Forum menu
If she had topped herself then breaking in wouldn't have achieved anything anyway. Might as well wait for reports of missing person, or smell. If my neighbour didn't answer the door I wouldn't immediately smash my way in to see if they'd just had a stroke or a fall even though that's far far more likely than anything happening to the young lady in this thread.
unfortunatly student halls are exempt from most law around tenancies so don’t throw around tenancies laws as they probably do not apply
Hmm. IANAL, but I'd really like to see this confirmed. I would imagine the Human Rights Act of 1998 Right to privacy) would trump any 'rules' set by the landlord. I'm sure they do have a right to inspect the property having given reasonable notice, but I really don't think they can just enter a room without the tenant's consent. If it's an emergency or 'safety' issue, then surely they would have protocols in place that would involve informing emergency services. Dismantling a lock may well constitute breaking and entering, but again; IANAL. Sounds like a very bad breach of procedure and protocol, to me. That is happened to another female student as well, has to raise concerns. Surely the reasonable course of action would have been to knock loudly, raise enough noise, but then come back later/contact the student if they couldn't gain access? Just barging in doesn't sound like a reasonable course of action. As others have suggested, it could just be that they couldn't be arsed waiting for lazy students to wake up, so just wanted to get the job done and not have to come back.
I’d be threatening with legal action….
What would you be coming at them with? Unless you are very familiar with the relevant section of law, going in with that approach from the off, is very likely to be a waste of time, embarrassing, and could well lead to the student being evicted on some other technicality. Then you've got to find other accommodation, early into a new academic year. The best approach is to lodge a formal complaint with the relevant authorities, and if you really want to, get legal advice on your rights as a tenant.
It's a horrible situation that should not have happened. That a young woman was frightened, is unacceptable. That it happened more than once, is even worse. Nobody should be put in a situation where they are fearful for their own safety, in what is effectively their own 'home'.
If she had topped herself then breaking in wouldn’t have achieved anything anyway.
If she'd tried topping herself but was still alive it could have helped. I've been in a similar situation, called by the students in a corridor because one of their friends wasn't answering her door or phone, and after calling the hall staff we ended up letting ourselves into her room and found she'd overdosed. We called 999, she was ambulanced out and lived to tell the tale. Without our intervention she'd probably have died.
Background: I was a "senior student" in halls. In exchange for 20% off accommodation fees, I was on a rota where I had to be on site and "on duty" one night a week, carrying out basic fire door and shared kitchen checks, but also available for welfare-related calls. I was given basic training on physical and mental first aid and had several pages of info on which numbers to call, which procedures to follow for welfare / health concerns and all the fire and safety requirements. Anybody whose job involves entering other people's bedrooms *should* have been given the rules on this because the uni will have a policy.
FWIW I think something doesn't add up here too:
1) If it's a routine inspection and the room is occupied with the chain on, come back another time (but make efforts to let the room occupant know you're there so they know who you are and can let you in if possible).
OR
2) If you're removing the chain and entering the room as a welfare concern issue, the main thing you are there for is to check the occupant's welfare. There'll be a protocol for this, follow it and log it. This is significantly more important than the routine inspection and any Uni's Safeguarding person will be the person to talk to about this.
...it doesn't make sense to claim they removed the chain out of welfare concern, but they didn't then check on the welfare of the student.
I think the relevant section of law might be this:
Would be worth getting advice on how this particular type of student accommodation falls under the definition of 'home'. My wife, who is a lawyer, is busy working atm, but I can try asking her later.
Suicide is a problem. The universities are trying to finding ways of preventing it happening within their student bodies. If notices went out, and a student had headphones blaring loudly, then this situation is within bounds to a point (male only staff being my issue)
Yes it is.
But. Did they have reasonable cause to suspect a potential issue in this case? If no then it's a moot argument. If yes then they shouldn't have been tossing about with screwdrivers when there were concerns for her life.
It's an outrageous situation and as much as it pains me to say it, 'configuration' is on the money here. I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Yes it does sound like proceedure should be tighter.
Giving a fortnight window when they can just stroll in at any time (welfare aside, I'm just talking regular inspection/maintenence here), if they can force entry just to carry that out, there's no reason why they can't be more organised and roster it properly, and say 'we are comming between 9-5 on day X' and if you don't answer we will let ourselves in.
And if they were even more organised they could have a spreadsheet and offer to rebook the inspection for another day so as not to clash with important lectures etc, but with no other choice once you've already deferred once.
I can't imagine an inspection takes any more than 10 mins per student, so they could easily do whole blocks in a day.
