We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
URGENT advice needed. Letting agent threatening to change locks on my door
Comments
-
i had a mortice lock in a shared house that i used to rent.
hmo regs changed and the landlord came round and changed the locks to thumb lock - that is to say he didn't change the lock. the key i'd always had was the same afterwards and the outside door plate was the same, he'd just replaced the inside door plate and handle with one with a little thumb lock like you might have on a bathroom.
i'll have a look and see if i can see what i mean online.
therefore a mortice lock PER SAY wouldn't be against fire regs and the la shouldn't know if it's thumb turn or not without seeing the inside of the lock.
looks like one of these things.One of the hardest of all life lessons is this:
Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.
Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.0 -
I guess the LA could know if there were a thumb knob just by looking through the keyhole. The fire safety risk assessment would require a thumb knob because the OP might lock the mortice lock if it were key operated. Also, what about visitors?
I don't see any point arguing with the LAs about whether it's safe. The LL has responsibility under the Fire Safety regs, and the LL (or his agents) have decided to implement a particular plan. There's no room for argument.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
QuantumSuccess wrote: »It's a large building containing about 60+ flats over 5 floors. Each flat is self contained and the flats are 1 or 2 bedroom, I think. There are communal hallways. To exit the building you need to walk along the corridor. Then there are various "swing doors". You take the staircase or the lift down to the ground floor where there are two main entry doors to the building.
From this information would you say it is illegal for me to have the mortice lock on my front door?
out of interest, do any other flats in the building have a mortice lock fitted to their front door?0 -
I don't see any point arguing with the LAs about whether it's safe. The LL has responsibility under the Fire Safety regs, and the LL (or his agents) have decided to implement a particular plan. There's no room for argument.
I disagree. The LL has responsibility, of course, but as long as the OP's actions haven't negated that responsibility, then I don't think it's an issue.
You could say that the LL / LA have implemented a particular plan for the kitchen, or the colour scheme, or anything in the house - but it doesn't mean it's enforceable. As long as the OP returns it to the way it was when the building is vacated.
If the fire regs haven't been negated - and I doubt they have - then the LA can just wait for the OP to leave the property, when it will be returned in the same condition. I appreciate that you're coming at it from a fire safety point of view, but from what the OP's said, it's not a fire door, it's not an external door, and it affects no-one else. It's simply a front door to a flat in a block of flats.
KiKi' <-- See that? It's called an apostrophe. It does not mean "hey, look out, here comes an S".0 -
I disagree. The LL has responsibility, of course, but as long as the OP's actions haven't negated that responsibility, then I don't think it's an issue.
You could say that the LL / LA have implemented a particular plan for the kitchen, or the colour scheme, or anything in the house - but it doesn't mean it's enforceable. As long as the OP returns it to the way it was when the building is vacated.
If the fire regs haven't been negated - and I doubt they have - then the LA can just wait for the OP to leave the property, when it will be returned in the same condition. I appreciate that you're coming at it from a fire safety point of view, but from what the OP's said, it's not a fire door, it's not an external door, and it affects no-one else. It's simply a front door to a flat in a block of flats.
KiKi
There are no laws making the LL culpable in cases where the colour scheme is offensive. (More's the pity!) The LL is responsible for fire safety, and I have no doubt that the courts will intervene in cases where there's a fire risk, even where the person most at risk is the tenant herself.
I really can't see what the OP is making such a fuss about, or at least what she is hoping to gain? The LA is proposing to replace the lock with one that is both secure and complies with the LL's fire safety risk assessment. The LA will do that anyway when she moves out, and she will be charged for the work anyway. If she refuses, they'll go to court, and she'll have to pay at least some of the LL's costs as well as the cost of the lock.
I would just point out that if the OP or someone else in her flat were burnt to a cinder because of this lock, the LL could be charged with manslaughter. Why is she resisting a change to the locks for her own good?No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
Just contact the fire prevention officer, they will explain what you need. Get this done. Advise the LL that the lock is compliant. If the LL still wants you out then it's tough, if not, you have a fully compliant front door and can choose to stay or go at the end of your tennacy.
