Landlord causing problems. Please help.

guppy

thesaint wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone mentioned a landlord coming to see his door every week? It would only take one visit whilst dropping off some flowers for his tenants.

Well, obviously, any landlord is welcome at any time if they bring flowers, booze and money are good too

thesaint wrote: »

I agree that the landlord would suffer no loss monetary or otherwise, what's more important to me is whether a Judge would rule in the tenants or landlords favour if it were to go to court?

Bit hypothetical, and obviously I'm hardly an unbiased judge since we've been arguing about this all day! I'm not even a lawyer...But...


Let's assume the AST says tenant must not change locks under any circumstances and tenant does so. This clearly isn't a fundamental condition of the contract, so neither party would be entitled to terminate the tenancy over it.

The landlord then issues a claim for breach of contract.

Question one on the court form - have you tried any alternative forms of dispute resolution? If not, even if you win, you might end up paying both parties costs.

Landlord goes ahead anyway since tenant says he doesn't see the landlord's problem and will reinstate the old lock at the end of the tenancy.

I'd imagine if it made it all the way to court the judge would be quite annoyed that such a non-issue (to me at least) had got so out of hand. He'd recognise the tenant was in breach, but also that this has caused no loss to the LL. Therefore there was no real reason to bring it to court.

As such he might find in favour of the LL but only award contemptuous damages, e.g. £1 and not award costs or even make LL pay both parties costs as punishment for wasting the court's time.

That's my honest opinion anyway. If there was nothing about locks in the AST then there would be no case for the tenant to answer at all.

I agree about not depending on council websites too much, but I do wonder if they have a point, regardless of what the AST might say.

The tenant's right to exclusive occupation is very strongly protected by the common law, just as strongly as is the landlord's entitlement to rent. If the tenant felt it necessary to change the locks in order to exclude trespassers to his property I can see the law being strongly on his side, providing he caused no real damage etc.

SquatNow

I'de imagine that a term saying you can't change the locks would be thrown out as an unfair clause providing all tennants get copies of the key and that you provide the landlord with access with 48 hours notice.

As long as you provide the LL with the keys when you move out they wouldn't have a case. I've never heard of landlords sueing tennents for "damage" while they were still in the property... if the rectify any changes before moving out the is nothing the LL can do. As they shouldnt be entering the property without notice, the only way they could know you hade changed the locks would be if they had entered without consent.... efectivly, burglary.

franklee

Well I wrote this before seeing guppy had replied. So the short version is I agree with guppy! The long version is similar to guppy's but as it was already written I'll post it anyway:

thesaint wrote: »

I agree that the landlord would suffer no loss monetary or otherwise, what's more important to me is whether a Judge would rule in the tenants or landlords favour if it were to go to court?

Well with judges it's hard to say. But if the locks is the only reason to go to court and the tenant has been otherwise good then I expect the judge would be most unhappy to have his time wasted and would tell the landlord off accordingly.

thesaint wrote: »

Whoever loses picks up the bill for court costs. I think that this should be considered before people advise people to change locks.

Actually no, it's not whoever loses picks up the bill for court costs! It's whoever the judge rules picks up the costs. In a clear cut case, like a valid S21, then it would most likely be the loser, but otherwise the judge can and will choose.

In eagerlearners case technically she "lost" as the landlady was awarded some of the deposit but the landlady didn't get any costs awarded. In the case of the locks, a vexatious case as the landlord doesn't really have a loss to claim, I would not expect the judge to order the tenant to pay the landlord's costs, no matter who technically loses. I expect he'd tell the landlord off for wasting the courts time by bringing the case in the first place and ask him exactly what he was intending to use the keys for.

But I still think the tenant would win in any case as he has the right to take steps to control access, especially if the landlord or agent had used the keys when they shouldn't before the locks were changed.

So the landlord by initiating a court case where he has negligible losses is risking losing his 150 pounds court fees. On the other hand if I as a tenant had to pay those fees, which I think very unlikely, then I would still think it money well spent to buy the peace of mind and security that changing the locks brings.

Can you say why the landlord would be so anxious to have a key such that he would bring such a case to court

franklee

SquatNow wrote: »

As long as you provide the LL with the keys when you move out they wouldn't have a case.

I would rather change the locks back that way I can take the new locks with me for use again. Also by putting the old locks back there can be no argument about the quality or safety standard of the locks as the landlord will have his own again. Also there can be no argument about the number of keys needed as the landlord will still have all his own.

thesaint

SquatNow wrote: »

<snip> As they shouldnt be entering the property without notice, the only way they could know you hade changed the locks would be if they had entered without consent.... efectivly, burglary.

Please read the thread.

duchy

Perhaps talking to the landlord either as one collective house or two first might bring some resolution. Actually I feel sorrier for the other tenants and would think that if having met them they are OK it might be worth simply suggesting a rent reduction to cover the period of the renovations which would include both inconvinience and additional costs.

MissMoneypenny

thesaint wrote: »

Individual councils will (and do) say opposing things.

If I searched I probably could find two councils who say that tenants can't change the locks.

Some rules do not need clarification, this one I believe does.

Shelter say the tenant can change the locks.

MissMoneypenny

thesaint wrote: »

The city I live in is immaterial, as sooz said (I paraphrase) "What crime".

If anyone's local police force recorded what is happening as a crime, they have got too much time on their hands. :A

That sounds like a LLs wish list. A LL or his handyman, or LLs representative, cannot just let themselves into the property unless it is an emergency. It is harrasement and it is a crime.

I got involved with all this bad landlord stuff when my student son rented his first student house. Some LLs should pay a solicitor to give them advice instead of trying to do it all on the cheap. Ignorance in no excuse in the eyes of the law.

MissMoneypenny

franklee wrote: »

I think so too, if the AST attempts to override the tenant's other rights the offending term can be ignored.

My AST sys I have to clean the windows inside and out once a month. Well tough they get done every few months. So I'm in breach of the tenancy agreement. Terms in the AST are not necessarily enforceable, the landlord can put any old rope into the AST, doesn't mean it stands up.

The LL cannot weigh a contract in his favour. The above is an unfair term.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:8-140MWqONoJ:www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf+oft+unfair+terms+in+tenancy+agreements&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a#76
Page 111 even lists an example like yours franklee.

thesaint

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

That sounds like a LLs wish list. A LL or his handyman, or LLs representative, cannot just let themselves into the property unless it is an emergency. It is harrasement and it is a crime.

When does it become harassment and therefore a crime?

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

The LL cannot weigh a contract in his favour. The above is an unfair term.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:8-140MWqONoJ:www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/unfair_contract_terms/oft356.pdf+oft+unfair+terms+in+tenancy+agreements&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a#76
Page 111 even lists an example like yours franklee.

Which is exactly what franklee is saying.