LLD --- tenant wont lock front door

Can't you stick it in the contract next time it's up for renewal?

LLD ?

You must give him 2+ months notice. See . Post again if you need help with the dates as they're critical.

If you claim on your insurance for any damage/vandalism and the insurers find out they will not pay the claim.

Daytona (Landlord & tenant)

Thanks Without digging out the contract, I think the requirement to lock the door implicitly in there; "...must take reasonable care of the property...", but in any event, I no longer want the hassle. If I ever draft another contrac, I'll put it in.

Re the notice, I think the following is correct - any comments? His first day of contract, rent and tenancy was 27th, some 30 months ago, initially a 6 month ast. The rental period is from the 27th april to the 26th May (etc). It will require a Section 21(4)(a) If I serve it on or before 26th April, the notice must say:

" I .[name] of [my address]...give you notice that I require *vacant* possession of the dwelling house known as [address] after the 26th August 2005"

I'm adding the word vacant to the draft notice that I have, because I think it makes clearer sense. I think it could be argued that the house is my posession anyway, even tenanted, and the draft I have contains no instruction to the tenant to leave.

Tony

...and presumably if he doesn't move out on the due date, I make an appointment to see a magistrate, or go to court, and get some kind of order, which allows me to instruct a court baliff. So my tenant could technically hold out until mid-october.

Tony

I think you're being unreasonable, and would be a fool to choose to lose such an otherwise model tenant.

Why is a Yale lock not adequate? Get the frame strengthened and fit a new one. You can get pull-to-type locks which cannot be slipped open with a credit card, because they have a second tongue which locks the first when pushed in by the striker plate. So they're yale-like in terms of having the desirable property that you don't need a key to lock them but only to unlock them.

The only problem then is that he might lock himself out. :-)

You must stop this at once or you will be in breach of tenancy by failing to grant "quiet enjoyment". You have no business even to be there without prior arrangement, and if he never locks it he *could* in theory go out without taking the mortice key, and you would then be guilty of locking him out, which could amount to unlawful eviction and will cost you very dearly indeed.

In theory you could instruct him to leave as good as immediately (7 or 14 days or whatever the agreement provides), if you deem him to be in material breach of (what you think are) implied terms of the tenancy, but if he denies that he's in breach, it would mean a court case. Not worth it.

What does LLD Mean?

I agree with this, Perhaps offer him a discount on his rent for him to use the property exactly as you see fit.

This is a good example of why renting in this country is so painful, in too many situations landlords continously interfere in how you use a property, that is why buying, even with the high cost this entails is preferred.

Jim.

Hi RR, LLD - I meant landlord.

In reality, he aint that great a tenant. He's a nice guy, looks after the place, pays the rent eventually, and doesn't upset the neighbours, but I spend two or three weeks every month trying to catch him for the rent . Cntractually, he should be paying it directly into the bank, but he doesn't. He's either not in or not answering the phone; and he never reads my letters. He was great for the first year when his wife was there too, but she divorced him and he was made redundant at the same time, which understandably was quite a blow to him. I offered him a carrot -a £20 per month refund every time he pays the rent on time, but he hasn't tried to take advantage of that.

So it's really the overall hassle that makes me want to call it a day. On the one hand I have a lot of sympathy for him, but on the other hand, as a business, currently it just isn't worth the hassle so all in all, I think I'm committed to giving him the statutory 2+ months notice.

Thanks

Tony

Yes that clause will cover it, as the tenants actions are quite simply unreasonable.

You've missed out the necessary legal information for tenants, which is why most people use standard forms. See samples below.

Correct

Correct

You can actually serve on of before the 1st rent period day, the 27th. Get evidence of execution - send by registered post/get a certificate of posting with a few days grace, or get a witness for hand delivery.

Dunno, I'd use a standard form to avoid any mistakes. See below.

No it isn't - a tenancy grants rights of possession to the tenant for a period in exchange for remuneration.

No, because other than by mutual consent, only a court can terminate a tenancy. You are simply giving the tenant the required official legal notice period prior to applying to the court for a hearing to gain possession, which if you've given notice in the correct form will be granted in the form of a possession order. If the tenant leaves before this, as most do, so much the better. The tenant will then have a couple of weeks grace to move out after which you can go back to court and get a warrant of execution (aka eviction order) and get bailiffs to evict.

Why not use the following tried and tested form -

If they haven't moved out start action immediately with form N5B. See link to the Court Service on my webpage Call the clerk to the court - they are helpful and will explain the process. It should be a formality.

A few more notes here -

hth

Daytona

In message , snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes

Tony,

Replace the yale lock, fitting a new door, or new wood in the area of the lock, whichever is appropriate. You have to do this for your own peace of mind, and the security of your property. It strikes me that the tenant may have locked himself out, and broken it himself.

Issue the section 21 notice immediately, to expire on the last day of a rent period giving at least 2 months notice, (it could be as long as 3 months) - double check that the rent is monthly, and not weekly, or 4 weekly, etc.. As this makes establishing the last day of a rent period complicated.

If the tenant does not vacate after the expiry of the notice, complete a claim form for possession of property (accelerated procedure) (assured shorthold tenancy), and send it to the County Court with the £150 fee.

If the tenant does not defend the claim, you will get a letter giving you a date on which you can ask for a possession order. Complete this form, and you should get an order granting possession on a particular date.

