Window Locks - Legal Requirement?

benjus

AdrianC wrote: »

I think your idea of "unusual" differs from mine, somewhat markedly. I'd suggest it was your "normality" that was unusual, since I've _never_ had burglary attempted anywhere I've lived - and that includes various studenty quarters of Sarf-East Laaahndun, and Slough.

Same here. About 10 years ago when I lived near Nottingham I could be quite absent-minded (I blamed it on sleepless nights with young children). A couple of times I left the house unattended with the front door wide open; nothing happened. I also dropped my wallet twice - the first time someone posted it through my letterbox, the second time it was taken to the local police station, both times with nothing missing.

Since then I've lived in several places in SE London, again with no issues.

dodger1

In 65 years never had a burglary and don't personally know a single person who has. Yes there are burglaries but they aren't the norm.

vuvuzela

AlexMac wrote: »

Maybe you live in an unusually honest neighbourhood, but...

Given that burglary has been attempted in almost every place I ever lived in (a couple of times successfully; most recently, within a week or so of moving in, due to locks which looked OK but were only secured by half-inch screws) I'd say irrespective of legality or morality, you'd be daft to live somewhere without decent locks. Especially as they only cost a few quid to DIY...

Or leave the place insecure and think of it as a means to redistribute wealth to the needy or greedy?

I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick - the OP seemed to be asking for devices that limit the amount the window can be opened for safety purposes (ie to stop kids falling out), rather than for crime prevention.
I definitely agree that having window locks for crime prevention is something that every house should have.

Malibusmash

Indeed I was Vuvuzela! More though, I am concerned as a Landlord that I am acting within the letter of the law in terms of window restrictors/locks and I believe that question has been answered.

Interesting posts though - thanks all!

teneighty

It is not quite that simple.

Restrictor stays or guarding are a legal requirement for new windows with a low sill height where children are expected to be present. Also I would imagine that a landlord would be on a sticky wicket if they had an existing window with a low sill height and failed to fit restrictor stays if it was a family home and a child fell out of the window.

Malibusmash

Good point teneighty - back to the drawing board for me then.

SerialRenter

Once had a break in whilst at uni. They took a number of things from our garage, all of which was either garbage or very outdated no longer working electronics. Absolutely nothing of value was stolen and they saved us a trip to the dump. Fantastic.

Now i live in more of the leafier parts of surrey and i don't think they've invented crime here yet.

On topic, i would say the tenant would quickly find out they wouldn't be able to get contents insurance and would soon be asking you to fit locks. So it's probably just easier to do it now.

Bart1

Surely making a home child proof is the responsibility of the tenant?

Malibusmash

I just don't think I could live with myself if one of my tenant's children fell out of the window and hurt themselves!

Conversely though, isn't fitting restrictors on the windows a fire risk (in other words, if there was a fire the inhabitants wouldn't be able to get out in a hurry)? Surely this would be more legally irresponsible on my part?

teneighty

Most restrictors have a "child proof" release so the window can be opened fully for fire escape or cleaning the windows. In reality I think most but the youngest of children could open them but hey ho, thats the rules.