Landlord being an idiot

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Because it's the landlord's property - yes - sort of - the landlord was renting the locks out. , it was never the tenant's - it was, the tenant was paying rent for the property, which includes the locks, they were renting them. , and it was only rendered useless through the tenant's idiocy (yes, idiocy - if OP considers the landlord an idiot for expecting tenants to fix damage they caused then I'll call them an idiot for causing the damage).- agreed, tenant is liable.

The tenant isn't "covering the cost" to be nice, they're "covering the cost" because it's a cost they incurred, effectively rendering useless the landlord's property. Not least because if these are security locks they may well not be reusable or resaleable, especially since one of the keys is lost.

If I were to break something of yours, then paid for a replacement, I would assume you would tell me to FO if I also said I would like the saleable bits of that item if there were any. I would certainly not consider it reasonable for me to receive any usable or saleable bits of the item I damaged. It's not mine, it was never mine, it's yours, and the only reason I paid to replace it is because I broke it.

chucknorris wrote: »

My comments were limited to why we wouldn't clean.

We are probably unable to spend our wealth as it is, time is more important to me (us) than making more money, which is why I just dropped down to working one day per week and why wife retired early (aged 47) last December. So we have both turned down work paying significantly higher rates.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I think the difference here is that it is as if the tenants had broken the fridge to the point where it's not possible to replace it without buying a whole new fridge at the tenant's cost. Would you agree that in this circumstance it would not be fair for the tenants to keep the old fridge for whatever scrap value they can obtain from it? - It's not relevant, if the tenant smashed the fridge, the LL is NOT entitled to a 'new' fridge, just a like for like replacement. The argument that there is still value in scrap could be used to mitigate that cost further, but ultimately the LL could also counter claim the cost of removing the scrap.

An insurance policy is different from a tenancy agreement and a car is different from locks. - actually not so much different. A car is property the same as a lock. and insurance (ignoring the legal requirement) is in essence the same as a tenancy, it's a contract to carry out certain actions in exchange for money. There is a reasonable - legal, it's a legal principle which applies is all areas of civil dispute - argument that the landlord is not entitled to "new for old" at the end of a tenancy should anything be deducted from a deposit, say if the tenants spilt wine on the carpet he couldn't claim for a brand new carpet, but realistically a lock is not subject to wear and tear in the same way a carpet is - totally agree. and locks are also not really comparable to the salvage of a total loss car. - My car was written off as a total loss, I can tell you the parts were worth several thousand, and the value of the car was around £4000. The landlord had working, secure locks with keys under his control; he no longer has that because of the tenant, and it is not "betterment" to be put back in that same position, regardless of if he now has a bunch of insecure locks on his hands. - I tend to agree, except there's no guarantee the locks are secure unless they were changed at the start of the tenancy.

In any event, the more practical consideration here for me is that I would certainly not suggest that the tenant push their luck in this case asking for the locks as well as from the tone of the OP's posts they have probably more than worn out their welcome already. - agreed Had they been upfront with the landlord and agreed to his quite reasonable request for payment for changing all the locks in his building because of an event they caused, politely asking for the old locks for re-sale might be a goer. As it is they are coming across as a pain in the a*se that doesn't really appreciate their own fault or liability in the situation.