Search results

Going through the landlord's official complaints procedure. Basically they are saying we are liable as we didn't use the mortice lock, we are saying the landlord are liable as that fact didn't cause the lock to break. Should get their final thoughts soon before we potentially get the independent...

Thanks for the replies. I will go back to the letting agent/landlord and see what they say.

C4.1 and C4.2 talk about taking reasonable care of the property, heated/ventialted etc. and not to make alterations. It doesn't talk about locks specifically, unless not using the mortice lock is an example of not taking reasonable care of the property? We have been at the property for 18...

I think I have found the relevant text from our tenancy agreement: I guess it depends on whether the broken Yale lock is attributable to us not using the mortice lock, even though we couldn't use it (but the landlord didn't know this). I would say the broken Yale lock is attributable to the...

We have paid and we will use the mortice lock in future. Also we are not trying to annoy the landlord, and don't want to as that could clearly backfire, although we probably are. We are just trying to ascertain who is liable; if we are the we should pay if the landlord is liable they should pay.

Yes, the landlord is refusing to pay as the mortice lock wasn't used. The contract doesn't say anything specific regarding this matter so it's really not clear. We have asked them to show us where it states liability is on the tenant but they haven't yet.

Your interpretation of the damage is correct as is your thought regarding the mortice lock, i.e if it was locked the damage will still have occurred, but the burglar not gained entry. It's weird on the other forum Templeton Peck suggested someone has said that all building damage is the...

Yes I have now also asked there after doing a bit of googling, thanks for the thought though!

The metal bit of the lock that normally moves when you turn the key was stuck inside the Yale body, turning the key or handle didn't do anything to release it. I suspect that it would have been broken regardless of the mortice lock, but I dont know and I wouldn't know how to prove an engaged...

So it potentially comes down to whether or not the burglar knew the mortice lock wasn't used? The way I see it there are three scenarios: 1) the burglar didn't know and they attempted to break in and broke the Yale lock, but then couldn't gain entry into the flat because of the mortice lock...

It's just the £100 cost to replace the Yale lock broken. We have paid that at the moment as we couldn't lock the door the night following the burglary.

Sorry for reviving this but it's still ongoing and I suspect in the landlord's favour. Basically we didn't use the additional mortice lock on the door, just the Yale lock. The mortice lock wasn't working, although the landlord wasn't aware of this. So as we didn't use the mortice lock are we...

It does seem like it. If they are liable and we are being told that it is actually us, then that's pretty out of order.

The most pertinent bit I can find is this: "Section F: Additional terms between the landlord and tenant 1. As a condition of entering into this Tenancy Agreement the Tenant shall: Obtain and maintain a policy of insurance to provide a suitable level of cover for...

The flat we rent was broken into and in the process the front door lock was broken. This cost £100 to fix. We had to pay this as we had to get in a locksmith to fix the door on the evening of the burglary. Now the landlord is saying that they aren't liable for this cost as burglary damage is...