Tenant posted key to me - and it hasn't arrived....

Gorgeous_George

I always change the locks on tenancy change.

Euro-cylinders in the front door and the patio door cost about £10 in total and take 5 minutes to fit. They come with three keys each and you can buy pairs of locks with 6 keys all keyed the same.

Keep the old ones for use later on or sell on eBay if you wish but I just bin them.

GG

guppy

clutton wrote: »

"It's a statutory right" - means it is enshrined in a Statute - ie part of a law - your opinion is an opinion, like many of my views are mere opinions. But this key business, and all the nonsense spouted about the Sword of Damocles is not a statutory right as far as i know

Which is why I just said it isn't in any statute that I am aware of I'm quite aware of what "statutory" means thanks

In the absence of any statute, unless someone has details of a reported court case regarding changing the locks, its only possible to offer an opinion on how the law applies to a given situation. I do try and back my opinions up with some evidence though.

To expand on my argument about changing the locks:

A landlord and tenant are free to include a clause in a lease saying the locks must not be changed. Within the bounds of the law, people can contract to do whatever they want with each other.

Under the common law, the tenant is entitled to exclusive possession of his property, and can exclude all others, so the Landlord has no right to use any key he holds without the consent of the tenant. This can't be changed by anything in the contract.

If the tenant changes the locks during the tenancy, he is clearly in breach of the contract. (I don't really know how a landlord would discover this, unless he's the kind that drops by every week, but that's irrelevant.)

Changing a normal Yale lock doesn't cause any damage, and the tenant could reinstate it at the end of the tenancy. So that rules out any monetary claim for having caused the landlord loss or inconvenience etc.

Since its a breach of the tenancy agreement, the landlord could seek possession of the property. Not good business sense, but its an option.

Since there's no damage, he can't use that ground. That leaves Ground 12, tenant in breach of their contractual obligations.

This is a discretionary ground for eviction.

Personally, I can't see any court granting possession to a landlord simply because a tenant has changed a lock without causing damage. The tenant could argue he'd done this to ensure his own security, and to better effect his common law right to exlclude trespassers. Or even that this was simply a matter of repair.

That's my reasoned opinion anyway

clutton_2

as you say anyone can put anything into an agreement, but, that does not make it a legal requirement that a tenant abides by it, if it is legislated for under other statutes.

but lets have a bit of common sense her for ....

i have keys to all my properties - but that does not mean to say that i am going to let myself in does it ? i have keys as it my house - why shouldn't i have keys ? if there is a gas emergency or tenant lying on the floor having a heart attack i would sure a tenant would rather i let myself in quickly with a key than have to hunt round for burly men to smash in the door.

just because a few shi*te landlords landlords wrongly let themselves into their properties seems to translate into "all landlords are thieves robbers and rogues who will molest tenants if they are alloweed to keep keys !!

i have not come across any case law re keys - but i cannot imagine a court ruling that a landlord cannot hold keys - that would be ludicrous.

anyway - the OP got her keys back !!! hurrah !!

lynzpower

just because a few shi*te landlords landlords wrongly let themselves into their properties seems to translate into "all landlords are thieves robbers and rogues who will molest tenants if they are alloweed to keep keys !!

i have not come across any case law re keys - but i cannot imagine a court ruling that a landlord cannot hold keys - that would be ludicrous.

:T:T absolutely!

what bothers me is that somewhere in and amonst all this, we have lost focus that the landlord tenant relationship SHOULD NOT and generally speaking IS NOT one of acrimony from the word go.

My landlord has key to this house, indeed when I had the locks changed after my bag was nicked I let the LA have one right away. ( and advised the LA I would change the locks due to the loss of the bag)

they have keys, occasionally they come over to fix things in the house when we are not here. It certainly can mean repairs are done the next day, rather than me waiting for a weekend to lose my day off waiting in for someone to repair something!

guppy

clutton wrote: »

i have not come across any case law re keys - but i cannot imagine a court ruling that a landlord cannot hold keys - that would be ludicrous.

I agree entirely

As Lynz said, I really don't think it should be an issue in practice. Its what people actually do with the keys that matters.

clutton_2

Thanks lynz

"""all landlords are thieves robbers and rogues who will molest tenants if they are alloweed to keep keys !!""

the other week, as i was paying £399 to be "selectively licensed" for a property i manage (after about 3 hours of paperwork to boot) - AND having to pay additional £40 to get my own Police CRB report - i began to wonder why i stay in this business -

selective licensing is being used (at least in Manchester) as yet another property tax - its really astonishing that only landlords are blamed for the "downward spiral" of certain areas - generally speaking, and this is only my opinion, i doubt it is landlords who are behaving in an anti-social manner in the streets; i doubt it is landlords who are trashing a property causing it to be boarded up; i doubt it is landlords who are stealing boilers and full cgh systems - yet it is landlords who are having to paid thru the nose to be "selected" - the theory being that if we pay, we must we ok as landlords - what kind of daft logic is that ?

what measures are being taken to prevent appalling tenants from behaving in this way ?

sod all as far as i can see

why not ?

because it is assumed that landlords have money and are, therefore, an easy target for fleecing yet more money out of ...

Rachmann paid his taxes as does Nicholas Van STraaaten or whatever his name is in Brighton ......

And another thing - this new Local Housing Allowance which comes in next April will cause many thousands of landlords to refuse to take on board Housing Benefit tenants because of the insanity of some of the new regs. There will be a shortage of cheaper property and i estimate that in 3-4 years, it will all be changed back again, as slum/scum landlords rule the roost once more

whitehall mandarins have no idea on this earth how ordinary folks lead their lives, and even less idea how folks on housing benefit live

rant over

really tired

sorry !!

Horace

My landlord changes the locks as a policy when tenants move out. We are only supposed to have one set of keys each but because I live on my own (lots of folks in my block are couples) he allowed me to have an extra set in case of emergencies.

If I were you, I wouldn't take the risk and change the locks - your tenant sounds quite dozy so who knows how many sets of keys she has had made. I would also take the opportunity to go and check the property because she may have taken things that she isn't supposed to and has left it in a mucky state.

MissMoneypenny

clutton wrote: »

i have keys as it my house - why shouldn't i have keys ?

Shelter says that the tenant can change the locks.

PasturesNew

I like the landlord having keys.... it'd give me somebody to mither if I lost mine

I've never lost a set ever, nor locked myself out of any property at home or at work... but you never know!

guppy

clutton wrote: »

"all landlords are thieves robbers and rogues who will molest tenants if they are alloweed to keep keys !!"

I certainly don't share that view, clutton. I take people as I find them, and I know from your many other posts you are a fair LL