Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • JohnnyZee
    • By JohnnyZee 4th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    • 26Posts
    • 1Thanks
    JohnnyZee
    Landlord being an idiot
    • #1
    • 4th Oct 17, 5:34 PM
    Landlord being an idiot 4th Oct 17 at 5:34 PM
    My friends have recently moved into a new flat. However, one of them has lost their keys for the flat (total set: 3 keys). 2 out of 3 keys are protected, so they need the landlord's permission to get an extra set. However, the landlord is being paranoid and wants to change the locks at the tenant's expense. There are 3 locks (1 lock on communal door, 2 locks on flat door).

    Landlord wants to change 1 lock, and duplicate keys for the 2 other locks (he is asking for £148 in total - wow!! He will also add another £90 if he cannot fit the lock himself). He will then see later if he wants to change other locks. Is this even ethical? I know in the tenancy agreement, there was a clause that the tenant would pay "reasonable" costs associated with replacing keys and/or locks. But since when did tenants pay for changing locks completely? And not even normal locks, he wants to buy some fancy "EVA" brand. Do tenants have no rights/or say in this matter?

    I have a feeling landlord is trying to take advantage of the tenants as they don't know much about locks.

    Any advice on what should be done?
Page 4
    • parkrunner
    • By parkrunner 5th Oct 17, 6:45 PM
    • 722 Posts
    • 1,079 Thanks
    parkrunner
    The £150 is excluding any labour. LL wants to try to change the lock himself. TBH, if you get a like-for-like lock, anyone with simple DIY skills can change that lock. I have seen it and can do it for them.
    Originally posted by JohnnyZee
    Now you're adding things to improve your argument, as soon as a poster tries that I'm out.
    • 00ec25
    • By 00ec25 5th Oct 17, 6:48 PM
    • 5,030 Posts
    • 4,375 Thanks
    00ec25
    Ah! so we can charge for our time? But the thing is that I'm a chartered surveyor and my wife is an actuary, so cleaners(the most common) and others rates don't seem so good.
    Originally posted by chucknorris
    you miss the point

    you can charge your wife out at the £ HUGE rate per hour an actuary gets, but that simply adds to your taxable profit - and is very likely to result in your tenant screaming that a professional cleaner would be cheaper so the tenants won't pay for your wife doing the work as the tenant would prefer a (cheaper) professional.
    • dimbo61
    • By dimbo61 5th Oct 17, 7:41 PM
    • 9,495 Posts
    • 5,150 Thanks
    dimbo61
    " Landlord being an idiot "
    One of the tenants has lost the keys to the property !!!
    So who is the idiot ?
    Glad your not my tenant
    • leslieknope
    • By leslieknope 5th Oct 17, 8:38 PM
    • 291 Posts
    • 388 Thanks
    leslieknope
    i'm not a landlord and first in line to decry shoddy landlords, and as a tenant i resent so much of my money going to rent and LA fees. and even i'm with the landlord on this one. £150 seems about reasonable tbh.
    CCCC #33: £42/£240
    DFW: £4355/£4405
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 5th Oct 17, 9:07 PM
    • 9,218 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    you miss the point

