trying to get out of paying for breakage.


The broken window needs to be replaced with safety glass. The property manager thinks as the tenant broke it they should pay. The tenant thinks that the property manager is trying to make them contribute to a necessary improvement to the property which is not their responsibility.


The property manager suggested the compromise that the tenant and the landlord split the cost. The tenant is refusing.


What do you think?

 

If it were me as the landlord I’d pay and be glad they weren’t sueing me. It’ll probably only be a few hundred $$$

 

I am the tenant and they are suing me for this... so I thought I would try to come here and post impartially to see the other point of view on this. I will be countersuing as it’s been broken over winter.

 

I'd be suing you

 

Do you mind me asking why?

 

could have been a serious injury or death.

 

Amber says she’s the tenant.

 

If you are the Tenant what are you being sued for? The costs of the window?

 

Oh sorry sue that damn landlord!

 

how low is the window that a baby can fall out of it???

 

Yep window costs.

 

Ground level. Baby didn’t fall out of a window, baby was walking next to the bed. We aren’t really 100% sure how it happened but the baby wasn’t running or anything. Baby was about 14 months old when it happened. My partner grabbed the baby just as he was about to cut his arm on the broken glass, potentially falling sideways onto a pile of broken glass. He may have leant on the glass, or maybe fell forwards and used the glass on his side to try and stabilise himself. But there was only 300mm clearance between the bed frame and the glass, it wasn’t a lot of force.

 

Thankfully the baby was unhurt this time. In my building inspector days, 40 years ago, in SW London, we had a case where a seven year old tripped running down the stairs, went through the glazed front door and that was that. But at the time there were no regulations requiring safety glass so no liability. If this was my IP I'd be asking the PM to get all low level glass replaced at my expense because it's the right thing to do.

 

If I was the landlord I’d be ******* happy that the baby was ok and replace the glass and any other glass that was the same. I would be horrified that I rented a house out that was a hazard to a baby.

However taking the emotion out of it the legal requirement is probably that the tenant pay the cost to replace with the same type of glass that broke and the landlord pay extra to get it replaced with toughened glass needed to meet current standards.

 

Can I just say that it's a bit weird that you mislead us on here to make us think that you were the landlord, that it was a baby and that it fell through the window, at first? None of those three statements seem to be true, going by your other replies.

As for suing the landlord, I'm certainly not a lawyer, but if it met the building codes of the day (and was potentially the original pane of glass), I don't see how this could be successful.

 

Yeah I think also the difference between a newborn baby and a 14 month old toddler is significant in terms of their ability to (accidentally) break things.

 

My opinion rightly or wrongly would be along these lines, if it complied at construction and was not replaced since then I don’t see where the violation is, safety glass is a requirement on new builds or replacements.
Seems like it was simply accidental breakage by an unsupervised toddler. If it was safety glass and was broken would you pay for it willingly?

Either way as an owner I would be brining all low level glass up to current standards

 

Can't say i read it as they were the landlord...

 

I wasn’t intending to mislead anyone. I was trying to post without bias by presenting both cases equally. I didn’t want to use ‘I’ statements and just said what I thought and what the property manager thought. I don’t know what the landlord thinks.


I’m not suing for damages. I’m suing for cost of window replacement and the increase in heater bills because the property manager refused to fix it unless I paid for most of it, so the bedroom was freezing and unusable. Not for the baby falling in the first place.


The baby’s arm went through the window and if my partner hadn’t have grabbed the baby they would’ve gone all the way through the window. (It was a big hole).

 

The property manager tried that, but the glass is actually so thin that nobody will quote for it because fitting it is illegal. My reasoning for not paying is that the window shouldn’t have broken, and I don’t believe would’ve broken had it been up to standards.