EDIT. From what the OP said it doesn't appear there was anything nefarious going on, just the property management being disorganised and insensitive, and possibly incompetent. Presumably these jobs are contracted out to the lowest bidder and this is the kind of service you end up with.
Perhaps they'd be concerned about wasting perfectly good vegetables? Or perhaps that would actually be a 'sustainable' option; less plastics and that.
I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Classy, on a thread started by her father. Other phrases are available
That's deliberately offensive cougar and wouldn't be excused by you saying you have asperger's.
Mrhutch would be fully justified in asking the mods to have a word with you.
I wonder what the apologists would be saying right now if the employees had barged in to find her with her boyfriend balls deep and a cucumber up her arse.
Apart from the terrible imagery, this does raise a question which hasn't been adequately answered - were they actually employees carrying out an inspection?
The very first post says this: Was asleep, undressed, in bed in her halls room, with earplugs in, the door locked and chain attached. Two male hall staff basically broke in – unlocked it and unscrewed the chain from outside – and barged in to ‘inspect’ the room. but in a later post we find out that the girl had frozen and not interacted with the 'employees' at all and couldn't hear anything loud, like someone breaking into her room. How did she know that they were carrying out an inspection? They may have been students carrying out a prank, or, even worse, people actually breaking in to burgle or worse.
I've got a first year uni student offspring myself. I'm getting a very filtered account of what her friends are up to. But, it must have been very frightening for the OP's daughter.
+1. What a crappy example to use. Why did you have to degrade it to that level?
I think to summarise, it's a grey area but at a policy level if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act. However procedurally things have gone wrong / not been followed, and someone (possibly parent, possibly student, YMMV) should be taking it up with the appropriate people at the Uni (or if it's a private hall provider, the management company) and then taking it from there.
Those declaring it's a criminal act and call the police / threaten legal action, or a gross disregard for human rights are IMHO well ahead of themselves. Some maintenance guy has screwed up, and needs some advice / retraining from their management, and an apology to the students involved.
this does raise a question which hasn’t been adequately answered – were they actually employees carrying out an inspection?
Well, apart from the fact that OP said they'd been advised of forthcoming inspections, and then on complaining to the management was told they were worried it was a welfare issue (maybe BS) but certainly hasn't been told 'what inspections? No-one's done inspections on that block this week?' - I'm thinking it's a fairly reasonable suggestion they were.
But to take it to the ECHR, then yes, you'd probably need a higher level of proof than I can currently give.
I am a part time residential landlord with 20 or so years experience and if I did this to a tenant I'd be expecting a custodial sentence.
I am not sure what the "tenancy" status is in student halls but you may need to consider that as well. I'd be seeking proper legal advice pronto.
And make a police report.
Well, apart from the fact that OP said they’d been advised of forthcoming inspections, and then on complaining to the management was told they were worried it was a welfare issue (maybe BS) but certainly hasn’t been told ‘what inspections? No-one’s done inspections on that block this week?’ – I’m thinking it’s a fairly reasonable suggestion they were.
Ah, I've just found the post that I'd missed - top of page 2.
Are you as sarcastic in real life as you come across on this thread? 😀
EDIT. From what the OP said it doesn’t appear there was anything nefarious going on, just the property management being disorganised and insensitive, and possibly incompetent. Presumably these jobs are contracted out to the lowest bidder and this is the kind of service you end up with.
If the maintenance is outsourced that is even more of a concern because they are essentially "outsiders" and whether those contractors/employees have their had criminal record checked? If they are contractors then a University staff must accompany them at all times.
+1. What a crappy example to use. Why did you have to degrade it to that level?
Because it's a viable scenario and one that people are pussyfooting around.
I said this earlier. TWO MEN BROKE INTO A YOUNG WOMAN'S HOME without her consent. Fin, end of argument, next question. She was in bed. Undressed to an undisclosed degree. She could have been doing anything, in any state. She might have been in the shower. She might have been doing coursework. She might have been shagging. She might have been watching telly. But she has every right to do all of those things undisturbed without fear of someone bypassing her locks and strolling on in. Why the hell are you all making excuses for this, or telling the OP to wind his neck in because she needs to Adult?
Did I shock you? Good, be ****ing shocked then. I bet you're not as shocked as she was. If it happened to me I'd be moving out, and I'm not a teenaged woman. How does she sleep at night now?
FFS.
if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act.
Yep.
"If."
Was there?
Some maintenance guy has screwed up, and needs some advice / retraining from their management, and an apology to the students involved.
