Here is a question to the fast track blog clinic from Vidhya who is a tenant
I was mugged and had my house keys in my handbag (which did not have any identifiable data to trace my home address to). My landlord wants to charge me to change the 4 security locks (2 on the main door and 2 on the flat door which are all security locks) and provide 2 sets of replacement keys for the 8 flats in the building including a further 5 sets for myself, the landlord and the rental agency.
He has quoted me £471 for the main door change and the 16 keys plus another £350 for the flat door and keys.
1. As I was mugged and have a crime reference number will I be liable for the cost as I was not negligent?
2. My home contents insurance would not cover it but my landlord has insurance, why can it not be taken from the insurance?What legal standing do I have?
My tenancy agreement states:18 Locks
18.1 The Tenant will not install or change any locks in the Premises without the Landlord’s prior written consent, except in the case of an emergency.
18.2 The Tenant agrees that if any additional keys are made the Tenant will deliver all keys to the Landlord at the conclusion of the tenancy and in the event that any such keys have been lost the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord all reasonable costs incurred by the Landlord in replacing the locks to which the lost keys belong.
18.3 The Tenant agrees that if any lock is installed or changed in the Premises without the Landlord’s prior written consent then the Tenant will forthwith remove and replace the same if so required by the Landlord and make good any resulting damage.Since it says lost not stolen/mugged do I have any legal way of stopping him from asking me for £700?
Answer
You can’t stop him asking for it – the question is, are you liable to pay it?
The first thing to consider are the words “in the event that any such keys have been lost”. What exactly does this mean? Does it include loss through the keys being stolen?
‘Lost’ v. ‘Stolen’
Looking on the internet there are various definitions of the word ‘lost’
- that has been taken away or cannot be recovered
- no longer possessed or retained
- no longer held, owned, or possessed
- missing or unable to be found or it can mean something that was wasted or not used in a valuable way. An example of lost used as an adjective is lost money which means money that has vanished due to a bad investment.
Here are some definitions of the meaning of ‘to lose’
be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something).
“I’ve lost my appetite”
synonyms: be deprived of, suffer the loss of, no longer have, stop having
“he’s lost a lot of blood but his life is not in danger”become unable to find (something or someone).
“I’ve lost the car keys”
synonyms: mislay, misplace, be unable to find;Lose definition, to come to be without (something in one’s possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery:
Simple Definition of lose. : to be unable to find (something or someone) : to fail to win (a game, contest, etc.) : to fail to keep or hold (something wanted or valued)
lose meaning, definition, what is lose: to no longer have something because you do not know where it is:
I think it is arguable that there is a difference between losing the keys and having them stolen from you, but it is a debatable point – for example, one of the definitions above does include the word ‘theft’. But only one of them.
You could maybe argue that the word ‘lost’ implies that there is some fault on behalf of the tenant – for example losing keys by leaving them on the bus, whereas there can be no fault on your part if they were stolen by being mugged on the street.
You could also say that if the clause was intended to include stolen items it should have said so. And that if it did, it would be an unfair clause as you should not be held responsible for something which was not your fault.
I am not aware of any legal cases on whether the word ‘lost’ includes ‘stolen’ – does anyone know of any?
The problem is I suppose, if the cost of the keys was something like £20 people would be less likely to argue about it. It is the replacement cost of £821 which is the real problem. Which leads us on to:
Reasonable cost
The clause also refers to ‘reasonable cost’ and this is another factor to take into account. Is £821 a reasonable cost for the loss of two keys?
It is certainly an unexpectedly large sum. Most people would probably expect to have to pay something in the order of £50 for getting several copies of a couple of keys cut. You might perhaps do some investigation – for example, contact the company which makes the locks and verify with them that the landlords quote is correct.
Then, were you ever warned that the loss of the keys would be so expensive? For example, so you could protect your position by taking out insurance? If you were, then this would make the landlords claim more likely to be considered fair.
Bear in mind also that the landlord has to protect the security of the other tenants, and he only has your word for it that a note of your address was not in your handbag. If the other tenants are all burgled as a result of this he would be strongly criticised for failing to deal with the lock replacement.
Dealing with deposit adjudications
If you refuse to pay up then the landlord will probably make a deduction from your deposit. You would then be able to refer this to the adjudication service provided by all of the schemes. How would they deal with it?
The starting point in all adjudications is that the deposit money is the tenants and so to be entitled to an award, the landlord must prove – with reference to the tenancy agreement terms – that the tenant is liable for the item claimed and also that the sum claimed is a reasonable one.
As discussed, it is arguable in your case that this is not covered by the tenancy agreement terms. However, it would depend on the adjudicators definition of the word ‘lost’ in your tenancy agreement. And also on whether he or she felt that the sum claimed was a reasonable one in all the circumstances.
So far as insurance is concerned, it is hard to say whether or not this would be covered by the landlords insurance as we do not have sight of his policy. If you are a landlord reading this – would it be covered by YOUR policy?
£821 is a large sum for the loss of two keys and this in itself could be a reason for arguing that it should have been covered by the landlords insurance.
Two options
There are two possible ways to deal with this:
1. Refuse to pay and if the landlord then deducts it from your deposit – ask for this to be referred to adjudication
2. Try to negotiate a settlement (with the proviso that if you are unable to reach agreement you will want the matter referred to adjudication).
For example, you could offer, without prejudice, to pay half.
If the matter is referred to adjudication, I would suggest you make all the points in this post and be sure to include a copy of the police report.