GDB2222 is making sense as harsh as it sounds. The facts are simple, personally the LA seems a moron but if they are busy morons then they will treat everyone the same and who knows maybe most the people they deal with do respond the way the LA wants them to with these threats. Theres two things going on here, the principle of being treated such and the facts as they are which as above will need doing either way. Taking the principle element out the lock needs assessing, and then possibly some remediadle action. Once done it's up to the LL and OP.0 -
From the first post, the OP was told they were out of the property at the earliest. The reaction from the LA was completely OTT and it is not as if OP has been underhand about this. LA was told and offered a key at the earliest.Have the agents threatened a S8 procedure? I thought they just said the tenancy would not be renewed?
I must say that, acting on the truly wonderful advice here from some people, the OP has managed to antagonise the agents, if not the LL too, rather than smoothing things over. The main result she will achieve with all this inappropriate advice is that she will definitely have to find a new place to live. Congratulations to all those who advised this course of action!
While there is a safety issue, LA's reaction has not been to explain, engage and resolve, but to holler bluster and threaten S8. This in itself is an abrogation of a duty of care. If LA knows what standards are required LA should be engaging with OP to resolve the safety issue at the earliest. Sorry to say, but the failure to re-establish a safe door shows that the LA does not really give a damn about safety - he is just using it as an excuse to show what a contemptible cretin he is.
LA taking this to court in haste may give the right resolution - his haste and failure to engage in resolving will probably put him flat on his face in court - although it would be a shame for OP to have to waste time on this.A CCJ is completely avoidable - just pay for the cost of replacing the lock!
If I were LL and could see what was happening between LA and tenant, I would be a bit put out that T had changed the lock, but equally I could appreciate the concern about crime. But I would be disappointed that LA had failed to resolve it - and sight of his correspondence would be the nail in his coffin.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »From the first post, the OP was told they were out of the property at the earliest. The reaction from the LA was completely OTT and it is not as if OP has been underhand about this. LA was told and offered a key at the earliest.
While there is a safety issue, LA's reaction has not been to explain, engage and resolve, but to holler bluster and threaten S8. This in itself is an abrogation of a duty of care. If LA knows what standards are required LA should be engaging with OP to resolve the safety issue at the earliest. Sorry to say, but the failure to re-establish a safe door shows that the LA does not really give a damn about safety - he is just using it as an excuse to show what a contemptible cretin he is.
LA taking this to court in haste may give the right resolution - his haste and failure to engage in resolving will probably put him flat on his face in court - although it would be a shame for OP to have to waste time on this.
If I were LL and could see what was happening between LA and tenant, I would be a bit put out that T had changed the lock, but equally I could appreciate the concern about crime. But I would be disappointed that LA had failed to resolve it - and sight of his correspondence would be the nail in his coffin.
Copies of the LA's correspondence and threats have now been sent to the LL.0 -
There are no laws making the LL culpable in cases where the colour scheme is offensive. (More's the pity!) The LL is responsible for fire safety, and I have no doubt that the courts will intervene in cases where there's a fire risk, even where the person most at risk is the tenant herself.
I do understand where you're coming from.
But you're still making the assumption that the lock breaches fire regs and is a risk, and we don't know that's the case (and it seems highly unlikely, IMO). The only thing it appears to 'breach' (as far as I'm aware of it) is the LA's preference for the lock on the door - and that's the bit I contest!
Agree about the colour schemes, though!!
TBH, I'd dig my heels in far less if the LA had been professional and polite and courteous. Instead they seem to be acting like bulls in a china shop, determined to get rid of the OP.
Will be interesting to see how it goes!
KiKi' <-- See that? It's called an apostrophe. It does not mean "hey, look out, here comes an S".0 -
most recent message, email from LA late this afternoon:
"at this point I am not interested in the lock. I am interested in your attitude which is not helping matters."0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards