Burglary in rented accomodation - rights if Landlord is at fault

clutton_2

i think you will have to negotiate an early release from your contract - the LL is under no obligation to allow you to leave early....

the argument will be that you saw the locks on move in and accepted them then ....

lynzpower

You cant put a dead lock on as due to fire route issues it should be a one turn/ thumb turn. ( sounds like a conversion)

Indeed if a tenant undertakes work then the tenant can have that deducted from their deposits to rectify damage.

In any case if you'd have insurance it wouldn't probably pay out if the property wasnt broken into.

I take it the police are investigating or are they just recording. the police should be quizzing the landlord and LA to find out who would have keys.

Mankysteve

lynzpower wrote: »

You cant put a dead lock on as due to fire route issues it should be a one turn/ thumb turn. ( sounds like a conversion)

What a load of twaddle.

Nadeshka

The police are still investigating and I think they will chase up on the keys.
My boyfriend looked at the contract and it's a two month notice period, so in essence he's asking to only give 1 month's notice (which I don't think is unreasonable but what do I know...) and that saved rent will pretty much cover most of what was stolen, he'll stay with me in the mean time.

They couldn't even put bluetack up without the LL's say so I doubt he could've fitted extra locks without repercussions. As I've mentioned the main door with poor security was shared so he couldn't do anything about that, once they were through that they were out of sight of the main street and had all the time to work on his door without anyone seeing.

The mortis was taped up after they moved in, when someone used it and then asked questions about why there weren't keys.
The police told us about "slipping" a yale like that, and they were the ones who raised the issue of poor security.
We looked at the doors however and the frame overlaps the edge of the door - there's no gap to push anything through on either the flat or the building, which is why it could be a case of someone with keys.

brit1234

Nadeshka wrote: »

The mortis was taped up after they moved in, when someone used it and then asked questions about why there weren't keys.
The police told us about "slipping" a yale like that, and they were the ones who raised the issue of poor security.
We looked at the doors however and the frame overlaps the edge of the door - there's no gap to push anything through on either the flat or the building, which is why it could be a case of someone with keys.

There must be some form of gap otherwise you couldn't open the door, all you need is a maximum of 2mm gap to slip.

g_attrill

Mankysteve wrote: »

What a load of twaddle.

The rules are generally that it must be able to be opened from the inside without a key (this is common sense for a shared door anyway!), so a thumb-turn at least is needed, however I expect you can get various dead-locking locks with a thumb-turn on the inside.

lynzpower

Mankysteve wrote: »

What a load of twaddle.

.

..but easy and quick to open if there is a
fire
Tenants must be able to get out of their
bedsit or flat quickly when there is a fire in
the property. Avoid using cylinder locks
on doors with self-closing mechanisms, to
prevent lock-out.
Note: The final exit door to the building
should be fitted with special locks such as
a ‘turn buckle’ type, which can be easily
opened from the inside by hand without the
need for a key. Lock types should always
be confirmed with your insurer.

http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-33368.pdf

Some local authorities would have additional licensing requirements for conversion flats- focusing on the fire safety of the common areas, including fire response, locks exits and routes, any opening windows that can be climbed out of in a fire situation in the common areas. OP should speak to their LA

In some local authorities they would include this as part of the buildings regs at sign off. Clearly when the building was signed off the electrical lock may not or even may have been fitted IM assuming this electric lock will have a pushbutton for exit?- however , even locksmiths note that these are prone to failure especially in a fire situation as the electricity to the lock can fail.

Its not clear as to when the flats were converted, and whether the sign off included the electric lock or this was fitted afterward.

Nadeshka

Well the Estate Agents weren't very helpful, shockingly. They will let them out of the contract if they can fill the flat by then, otherwise he has to pay.
They had never changed the locks and tbh didn't actually give a damn that they'd been burgled. :mad: Who knows how many copies of keys are out there and the front door still hasn't been changed. They charged a £200 check-in fee and will probably charge something equally high on check-out, and they won't change the locks?

To clarify about the doors - the door frame overlaps on the outside of the door, it's hard to describe without an image so

if the "@" is the yale lock on the inside, the # are the door and |||||| is the frame (ignore the ----, they're to make it line up)

---

@@@||
######## |||||||

---

||||||||

Then door sits in the frame so the frame covers any gap to the lock. It's looking more and more like they had keys, so any insurance they might have had wouldn't have paid out.

lynzpower

Are they a member of ARLA?

Might be worth speaking to a legal eagle for half an hour as to whether there is scope for claiming these losses under the Landlords or Letting agents indemnity cover http://www.griffithsandarmour.com/Professional_Indemnity_insurance_explained

First, any potential plaintiff must prove negligence on the professional's behalf, (i.e. a failure to exercise reasonable skill and care in the discharge of its services).

A claim can be brought in contract or tort. It is often more difficult to succeed in a claim in tort as the following tests must be satisfied:

- the plaintiff must prove that the professional owed him a duty of care
- the plaintiff must prove that the professional has breached that duty
- the plaintiff has suffered financial loss as a direct result of that breach

If an allegation of negligence is upheld the professional is likely to be liable for the losses incurred by the plaintiff which arise as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the professional's actions. The professional will often be responsible for the plaintiff's legal costs and these can be substantial. It is often the case that large sums of money are spent simply trying to recover fairly minor losses.

Could be argued that a rotating of locks around properties, or not getting the keys back from prevoius tenants ( although I take it these keys are easily copyable , not a "security key") might be neglectful. I would make sure all the conversations you have now with them are documented fully just incase.

Nadeshka

lynzpower wrote: »

Are they a member of ARLA?

Might be worth speaking to a legal eagle for half an hour as to whether there is scope for claiming these losses under the Landlords or Letting agents indemnity cover http://www.griffithsandarmour.com/Professional_Indemnity_insurance_explained



Could be argued that a rotating of locks around properties, or not getting the keys back from prevoius tenants ( although I take it these keys are easily copyable , not a "security key") might be neglectful. I would make sure all the conversations you have now with them are documented fully just incase.

They are, they're a massive chain so I'm not surprised.
The main thing is moving out, the sooner he's out and not dealing with them the better really. He's not really wanting a long drawn out civil case.
The keys are standard Yale etc., probably less than £10 to copy the set. In the estate agents words "Why would we bother changing them?".
If my boyfriend had known their attitude then he would've taken it into his own hands and changed them (and would have been charged by estate agents I bet) but he (wrongly) assumed that such a large agency would take these matters a bit more seriously.
The police will probably chase up previous tenants and that might hopefully lead to some of the stuff being recovered. Maybe Police involvement will force the EAs to give a damn.