The problem with the costs of the keys…..
The landlord wishes to use keys that a tenant cannot copy (restricted keyway, something like the “Mul T Lock Interactive Plus”); this requires an expensive lock and a key that can only be copied by the maker of the lock. Hence copies of the keys are expensive as well. Then there is the cost of getting the new keys to ALL the tenants quickly, given that some of them may be on holiday etc. (The landlord does not seem to be charging for that admin cost.)
(At least the front door was not part of a key system so it could be opened by the keys to all the flats. If it was, then ALL the flats would have needed new locks.)
I would expect this to be covered by the tenants insurance; it was covered on our content insurance when we were tenants. (But I can’t recall the limit for a claim.)
I expect the landlord used their normal locksmith, as the lock needed changing quickly, rather than shopping round for the best price. Most of these types of locks are only sold by locksmiths so “list price” may have to be paid.
This is one of the reasons that more electronic locks are being used on shared front door, as they enable a single key card to be cancelled. But if the battery fails….
this is a problem that one of my tenants has had before.
it was a problem that can happen to anyone at any time .
we were advised by our letting agent to make it clear that the tenant had to accept full responsibility for the total cost of replacing all keys to the block of flats and the recoding or all communal key fobs.
there are many companies out there that will insure the tenant for this at a very small cost
in our case the tenant did insure his keys and only had to pay the small fee for insurance (less than £15)
when he was reminded of this his face was a joy to see ..
some three weeks latter another tenant in the block had her bag stolen whilst out, and was shocked to find out that she was responsible for replacing all the locks again at her own expense
two sets of door locks and keys to tenant
two sets of door keys for the agents
two sets of garage door locks and keys
one set of garage door keys for agents
four electronic key fobs
and the re programming of all 8 tenants key fobs to both entrances to flats and to garages
to say she was not a happy bunny with the invoice for over £1000.00 for lock and key replacements and re programming .
the ironic point of this is even worse she is a police officer and some time latter in conversation with her she pointed out that had she had insurance it would have been much easier on her as her bag was found keys intact some three days after all the locks had been changed
the locksmith was good to her though as he agreed that as he had no keys to the locks that he had replaced he would return them to her
now she is a seriously unhappy bunny as she has locks with keys and no doors to fit them to and key fobs to doors that they wont open because they have been re coded
Just for the sake of it people GET INSURANCE
As a general rule, ambiguity in a tenancy agreement will be construed against the landlord. This is a poorly drafted clause, and provides sufficient wriggle room to make the landlord consider doing a deal. There is a tendency toward a strict interpretation of clauses even where it leads to a commercially absurd result, see Arnold v Britton last year.
The clause (my emphasis):
*if any additional keys* are made the Tenant will deliver all keys to the Landlord at the conclusion of the tenancy and in the event that *any such keys* have been lost the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord all reasonable costs incurred by the Landlord in *replacing the locks* to which the lost keys belong.
The below are not the strongest arguments in the world, but combined with the “lost” point it might be enough to give the landlord a headache and split it 50/50 with you:
No additional keys have been made, and it is only to these that the clause refers.
The obligation is to pay to replace the locks, not the keys relating to them.
@gbbarrister
Personal view only, this does not constitute advice.
Thanks David, thats much better than my answer!
I am a landlord, just so everyone knows where I’m coming from, and so my natural tendency would be to expect the tenant to pay for the keys and locks, that’s the subjective bit. The rational bit is that the article says only one definition explicitly states that theft is part of lost ie part of the definition of lost but it totally glosses over the fact that the every single one of the definitions of lost applies to the keys. It doesn’t matter if the keys were stolen, lost, encased in concrete and dropped into a live volcano. If you read those definitions then each definition correctly describes the state of the keys ie not recoverable to the landlord at the end of the tenancy that seems totally clear and also totally applicable to the keys in this case. I don’t think that the definition of lost vs stolen will help the tenant but then you know where I’m placed in this scenario so maybe my view point is subjective although I clearly think not.
In relation to the point in the article that suggests including stolen in the clause that defines the liability of the tenant as being unfair/unlawful or unenforceable I am not sure that is logical ether. If I lend something, anything, to another person and it is stolen when in their possession then I think that they are still legally bound to return that item/s to me or make restitution for not returning them. That doesn’t seem unfair/unlawful or unenforceable to me.
I know the old saying “The law is an ass” but is it really that much of an ass that it allows one person in charge of another persons property to divest themselves of responsibility given that they agree to take on responsibility for that property. It just goes against common sense.
I do agree however that the cost of the locks is prohibitive but putting aside the cost I think that the principle of who is responsible is clear to my mind.
I always advise tenants to take out insurance for their personal possessions including keys to the flat as my contents policy only includes furniture and furnishings I have supplied but cannot be sure they do so. Costs of replacement keys and especially the security ones that cannot be cut by another locksmith are very high but do provide the landlord and tenants with better security as previous tenants cannot keep extra sets of keys.
It is a tricky one as how can it be proved in every circumstance that the keys were stolen or just lost. And we’re address details with them or not? It is just someone’s statement but not proof. Perhaps an answer would be to add lost key insurance to the landlords contents policy if the premium was not substantial. Relying on tenants to do this insurance could be risky and their deposit individually might not cover the cost in a shared flat just where the replacing the keys would be higher.
If it isn’t too late and is not a daft question if there was no way that through the mugging the location the keys would fit why do all the locks need changing as opposed to just issuing fresh keys to this tenant – at a cost she may be happy to bear?