    you can charge your wife out at the £ HUGE rate per hour an actuary gets, but that simply adds to your taxable profit - and is very likely to result in your tenant screaming that a professional cleaner would be cheaper so the tenants won't pay for your wife doing the work as the tenant would prefer a (cheaper) professional.
    Originally posted by 00ec25
    I'm not missing the point, that is the very point, what is the point in either a chartered QS or actuary working for cleaner's rates?
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • simondm
    • By simondm 5th Oct 17, 9:34 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    simondm
    It would be reasonable for the tenant to pay the cost of the locks plus a reasonable amount for the landlord's time/skill/equipment but it would be fair for the tenant to keep the old locks to do with as they please (sell or keep for future homes).
    The landlord could also offer an amount equivalent to second-hand prices for the locks off the total he charges if they would be of use to him now outer in the future.
    If 'salvage' value has already been factored into the price (either via trade-in , exchange or expected resale value) then the landlord should keep the locks and the tenant should pay the started amount.
    P.S. Am landlord.
    • dpearson86
    • By dpearson86 5th Oct 17, 9:40 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 36 Thanks
    dpearson86
    Wow! Is this forum full of landlords who have no empathy for tenants? I am not saying the tenants should not pay for their mistake, all I am asking is what is the fair and just amount?
    Originally posted by JohnnyZee
    I am a tennant and agree with the amount the LL is charging, it's the amount I'd expect to pay and is detailed in the contact and T&C's
    • rtho782
    • By rtho782 6th Oct 17, 9:30 AM
    • 1,008 Posts
    • 712 Thanks
    rtho782
    My home (we own it) has Avocet ABS 3* Euro locks, on the front door, the back door (patio doors so 2x locks) all keyed alike, and keyed alike padlocks on the shed and two outdoor storage boxes.

    Obviously these are controlled keys, you need the code to copy them and the code is registered to us, they have a copy of my signature on file, etc.

    Were we to rent the house out and the tenant lost a key, I would expect all the locks replaced, and this would cost about £280 in locks. I wouldn't charge for my labour.
    Last edited by rtho782; 06-10-2017 at 9:37 AM.
    Deposit Saved since 01/12/15: £13,000 / £15,000 House Bought!

    Debt Cleared since 01/12/15: £6,000 / £7,500
    • JuicyJesus
    • By JuicyJesus 6th Oct 17, 10:27 AM
    • 3,009 Posts
    • 3,106 Thanks
    JuicyJesus
    It would be reasonable for the tenant to pay the cost of the locks plus a reasonable amount for the landlord's time/skill/equipment but it would be fair for the tenant to keep the old locks to do with as they please (sell or keep for future homes).
    Originally posted by simondm
    Why? They're not the tenant's locks. They were never the tenant's locks. The replacement locks won't be the tenant's locks either. They belong to the landlord. The locks would never have had to be changed if the tenant hadn't lost a key, so I'm not sure why it would be fair for them to have something they can sell as a result of their own idiocy.
    urs sinserly,
    ~~joosy jeezus~~
    • simondm
    • By simondm 6th Oct 17, 10:46 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    simondm
    I'm not sure why it would be fair for them to have something they can sell as a result of their own idiocy.
    Originally posted by JuicyJesus
    Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

    I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".
    • JuicyJesus
    • By JuicyJesus 6th Oct 17, 11:03 AM
    • 3,009 Posts
    • 3,106 Thanks
    JuicyJesus
    Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

    I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".
    Originally posted by simondm
    Because it's the landlord's property, it was never the tenant's, and it was only rendered useless through the tenant's idiocy (yes, idiocy - if OP considers the landlord an idiot for expecting tenants to fix damage they caused then I'll call them an idiot for causing the damage).

    The tenant isn't "covering the cost" to be nice, they're "covering the cost" because it's a cost they incurred, effectively rendering useless the landlord's property. Not least because if these are security locks they may well not be reusable or resaleable, especially since one of the keys is lost.

    If I were to break something of yours, then paid for a replacement, I would assume you would tell me to FO if I also said I would like the saleable bits of that item if there were any. I would certainly not consider it reasonable for me to receive any usable or saleable bits of the item I damaged. It's not mine, it was never mine, it's yours, and the only reason I paid to replace it is because I broke it.
    urs sinserly,
    ~~joosy jeezus~~
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 11:09 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    Comms69
    I'm not missing the point, that is the very point, what is the point in either a chartered QS or actuary working for cleaner's rates?
    Originally posted by chucknorris


    What do you mean working for cleaners rates?


    I could start a consultancy charging £80 per hour for my profession, and people would pay.


    But that doesn't make ALL my time worth that.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 11:12 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    Comms69
    Before the keys were lost the landlord owned a set of locks and the corresponding keys. The tenant then covers the cost of replacing the locks and keys. The landlord then owns a set of locks and keys as before, but has profited in that he now owns a spare set of locks and keys.

