NEWS Landlord’s break-in bill

A DARWIN landlord who wouldn’t fork out for security upgrades at one of his properties has been hit with a $3200 compensation bill after his uninsured tenants were burgled.

Wagaman renters Muhammed Quddus and Sanam Mehboob sued landlord Andrew Jones in the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, claiming Mr Jones should have installed a security door on their apartment after Mr Quddus disturbed a would-be thief trying to jimmy their unit’s front door in the middle of the night in 2014.

The husband and wife lost almost $9500 in property in a subsequent 2016 break-in, including an estimated $1800 cash they were keeping hidden.

A tribunal hearing last month heard Mr Quddus sent an email to Mr Jones’s property manager following the 2014 break-in saying: “Could you please able to do some- thing to get the security doors installed to avoid any incident for future (sic).”

The partial legal victory came despite Mr Jones’s written recommendation that tenants should pay for contents insurance.

Tribunal member John Stewart said Mr Jones did not meet his obligation to make the unit “reasonably secure”.

Ms Stewart said Mr Jones’s response to the attempted break-in in 2014 was “inadequate”.

“I am of the view that the landlord’s obligation to provide ‘reasonable security’ required an upgrade or at least a better explanation of why an upgrade was not considered an appropriate response to the prior incident and the tenant’s expression of concern,” he said.

Mr Stewart said the lack of a security screen on the unit’s front door could have made it more inviting to thieves.

He said there was no set amount for how much landlords needed to invest in security.

But more crime-ridden suburbs demanded landlords spend more on security for renters.

But Ms Mehboob — who was not on the lease — won’t receive any compensation and remains out of pocket for her jewellery, passport and two mobile phones. Both Mr Quddus and Ms Mehboob had to fly back to Canberra to replace their Pakistani passports.

Mr Jones will also not have to cover the cash, which Mr Stewart said didn’t need to be kept at the home.

“It would have been a simple matter to keep the money in the bank where it could have been withdrawn when required,” Mr Stewart said.

Mr Quddus’s and Ms Mehboob’s $500 claim for distress and disappointment was dismissed.