Oh, well, that's OK then. I'm sure that will be of great comfort to the affected students. "You're alright love, they're really sorry and they totally weren't rapists this time so no harm done eh?"
C'mon Jon, you're usually a voice of reason. This is bloody ridiculous.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
I think theres a lot of over-reaction in this thread, personally.
I don't know the laws in halls, but if they are more like a hotel room than a regular tennancy, you get cleaners coming in every day to change the bedding. Unless you put a do not disturb sign on the door, they just knock once or twice and then come in...
...but then I'd imagine that would only defer it for 24hrs max, after that you'd have the hotel management ringing you or more likley, just knocking loudly and entering anyway.
Devils advocate again (I'm honestly trying to be objective here) they do have to ensure everything is in order, and Students can be students and ignore/embelish events.
I'm guessing if you want the extra privacy you'd have to lease a flat/house on a regular tennancy, with the extra costs and obligations that entails.
I'm by no means saying the property management acted as tactfully or thoughfully as they could, they probably have some lessons to learn from this kind of scenario.
Let me reframe this.
Earlier this year, we booked a house for a group holiday. There's maybe 20 of us and it's a booking we've made annually for several years now.
One day, the housekeeper strolled in. The first we knew was when she was stood in the kitchen kicking off that we'd used the wrong oven or something.
Discussions were had. Most of us considered this an invasion of privacy. No foul in the grand scheme of things, but she shouldn't have just walked in unannounced into a property we were paying for. The owners agreed with us that it was out of order. Any potential issues (which they had zero reason to suspect after we'd been leaving the place cleaner than we'd found it since like 2007) should be evaluated at the end of the booking, not midway.
And we weren't a woman on her own and the housekeeper wasn't two blokes unscrewing the locks to get in.
I don’t know the laws in halls, but if they are more like a hotel room than a regular tennancy, you get cleaners coming in every day to change the bedding. Unless you put a do not disturb sign on the door, they just knock once or twice and then come in…
How would you feel if you'd booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn't gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
squirrel – your post is pointless and stupid.
Discussion would be the same if thread had been about male student; same concerns, same principles, same parental concern.
Pointless and stupid?
Are you suggesting that the posters attempting to cast doubt on the female in question are correct?
And I'm sorry but no. Two men breaking into a lone females room is not in any way comparable if the gender roles were reversed. If we want to talk stupid then you've hit the jackpot there.
Snowflakes!
I
B
T
L
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
Ermmm - are you certain on that? A landlord does have a right of entry but particular conditions must be met. ( according to every tenancy contract I have used and the ones I use are taken directly off the government websites) and as above halls of residence do not fall under tenancy law - they are hotel contracts.
Normal tenant / landlord as in private tenancies does not apply to student halls. The contracts signed are not normal tenancies
Your housing status in halls of residence or other university accommodation
If you live in accommodation that is provided by an educational institution such as a university, you will be an occupier with basic protection. This is a term used in housing which helps to identify your housing rights.
An occupier with basic protection has limited rights and as long as your landlord follows the correct legal process you can be evicted quite easily.
How would you feel if you’d booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn’t gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
Well they generally won't if theres a 'do not disturb' notice on the door...they will just come back the next day and then probably enter anyway as they have a job to do, and the owner of the hotel most likey has an interest and obligation to ensure things are in order.
But thinking about it, that's a terrible ananolgy as we are not taking about private tennacy or hotel rooms. I'm guessing the rules on halls are somewhere inbetween...
And I can Imagine dealing with students, day in, day out, they have seen some sights and can't be arsed with any BS.
Slight hijack.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a fit female clearer saw my my morning glory when she entered my room while I was having some pleasant dreams (beginning to imagine the 80s blue film). Would I be accused? LOL!
Anyway, back to OP's topic.
was there a concern for welfare?
That's what the OP said the response was when he checked with management. He also said he didn't believe it, but none of us including the OP were there so unless we can read the mind of someone we've never met, I suspect that will be unprovable. But as I said, there should be a clear procedure in such a case that removes the ambiguity. As I think I reasonably said:
At a policy level if there is a genuine concern for welfare then Unis have a duty of care to act. However procedurally things have gone wrong / not been followed, and someone (possibly parent, possibly student, YMMV) should be taking it up with the appropriate people at the Uni (or if it’s a private hall provider, the management company) and then taking it from there.
OK, maybe I'm underplaying the seriousness by suggesting it's an error that will be fixed by an apology and retraining. It's my opinion, not a fact, others clearly disagree. Equally I'm entitled to think that those proposing legal action or the police are over escalating. That may yet come based on how it is handled but as a first instance OTT. IMO. No-one from here was there and only one person has first hand knowledge of either of the party's stories.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order, no matter how many notices they give.
