Landlord unfair charge lost key

tbs624

db_x wrote: »

Well w.e it gives it two months to show up and it probably will.

I pay a premium amout for my rent and suspect they rotate the locks each year as procedure, I know they did when I moved in and I wouldn't be happy living in a student let where god knows how many tenants could have copies from over the years.. The door now has more locks than when I moved in and is more secure.

It's not a tenants place to take measures to provide the safety of the next tenant. The landlord agrees to this in the subsequent agreement and ought to make every effort to ensure this, and when each lease is only 1 year then changing the locks ought to be routine procedure to ensure this.

Bottom line is, the key will most likely show up within a few days anyway and we can argue ethics and responsibilities all day long but the door is locked and 3 locks are better than 2.

And if someone happens to have the key and so I only have one lock then I'm sure they will break in during my tendency and not randomly wait 2 months, and even then there are easier ways to break into this house than through a single lock door.

You have referred to your "tendency" in several posts now. The word you are probably looking for is tenancy. Glad that you have managed to resolve things to your own satisfaction, despite the guidance from a number of helpful posters.

Your LL can, and probably will, seek payment from your tenancy deposit when/if all keys are not returned by you at the end of your tenancy. You can then decide how you wish to proceed with challenging that.

timbo58

Until you contact the LL and 'fess up' you won't know what the charge is.

IMHO the £89 is probably only if the entire lock needs changing -a landlord/insurance latch certified to BS1362 standard would easily be this for parts alone IME.

However the barrel alone and a few keys -£20 ish?

Whatever: when the tenancy is over they should check they have all the keys returned, if not -they can replace the barrel at your expense from your deposit: check the tenancy agreement it may well specify this.

angelsmomma

When I apply for my building insurances I am always asked what kind of locks secured the front and back doors.

Should someone break in and the locks have been changed to latch locks instead of the 5 lever or PVC door multi locks I am sure my insurers would not pay out on the claim.

It is unfair to your landlord to put his property at risk like this because of your mistake.

db_x

suki_na_tomodachi wrote: »

I'm fairly new here myself but wanted to add my 2p worth. OP, giving a key two months to "show up", is probably not going to happen. Usually it is not the previous tenants responsibility to safe guard the new tenants, but since it is your mistake that the key got lost, then it should be up to you to fix your mistake, which otherwise could put other tenants at risk or in harms way. How would you feel if you had just moved in and got burgled and found out it was because a previous tenant just hadnt owned up. At the end of the day, its not just about contents either. Someone could come into that house using the key when someones at home and god forbid hurt someone or worse. You should just own up, noone wants to pay out when not necessary, but at the end of the day it was your fault.

Amy.

I understand your point, but the fact is there is a secure lock now on the door which will still be there when the next tenant moves in. There is also a bolt and both the other two locks..

The key has been missing just over one day and most likely will show up as things tend to.

So are you arguing that the potential chance that the SINGLE person who MAY or may not have took the ONE KEY, and is persistent and is patient enough to keep trying for 2 MONTH (baring in mind this is a lazy OPPORTUNIST theif to have taken a key, not exactly an organised criminal) and for some reason after 2 months decides to BREAK? the door down anyway (baring in mind round here half the propertys have only a single latch anyway and assuming he can't pick a lock by the fact he needed the opportunity to steal a key in the first place), then I ought to feel like its my fault? That someone who STOLE MY KEY after not managing to get in 2 months later decides to BREAK the door in anyway? Which two new locks may more may not have stopped?

Sorry but just to put that into perspective.. At the beggining of this topic I was being told to just get a copy cut and now this? :rotfl:

Seems a few people are here to play devils advocate and are defending their point to the death..

or maybe I just have more faith in humanity than most.

Db

Edit: to add the other two locks are of no particularly quality (unbranded & cheap) and the door is still secured by the two locks no upvc just simple locks the kind you get on bedroom doors with the spin part on the inside. So insurance won't be an issue.

Yorkie1

I am not trying to play devil's advocate. I am just astonished at your breathtaking selfishness at deliberately putting a following tenant at risk of burglary because you are not prepared to admit to your mistake or to allow your replacement lock to remain in place.

db_x

db_x wrote: »

I understand your point, but the fact is there is a secure lock now on the door which will still be there when the next tenant moves in. There is also a bolt and both the other two locks..

as I said^

When did I say I was not going to leave the new lock in place? Are you suggesting I take the other two locks off and leave only one as opposed to all three?

two of which will be useful in all likely situations except if the one person who still wouldn't have access to that lock changes from and opportunist theif and decides to break the door down randomly after 2 months?

franklee

db_x wrote: »

I pay a premium amout for my rent and suspect they rotate the locks each year as procedure, I know they did when I moved in and I wouldn't be happy living in a student let where god knows how many tenants could have copies from over the years.. The door now has more locks than when I moved in and is more secure.

It's not a tenants place to take measures to provide the safety of the next tenant. The landlord agrees to this in the subsequent agreement and ought to make every effort to ensure this, and when each lease is only 1 year then changing the locks ought to be routine procedure to ensure this.

I can't see why not fess up then. If the landlord has several locks to rotate then telling him will do no harm and cost you no more than a new key cut as he'd be rotating the locks anyway. You plan to get a new key cut anyway by borrowing the LL's key.

OTOH if the LL doesn't rotate the locks then you are deliberately leaving the future tenant at risk.

Both roads lead to having a simple conversation with the landlord about it. It is the tenants place to keep the keys secure and act responsibly if they are lost or stolen.

tbs624 wrote: »

Your LL can, and probably will, seek payment from your tenancy deposit when/if all keys are not returned by you at the end of your tenancy. You can then decide how you wish to proceed with challenging that.

The OP's plan is to borrow the LL's key and copy it on the sly.

db_x wrote: »

or maybe I just have more faith in humanity than most.

If left in the door and spotted by an honest person they'd have returned it surely? Posted through the letter box.

Riggster

You lost the key.
Have a chat with your LL, but if you're charged for a new lock and keys, surely that's just fair?

franklee

db_x wrote: »

When did I say I was not going to leave the new lock in place? Are you suggesting I take the other two locks off and leave only one as opposed to all three?

Odd how the door has spouted another lock. We started this thread with the lock you've lost the key to and a latch that didn't work and that you've just fixed, see the only having one lock left comment below. Also clearly before losing the key you used the first lock as the main security and the future tenant probably will too as a latch isn't that secure:

db_x wrote: »

And if someone happens to have the key and so I only have one lock then I'm sure they will break in during my tendency and not randomly wait 2 months,

itsanne

db_x wrote: »

It's not a tenants place to take measures to provide the safety of the next tenant.
Db

I can't believe you're attempting to justify yourself like this. It's a totally selfish approach. You seem to be completely missing the point that you are putting the next tenant at risk because of your mistake. Rectifying it is not taking measures for his/her safety, it's leaving the next tenant in the same position you were in at the start of your tenancy.

"Suspecting" the locks are changed after each tenancy is not good enough - you would have to confirm this with the landlord. The other locks are irrelevant. You used the obvious one and it's likely the next tenant will too.