    I'm not sure why it would be fair for the landlord to have something they can sell as a result of their tenant's "idiocy".
    Originally posted by simondm


    I agree to a point. If the LL wants paying for the new locks the tenant should get the old ones. The fact that they're worth a fraction of the price is just hard luck on the tenant.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 11:16 AM
    • 486 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    Comms69
    Because it's the landlord's property - yes - sort of - the landlord was renting the locks out. , it was never the tenant's - it was, the tenant was paying rent for the property, which includes the locks, they were renting them. , and it was only rendered useless through the tenant's idiocy (yes, idiocy - if OP considers the landlord an idiot for expecting tenants to fix damage they caused then I'll call them an idiot for causing the damage).- agreed, tenant is liable.

    The tenant isn't "covering the cost" to be nice, they're "covering the cost" because it's a cost they incurred, effectively rendering useless the landlord's property. Not least because if these are security locks they may well not be reusable or resaleable, especially since one of the keys is lost.

    If I were to break something of yours, then paid for a replacement, I would assume you would tell me to FO if I also said I would like the saleable bits of that item if there were any. I would certainly not consider it reasonable for me to receive any usable or saleable bits of the item I damaged. It's not mine, it was never mine, it's yours, and the only reason I paid to replace it is because I broke it.
    Originally posted by JuicyJesus
    Yes but there is an argument for betterment.


    If I break your fridge, you aren't entitled to a new fridge, you are entitled to the same fridge, had I not broken it. So I would owe you the cost of a second hand replacement.


    Just like car accidents and anything else. In fact car accidents are even more accurate as often the insurance company buy the car from you, for the saleable parts.


    You are never entitled new for old.
    • missile
    • By missile 6th Oct 17, 11:19 AM
    • 8,948 Posts
    • 4,336 Thanks
    missile
    Wow! Is this forum full of landlords who have no empathy for tenants? I am not saying the tenants should not pay for their mistake, all I am asking is what is the fair and just amount?
    Originally posted by JohnnyZee
    Am I the only one who thinks YOU may be the tenant? I am not a LL. I think you should pay for your mistake and £150 is very reasonable.

    What if the tenant and the LL cannot agree on the cost? What happens? Does it go to tribunal?
    You have no keys and may get evicted.
    Last edited by missile; 06-10-2017 at 11:27 AM.
    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
    Ride hard or stay home
    • JuicyJesus
    • By JuicyJesus 6th Oct 17, 11:49 AM
    • 3,009 Posts
    • 3,106 Thanks
    JuicyJesus
    Yes but there is an argument for betterment.


    If I break your fridge, you aren't entitled to a new fridge, you are entitled to the same fridge, had I not broken it. So I would owe you the cost of a second hand replacement.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    I think the difference here is that it is as if the tenants had broken the fridge to the point where it's not possible to replace it without buying a whole new fridge at the tenant's cost. Would you agree that in this circumstance it would not be fair for the tenants to keep the old fridge for whatever scrap value they can obtain from it?

    Just like car accidents and anything else. In fact car accidents are even more accurate as often the insurance company buy the car from you, for the saleable parts.
    An insurance policy is different from a tenancy agreement and a car is different from locks. There is a reasonable argument that the landlord is not entitled to "new for old" at the end of a tenancy should anything be deducted from a deposit, say if the tenants spilt wine on the carpet he couldn't claim for a brand new carpet, but realistically a lock is not subject to wear and tear in the same way a carpet is and locks are also not really comparable to the salvage of a total loss car. The landlord had working, secure locks with keys under his control; he no longer has that because of the tenant, and it is not "betterment" to be put back in that same position, regardless of if he now has a bunch of insecure locks on his hands.