Yet a Uni has a duty of care to act / intervene IF (the unprovable if above) they have concern for welfare, which they said they did in this case. So you can argue till you're blue in the face they broke the law; they can argue back that they thought there was a welfare concern. Those are the 'facts' as we have them.
A landlord or his agent do not have a right of entry without a court order
They do if they have reason to belive there is an emergency, broken roof, water leak etc. They have a right to protect the property.
Equally I’m entitled to think that those proposing legal action or the police are over escalating.
In OP's case the police will let the University deal with matter internally. Unless, the situation was more serious.
Well they generally won’t if theres a ‘do not disturb’ notice on the door…
But that just dodges the question. What if they did?
But thinking about it, that’s a terrible ananolgy as we are not taking about private tennacy or hotel rooms. I’m guessing the rules on halls are somewhere inbetween…
It's your analogy. 🤷♂️
And I can Imagine dealing with students, day in, day out, they have seen some sights and can’t be arsed with any BS.
Is the time to deal with that not when they complete the tenure, rather than randomly when they're in bed?
How would you feel if you’d booked a hotel, the cleaners couldn’t gain access to change the bedding so they unscrewed the security chain whilst you were still in bed?
I'd be hot footing it to the ECHR for sure!
(no wait, I'd be playing merry hell with the manager and looking for an apology and a refund on my booking)
If we're playing whatiffery, how would you feel if they knew someone was inside, but despite knocking on the door could not rouse anyone, and so assumed they must be fast asleep with earplugs in only to find they'd taken an overdose and due to you not acting was beyond saving when finally found.
Landlords also have a right to inspect the property but this is sunbject to a bunch of constrints.
F
or what reasons can landlords gain right of entry?
As a landlord, you can’t request access simply to have a look around, you’ll need to have a legitimate reason, for example:
Inventory checks – usually done at the start and towards the end of the tenancy agreement. Your tenant can also ask for a copy of the property inventory and if they want, they can also be present when checks are carried out.
Property inspections – you’re allowed to carry out house inspections throughout the tenancy, but they’ll need to be scheduled and you’ll have to follow the usual rules about access (24 hours’ notice in writing).
Repairs, maintenance and safety checks – it’s up to you to make sure the property is in a good state of repair. Carrying out an annual gas safety check is also one of your key landlord responsibilities. As such, you can expect your tenant to give you reasonable access to do this.
Property viewings – as tenancy agreements come to an end, it’s reasonable to request access so you can show potential new tenants around the property.
https://www.alanboswell.com/news/landlord-right-of-entry/
If a tenant refuses this tho you cannot force entry except for emergency repairs and it would be up to a court to decide if it was reasonable
If we’re playing whatiffery
If we’re playing whatiffery, do we suppose that rescuing OD'ed students is within the remit of hall inspectors' job description? Reckon that's in their pay grade?
Assuming that this is the case, do we then suppose that their highly trained course of action when faced with a possible suicide or student otherwise in trouble is a) alert authorities to a potential issue / acquire authorisation to force entry / kick in the door with all haste; or b) go "hey, Dave, chuck us that screwdriver will you?"
Why are they even carrying screwdrivers in the first place?
And remember, the OP said this happened to multiple rooms. It wasn't a one-off so 'they panicked' is no excuse either.
and before I get accused of being unreasonable again, I pretty much agree with OP's actions, and I'm not sure I'd yet be satisfied with the explanation and would be tempted to look to escalate further. The only difference is I'd be supporting and empowering my daughter's independence to sort it despite having a huge desire to step in and problem solve it myself.
MY next step (and I'd probably help my daughter to draft the email) would be to follow up my verbal complaint with a written version documenting everything she said and they have said, and asking them to clarify further what steps are being taken to prevent it happening again.
Did I shock you? Good, be ****ing shocked then. I bet you’re not as shocked as she was. If it happened to me I’d be moving out, and I’m not a teenaged woman. How does she sleep at night now?
Whilst I'd agree with the sentiment, your comment was somewhat crude and unnecessary. And my response, as an attempt to 'diffuse' things with an attempt at a bit of humour, was also ill judged, for which I apologise. But you were berating my perceived insensitivity earlier, so perhaps take a step back a bit, and have a moment of self reflection.
I do agree that this is not something to be brushed off. It is possible laws have been broken. As I said; it'll be a good idea to get some legal advice.