If the tenant does not vacate on the possession date, complete a warrant for possession of land, and send it to the court with the £90, (I think), fee. The bailiffs will write with a date for eviction.

Does this violate any conditions of the buildings insurance?

Presumably another person could just go and open the door and go in. I assume they could take their stuff in with them and take it over as a squat.

In this neck of the woods landlords are licensed by the local authority and have to meet stringent regulations and inspections. When I moved in to my present flat the first thing I noticed was that the mortice locks were missing on both the front and back doors and there were only yale locks.

I immediately brought this to the attention of the landlord and asked permission to put mortice locks on the doors. He told me this was not possible because he had been instructed to take them off by the council as they "constitute a fire hazard." Apparently, if you wake up with the house on fire and full of smoke there is a good chance you wont find the key to a mortice lock and so you cannot escape.

Landlords are now required to fit yale type locks (of the type described by Ronald Raygun in his post above) as they can be opened from the inside without a key.

I dont condone what your tenant is doing but you could be on thin ice if you tell a court you have insisted that he uses a five lever mortice lock. Best to get the kind of yale lock that RR has referred to and take it from there.

Ellis

"Ellis" wrote

Why? - (AIUI) he's not asking the tenant to use the mortice lock while he's

*inside* the house - he's asking him to use it when he is *OUT*. So there'll be no possibility of getting locked inside with a fire!!

We don't (yet?) have licensing of non-HMO landlords, so I think what Ellis reports applies only to HMOs. With HMOs, it's sometimes likely that occupants will come and go without being aware of whether their co-tenants are in or out, so they may well train themselves to operate an automatic procedure of always locking up just in case no-one is left inside. Then they *could* lock someone in who may not be able to find their key immediately to, er, emerge in an emergency.

If he does not use the mortice lock when inside the house and the yale lock is broken, then any burglar can just walk in, at night when he is asleep. This does not address the OP's concern about security. My point is that mortice locks are obviously viewed negatively by the health and safety people. If the fire service are advising (and in some cases instructing people not to use them) then the OP is going to have a very weak case if he is telling a court that he insists on his tenant having one.

Let me put it this way. If this case applied to my landlord and came to the notice of the council. He would be sent an enforcement notice instructing him to remove the mortice lock and to make good the repairs to the yale lock. He would be given a time scale to carry out the work and if he failed to comply he could and almost certainly would be taken to court and heavily fined.

I think the OP did actually say that when the yale lock was working the tenant did close the door with the lock on. One simple answer would seem to be to repair the yale lock and then you have at least got some level of security. We all have different levels of paranoia (and some live in worse crime areas than others) but for many people a yale lock on the front door is sufficient security.

This is a HMO. It is a house divided in to three flats on the ground, first and second floor. There is a front door and porch door both with yale locks. Each flat is entirely separate from the others. I live on the ground floor and none of the other tenants can lock me in and I cannot lock any of the other tenants in. In this respect it would be no different than my living in a house by myself.

Non-HMO tenants are therefore just as vulnerable to the fire hazards presented by mortice locks. The difference is that non-HMO landlords cannot (at present) be forced to remove them and replace them with yale locks. It does seem though, that mortice locks are out as far as public housing authorities are concerned. I notice that housing association properties ( I formerly lived in two different flats) both had yale-type locks as do the local council houses. .

Ellis

Wait a minute. Surely the whole house is incapable of being either an HMO or a non-HMO. Only each of the independant flats can be either an HMO or not, depending on who lives in it.

Indeed they would be if the common stair only had exits which all needed a key to open from the inside.

My earlier comments about HMO tenants locking each other in were directed at *one* HMO flat occupied by unrelated people, such as students, who'd each have their own room but would share other parts of the flat, such as kitchen, lounge, and the bog. As one person leaves, they would not normally check the whole flat for whether anyone's still there.

Quite, because they're not subject to licensing.

What's an HMO?

Not sure where you are coming from, Ronald. I have just checked the certificate of registration which is in the entrance hall and it names the whole house (the street address) as a "HMO. House of Multiple Occupation.

Again, not sure where you are coming from here. If you live in a house and there is a fire (during the night) you fly downstairs and open the front (or back) door. Tenants in flats have to do the same. The only difference might be that the flat dwellers will probably have locks on their flat doors where as in your own bedroom at home there may not be a lock on the bedroom door. Whether you live in a flat or a house you are faced with the same problem - how to get out of a door which has been locked for the night in the interest of security.

If the lock is a yale type lock that opens from the inside then you have a good chance of getting out even if the house is filled with smoke. If you have to get past a mortice lock and the key is not in the keyhole then you could be in big trouble. Regulations in HMO's forbid the use of mortice locks so that tenants have a better chance of getting out.

Agreed. this is a different scenario from private tenants who have separate flats in a HMO. But I would guess that the same prinicples apply. There would be a requirement to have yale type and not mortice locks on the front (or any other) doors. This would be even more important in this case for the reasons you mention.

That is right. I was simply trying to indicate to the OP what the "official take" is with regard to the provision of door locks in that part of the rented sector which comes under stringent licensing regulations.

Ellis

In message , snipped-for-privacy@aol.com writes

Is it a furnished or unfurnished let? If the latter, whats your problem.?