6 months Assured Shorthold Tenancy - Changing locks....

gazfocus

As someone who has been a landlord myself, I would not object to you changing the locks if it meant you felt safer. The only reason a landlord could reasonably object (in my view) is so they are able to access the house in an emergency, however, if it was that crucial that I got into the house (a fire, gas smell, etc), I would be breaking the door down if I didn't have a key.

On the other hand, it should be pointed out that if the landlord has bought new build properties to rent out, the chances are they have a fair number of rental properties and this is a business for them. They are not likely to be interested in coming into your home in the middle of the night, or while you're not there. For me, when I have a tenant in a house, I don't even think about the house until I get notifications pop up on my calendar that a gas safety check/EICR/Inspection/etc is due, etc. 

Ryan_Holden

user1977 said:

Ryan_Holden said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Comparing it with lighting a fire in the living room is ridiculous and unnecessary.

"if my tenant changed the locks I'd serve them notice" - Another landlord that thinks they are god.  

It's completely valid, it's an extreme example of course, but it is to show that the tenancy agreement does not have to detail everything that you are not allowed to do in or to the property. 

I don't think I'm God, what a breathtakingly entitled thing to say.

It's not the tenant's property so why is there an assumption they have an automatic right to make modifications (that will affect the landlords liability) without permission?

A landlord has a right to protect themselves and their asset.

Example: The tenant goes away for the week, it's a flat, there's a water leak reported by an adjacent neighbour. The landlord or their contractor uses their key to gain emergency access to stop further damage to their property and the neighbours property only to find they can't get in because the locks have been changed.

The landlord can't break down the door and as a result has to call a locksmith.

Why can't they break down the door? Why hasn't the neighbour already kicked the door in or got a locksmith round? There is no general requirement for landlords to hold keys. Landlords of commercial properties may have similar concerns but hardly ever are permitted to hold keys.

It's a hypothetical example, they may not be strong enough. 

Commercial leases are not residential tenancies. 

user1977

Ryan_Holden said:

user1977 said:

Ryan_Holden said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Comparing it with lighting a fire in the living room is ridiculous and unnecessary.

"if my tenant changed the locks I'd serve them notice" - Another landlord that thinks they are god.  

It's completely valid, it's an extreme example of course, but it is to show that the tenancy agreement does not have to detail everything that you are not allowed to do in or to the property. 

I don't think I'm God, what a breathtakingly entitled thing to say.

It's not the tenant's property so why is there an assumption they have an automatic right to make modifications (that will affect the landlords liability) without permission?

A landlord has a right to protect themselves and their asset.

Example: The tenant goes away for the week, it's a flat, there's a water leak reported by an adjacent neighbour. The landlord or their contractor uses their key to gain emergency access to stop further damage to their property and the neighbours property only to find they can't get in because the locks have been changed.

The landlord can't break down the door and as a result has to call a locksmith.

Why can't they break down the door? Why hasn't the neighbour already kicked the door in or got a locksmith round? There is no general requirement for landlords to hold keys. Landlords of commercial properties may have similar concerns but hardly ever are permitted to hold keys.

It's a hypothetical example, they may not be strong enough. 

Then they can find someone who is. This also assumes the landlord is local and available to attend to such an emergency - what proportion are?

Ryan_Holden

user1977 said:

Then they can find someone who is. This also assumes the landlord is local and available to attend to such an emergency - what proportion are?

I have no idea. Why is that something you'd expect me to know or is relevant? 

It was just a hypothetical for not being able to gain access. Dissecting it to the nth degree achieves nothing. There are likely a myriad of reasons why it would take a landlord much longer to access their property in an emergency if they didn't have a key.

Most landlords use a letting agent who will give a contractor keys both for arranged visits (with the tenants permission) or for emergency access if the landlord needs it.