Ermmm – are you certain on that? A landlord does have a right of entry but particular conditions must be met. ( according to every tenancy contract I have used and the ones I use are taken directly off the government websites) and as above halls of residence do not fall under tenancy law – they are hotel contracts.
Normal tenant / landlord as in private tenancies does not apply to student halls. The contracts signed are not normal tenancies
That's all well and good, but how does that relate to the actual law? The student 'tenants' or whatever you want to call them, still have rights. Lodgers have less rights than normal tenants, but they still have rights. The HRA may well cover this. I think entering a room someone is using as their place of abode (or 'home', for whatever period of time), without their express consent, may well fall outside of the law. Whether in a student halls or hotel. I think this needs clarifying. Just saying 'it's different' isn't actually helping move the discussion along.
That's pretty much how I see it, from the info given so far, IANAL.
I would argue that more transparency would be needed for the reasons for forced entry in this particular scenario, though...
And as others have said, if your dealing with a bunch of drunk/stoned teenagers on a regular basis, making an appointment could be quite problematic.
I'm not suggesting that applies to the OP's daughter, but it is not beyond the realms of imagination that they deal with students who don't answer, or ignore inspection notices on a regular basis.
Also, the 2 week window seems stupid and disorganised too. They should be given a 1 day window with the option to re-book the visit a day or so later, and THEN if they fail to comply, (genuine welfare issues aside) they can just enter the next day.
If we’re playing whatiffery, do we suppose that rescuing OD’ed students is within the remit of hall inspectors’ job description? Reckon that’s in their pay grade?
Duty of care is on all employees.
The way they discharged this DoC is not in dispute, it was done badly, either not following procedure or the procedures are inadequate or non-existent. BUT pretty much impossible to prove whether the intent was correct or whether they had intent to catch a student in an indelicate moment.
It’s your analogy. 🤷♂️
I wasn't suggesting otherwise... I'm just kinda thinking out loud.
Whilst I’d agree with the sentiment, your comment was somewhat crude and unnecessary. And my response, as an attempt to ‘diffuse’ things with an attempt at a bit of humour, was also ill judged, for which I apologise.
Assuming that's genuine then, accepted, and likewise. Sorry.
It's interesting that my deliberately provocative choice of wording generated more outrage than a couple of random blokes crashing into a young woman's home seemingly has. Meanwhile elsewhere on forum threads, people are screaming about trans people because safe spaces and something about toilets.
Duty of care is on all employees.
The way they discharged this DoC is not in dispute, it was done badly, either not following procedure or the procedures are inadequate or non-existent. BUT pretty much impossible to prove whether the intent was correct or whether they had intent to catch a student in an indelicate moment.
Purely speculating, I'd agree with "non-existent procedure." They've sent a couple of blokes to go inspect the halls with little further instruction and the lads didn't know any different. It surely cannot be policy to break into rooms by routine? Though, that in itself is almost worse.
I wasn’t suggesting otherwise… I’m just kinda thinking out loud.
Fair enough. I misunderstood, sorry about that.
I’d agree with “non-existent procedure.” They’ve sent a couple of blokes to go inspect the halls with little further instruction and the lads didn’t know any different.
I suspect this is very much the case. In which case, the property management company need to sort themselves out a bit. But I also suspect the 'inspectors' are on minimum wage and have to tick thier boxes or they won't be re-employed come contract renewal time.
This sounds very much like bad management rather than a concerted effort to frighten young female students.
BUT... and it's a big BUT! this kind of poor management can create loopholes and opportunities for the less ethical members of society.
So I think it's entirely correct to lodge formal complaints, demand to see codes of operation, etc.
Calling the police and filling law suits is probably premature, given what we are told so far.
100%.
They were lucky, really, that the inspectors weren't 'less ethical.'
If we’re playing whatiffery, how would you feel if they knew someone was inside, but despite knocking on the door could not rouse anyone, and so assumed they must be fast asleep with earplugs in only to find they’d taken an overdose and due to you not acting was beyond saving when finally found.
Then it would be a tragedy from which there would have been a vanishingly small chance of them being in the right place/time to help. And the risk would be no higher than for anyone else living alone.
Discussion would be the same if thread had been about male student; same concerns, same principles, same parental concern.
As someone who's worked night shifts and lived in hotels for far longer than is mentally healthy, I can confirm that cleaners
a) can't read the DnD sign
b) have seen me in varying states of undress
It's absolutely not the same thing. Mildly embarrassing for either party, but definitely 100%* not the same.
*not speaking for all men, actually figure maybe slightly lower.