    In any event, the more practical consideration here for me is that I would certainly not suggest that the tenant push their luck in this case asking for the locks as well as from the tone of the OP's posts they have probably more than worn out their welcome already. Had they been upfront with the landlord and agreed to his quite reasonable request for payment for changing all the locks in his building because of an event they caused, politely asking for the old locks for re-sale might be a goer. As it is they are coming across as a pain in the a*se that doesn't really appreciate their own fault or liability in the situation.
    urs sinserly,
    ~~joosy jeezus~~
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 6th Oct 17, 12:50 PM
    • 9,218 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    What do you mean working for cleaners rates?


    I could start a consultancy charging £80 per hour for my profession, and people would pay.


    But that doesn't make ALL my time worth that.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    My comments were limited to why we wouldn't clean.

    We are probably unable to spend our wealth as it is, time is more important to me (us) than making more money, which is why I just dropped down to working one day per week and why wife retired early (aged 47) last December. So we have both turned down work paying significantly higher rates.
    Last edited by chucknorris; 06-10-2017 at 12:57 PM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 1:13 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    Comms69
    My comments were limited to why we wouldn't clean.

    We are probably unable to spend our wealth as it is, time is more important to me (us) than making more money, which is why I just dropped down to working one day per week and why wife retired early (aged 47) last December. So we have both turned down work paying significantly higher rates.
    Originally posted by chucknorris


    I can help you spend it


    But yes ofcourse, time is worth something.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 6th Oct 17, 1:15 PM
    • 9,218 Posts
    • 13,836 Thanks
    chucknorris
    I can help you spend it


    But yes ofcourse, time is worth something.
    Originally posted by Comms69
    No thanks, I think this is something that I'm going to enjoy trying to do myself.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    After running injuries I now also hike, cycle and swim, less impact on my joints.

    For the avoidance of doubt Chuck Norris is an actor and an ex martial artist (not me)
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 6th Oct 17, 1:20 PM
    • 486 Posts
    • 353 Thanks
    Comms69
    I think the difference here is that it is as if the tenants had broken the fridge to the point where it's not possible to replace it without buying a whole new fridge at the tenant's cost. Would you agree that in this circumstance it would not be fair for the tenants to keep the old fridge for whatever scrap value they can obtain from it? - It's not relevant, if the tenant smashed the fridge, the LL is NOT entitled to a 'new' fridge, just a like for like replacement. The argument that there is still value in scrap could be used to mitigate that cost further, but ultimately the LL could also counter claim the cost of removing the scrap.

    An insurance policy is different from a tenancy agreement and a car is different from locks. - actually not so much different. A car is property the same as a lock. and insurance (ignoring the legal requirement) is in essence the same as a tenancy, it's a contract to carry out certain actions in exchange for money. There is a reasonable - legal, it's a legal principle which applies is all areas of civil dispute - argument that the landlord is not entitled to "new for old" at the end of a tenancy should anything be deducted from a deposit, say if the tenants spilt wine on the carpet he couldn't claim for a brand new carpet, but realistically a lock is not subject to wear and tear in the same way a carpet is - totally agree. and locks are also not really comparable to the salvage of a total loss car. - My car was written off as a total loss, I can tell you the parts were worth several thousand, and the value of the car was around £4000. The landlord had working, secure locks with keys under his control; he no longer has that because of the tenant, and it is not "betterment" to be put back in that same position, regardless of if he now has a bunch of insecure locks on his hands. - I tend to agree, except there's no guarantee the locks are secure unless they were changed at the start of the tenancy.

    In any event, the more practical consideration here for me is that I would certainly not suggest that the tenant push their luck in this case asking for the locks as well as from the tone of the OP's posts they have probably more than worn out their welcome already. - agreed Had they been upfront with the landlord and agreed to his quite reasonable request for payment for changing all the locks in his building because of an event they caused, politely asking for the old locks for re-sale might be a goer. As it is they are coming across as a pain in the a*se that doesn't really appreciate their own fault or liability in the situation.
    Originally posted by JuicyJesus


    The legal position in this case is simple: Deminis Non Curat Lex


    I was simply discussing principles.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,245Posts Today

7,169Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin