One lost key = £120 for lock change.

daivid

The security argument is a nonsense unless there is some way to be certain keys cannot have been copied. On the LL's side though they now know a key has been lost so how can they in good faith hand over keys to the new tenants knowing that security is compromised? Asking for a proper invoice is not unreasonable, and this could be done electronically at no real cost to the LL.

If you are really unhappy about the charge: How does the LL intend to get the £120? If it’s by deduction from the deposit then check the deposit has been protected, if not action could be taken on that, if protected then you can challenge the deduction if you truly believe it to be unreasonable and an arbitrator will decide. If the deposit has been returned and the LL is demanding payment you could respond stating your belief it is unreasonable, then the LL would need to decide how to pursue the matter. 

daivid

lincroft1710 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Hi all.

Son home from uni, and LL of the house they were in - 4 of them - is claiming £120 as one key was not returned, which is true. They say they need to replace all the locks.

Is this fair and reasonable?

There can hardly be any greater security risk from this missing key than if all 4 had been returned - copies can be made for less than a fiver.

Thoughts?

Reverse the situation, imagine your son is starting the tenancy and the landlord informs him and his co-tenants that one of the previous tenants failed to the return their key. So where is it, who has it? Whilst they're attending lectures, there is a possibility/probability someone can just walk into the house and steal your son's (and others') possessions.

I'm sure you'd be much happier knowing the landlord had replaced the locks

I agree on not wanting a LL to do nothing about a compromised lock though my hypothetical child at university (or renting or buying wherever…) would be advised to replace the locks the day they move in then switch back to the originals the day they leave. That way they know that no previous tenants, nor landlords, nor agents, nor ex-partners/friends of any of the aforementioned could easily access the property whenever they should choose. Unless the locks are particularly fancy or unusual swapping the locks over is cheap for the piece of mind given (and you can always reuse your lock somewhere else).

lookstraightahead

MeteredOut said:

Personally, I'd be asking the LL for a dated receipt before paying the £120. I'd maybe consider asking for the old locks and the 3 keys too.

Some people call me cynical...

The landlord does not actually have to replace the lock. 

When we rented, wewere charged £400 for replacing silk curtains (we'd missed a stain on incoming inventory) and they were never replaced.

[Deleted User]

As landlord, I had master keys stolen. It was very  unlikely that the thief would have known the address. But, out of an abundance of caution I changed the locks. I also make tenants aware that carelessness with keys will be an expensive business. £120.00 sounds like a very fair price.

user1977

[Deleted User] said:

It was very  unlikely that the thief would have known the address. 

I wonder how many thefts are ever made using copies of keys, rather than doors being opened using a firm kick from a size 10 "key" or by the occupiers being too dozy to lock the doors. I suspect there are more efficient ways of spending £120 on improving security than merely changing the locks.

ThisIsWeird

lincroft1710 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Hi all.

Son home from uni, and LL of the house they were in - 4 of them - is claiming £120 as one key was not returned, which is true. They say they need to replace all the locks.

Is this fair and reasonable?

There can hardly be any greater security risk from this missing key than if all 4 had been returned - copies can be made for less than a fiver.

Thoughts?

Reverse the situation, imagine your son is starting the tenancy and the landlord informs him and his co-tenants that one of the previous tenants failed to the return their key. So where is it, who has it? Whilst they're attending lectures, there is a possibility/probability someone can just walk into the house and steal your son's (and others') possessions.

I'm sure you'd be much happier knowing the landlord had replaced the locks

If I actually gave it any thought whilst moving into rented accommodation, I think I'd have to acknowledge that there was a fair risk that a previous resident could have retained a copy of the key in any case, and the risk this carried. 

If the LL told me that one from a set of keys had not been returned, I might initially go "Hmmm - risky!", but a second later would conclude "What difference does that make - any one of the previous tenants could have produced numerous copies, and given one to each neighbour and everyone down t'pub if they'd wanted to." Or made numerous copies and lost them all...

The actual risk - the chances of someone using the lost or copied key to gain dishonest access - would surely be nigh-on identical in either scenario?

So a £120 penalty for failing to return a key, but none for potentially making numerous copies and losing or holding on to these? If there is a risk that the LL wishes to mitigate against, then they should surely replace the main door locks at each new annual rental period as a standard move?

ThisIsWeird

Grumpy_chap said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Hi all.

Son home from uni, and LL of the house they were in - 4 of them - is claiming £120 as one key was not returned, which is true. They say they need to replace all the locks.

Is this fair and reasonable?

There can hardly be any greater security risk from this missing key than if all 4 had been returned - copies can be made for less than a fiver.

Thoughts?

Maybe too late now, but why didn't they get the forth key replaced for a fiver before moving out?

Son not sure if they actually did that or not. They may have, so LL may have noticed that one key was not original, I'm not sure.

ThisIsWeird

sheramber said:

Surely the person who did not return the key should pay the cost.

That would make sense, but - again - they'd be penalised for something that doesn't appear to me to produce any greater a security risk.

ThisIsWeird

Herzlos said:

Is £120 reasonable? It depends, on how many locks are affected and how many keys need cut. You can buy Yale lock inners for about £20 each, so assuming 2 locks, by the time you throw in an hour of locksmith time and 4 spare keys then £120 isn't unreasonable.

I agree that the cost itself is reasonable. Just not convinced the justification is, that's all.

Herzlos said:

The risk with a missing key is that you've no idea where it is. Someone may have stolen it or found it outside and be able to access the property, so replacing the lock(s) the key is for and producing new keys is the safest thing to do. Many home insurance policies will cover new locks if a key is lost.

Realistically, the risk would surely only be from (a) the key being found pretty close to the house, (b) the key being foolishly identifiable, or (c) the key being intentionally held for nefarious reasons. But the actual risk, as it exists, appears to me to be pretty much equal for a lost/withheld original key, or a lost/withheld copy.

Ie, the LL cannot claim their rented house is any more secure just because they've had all the original keys returned. So, they either make the considered judgement to replace the locks on each changeover as standard practice - in which case they can knowingly declare "New locks and 4 new keys - only you 4 currently have legit access" and add the £120 to their annual costs - or they don't.

Herzlos

user1977 said:

[Deleted User] said:

It was very  unlikely that the thief would have known the address. 

I wonder how many thefts are ever made using copies of keys, rather than doors being opened using a firm kick from a size 10 "key" or by the occupiers being too dozy to lock the doors. I suspect there are more efficient ways of spending £120 on improving security than merely changing the locks.

Most thefts are opportunistic - we dealt with a lot of people in our close for a "viewing" but they couldn't remember the details.

It depends though. Imagine someone desperate for money finds a key outside a block of flats. They know there's a good chance that key works one of those flats, so may be willing to spend a few days trying. It'll certainly look a lot less suspicious to passers by that someone is fumbling at a door with a key than a crow bar.

If the key was found on university grounds, they may assume it belongs to a student flat and spend a few days trying those.
However if it was found at a train station, I doubt anyone would bother trying doors all over town.

I suspect that most thefts are done by opportunists just checking for unlocked doors and sneaking in though. Would you take the risk?