It's their property, not yours, and depending on state/lease they have the right to have the locks drilled/replaced at YOUR expense because you are not allowed to lock an owner out of their property.
There are only a few US states which have laws permitting tenants from changing locks and not notifying the owner or giving them a copy (CA, NJ are two). Other states permit tenant to change locks (or don't have explicit rules) but require the tenant to give a copy to the owner (like say NY).
The reason why this is tricky is because in the case of an emergency if the owner of the property needs to make emergency repairs, but cannot because you have locked them out, depending on the law and the lease in question, you could be liable for all of the damage to the property since you barred the owner from making repairs. That could be a 5 or 6 digit lawsuit pretty quickly depending on the property, the emergency and if it's multi or single family. (Think burst pipe in a multi-family flooding other tenants.... very expensive very fast)
A lease prohibiting changing the locks would give the landlords insurance agent palpitations.
Recent Federal pushes into authoritarian areas, while an indicator that things are moving in that direction, do not make the country as a whole "Authoritarian", let alone VERY authoritarian.
We do tend to lean towards protection for owners of property, rather than renters of property (citation needed? In many states there are STRONG protections for non-owners even those squatting on land that is not theirs) That also severely limits the rights of the government to access the property without cause. That seems... decidedly _not_ authoritarian? But certainly skewed towards ownership.
The idea that the owner of a building couldn't perform maintenance as necessary is shocking!
A few hours ago I was summarizing this article to someone in person and concluded with "but this country is very authoritarian", the implication being that the letter and spirit of tennant laws are not widely known, and the more authoritarian cultural norms, biased towards landlords, end up as the de facto rules.
The landlord IS the owner.
They are inseparable. You cannot be pro-landlord and anti-owner, or pro-owner and anti-landlord.
"I'm pro-developers but against programmers!"
"I'm anti-programming, but pro-coding!"
Come on now.
It is in the interests of landlords that as few people owned property as possible. This being pro-landlord is being anti-ownership, numbers-wise.
I'm pro-owernship of property, I'm anti-getting-rich-off-mere-ownership (that is, quite literally, rent seeking).
Someone who only wants the police to have easy access to guns is anti-gun ownership.
Someone who only wants landlords to own property is anti-property-ownership.
And being pro-landlord is exactly that.
TL;DR: all landlords are owners, most owners aren't landlords. And the rent is too damn high.
B: >differing interpretations of property rights The American interpretation is authoritarian. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't make it untrue. The landlords are renting out a dwelling for someone, and because they are the authority of that land they get to enforce rules on who has access to it. That is authoritarian
That has nothing to do with the property owner but "America" based on my read, but I do appreciate this interpretation of the OP. If that's their meaning, I could see why the word comes up.
Do they just wait around until you show up with the key? Smash some windows or kick down the door?
A tenant illegally locking their landlord out and causing delay of several hours for a time-sensitive emergency would almost assuredly get a lot more % liability blame than a tenant who properly gave their landlord a copy of the key and who was able to give access to the plumber immediately.
Hopefully they have enough renters insurance to cover the claim and their insurance company will handle the court side of things when other tenants sue!
That's not the question at hand at all though. The question is what kind of liability you incur by legally locking your landlord out.
IANAL, but I'd guess that if you change the locks in a state where it's not legal to do so you're totally hosed in terms of liability. I have no idea how liable and to what degree renter's insurance would cover you if you change the locks in a state that guarantees your right to do so.
I've rented an over-the-garage studio in the past, and the landlord came in one time without notice when I was away because the supply line to the toilet burst and there was water dripping from the garage ceiling. That's the sort of emergency we're talking about here, where a landlord needs immediate access, and any delay will cause additional structural damage.
This is one of those cases where owners have rights too, and renters who want more rights should consider owning.
(Paraphrased from CA Civ Code 1954)
A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:
- In case of emergency.
- To make necessary or agreed repairs, exhibit the property, or perform move in/out inspections.
- When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
- Pursuant to court order.
It is what it is.
Also it's empowering. One rental I had, prior to the tenancy deposit protection scheme I had a serial con artist landlord. At the end of the tenancy, he billed my entire £600 deposit return to three companies he owned. One for gardening, one for cleaning and one for maintenance. This made it difficult for a claim to be placed upon him. This was without entering the property, because I had changed the locks. The property was left immaculate. I took photos to cover my arse. Edit: to note I completely ripped out the overgrown garden in that time and cleaned it up to the point it was workable and decorated half the place so I added value to his property. He evicted us because he could rent it out for more money.
Retribution was simple. He didn't have a valid address on the tenancy contract. When he asked where to return the keys to, he sent me an SMS to just put them through the letter box. So I did. I put the keys inside a zip lock bag and used an 8 foot bamboo stick to poke them through the letterbox half way down the hall, double locked the security door from the outside and chucked the keys for the actual barrels down the drain in the street. My wife decided to add insult to this injury by spreading marmite all around the inside of the letter box.
The next morning I woke up to about 20 missed calls and 3 voice mails calling me all sorts of names and threatening to kill me and was going to sue me for new locks and a new shirt.
I went and bought another pay as you go SIM and never heard a thing.
Edit: just looked the guy up. He's still going. If you rent in Nottingham, keep an eye out for a cunt who turns up on a motorbike. Ask for a passport or driving license for ID from direct rent landlords, not just business correspondence.
This was the part where you lost my support. That's a bit too petty.
The marmite was deserved. If you’re going to make someone’s life miserable and insecure for six months then we’re going to roll out the red carpet on pettiness.
The best move is to avoid playing the game.
I think the person in question would be in vastly larger amounts of trouble for even raising his head above the cesspool he floated in for a moment. It would be like a chase from the Benny Hill show with local housing enforcement, HMRC, the police and a trail of angry and abused tenants.
The best move is making the game worthless so there are no winners. Shit on the board. It's a stalemate then.
The put the keys through the letterbox thing was actually a masterpiece of idiocy on his part which I refrained from mentioning to him.
Isn't every long-term benefit long-term only in hindsight?
But again, that's probably (very most likely) just the result of me existing in a hyper-litigious culture where In pari delicto is very much a thing.
So in the end we’re not giving any ideas to other people that their actions will have no repercussions.
It's honestly best to cut your losses and walk away.
That may be a criminal act in your jurisdiction. My local laws allow the landlord access, but the landlord needs to provide 48h notice of the inspection (with a list of specific exceptions for emergency work, mostly around plumbing and electrical work) and cannot bar the tenant from being present during the inspection.
Edit: I almost attacked one landlord when I found someone rummaging in a cupboard at night! Landlord was quite indignant when we pointed out he couldn't come and go as he pleased.
He was actually in my 2 year old daughter's bedroom when I opened the door. I heard him leave it and come down the stairs.
Small argument ensued and he sent me an SMS right there on his phone saying that he was coming to do an inspection on date X which was that day. Then said "oh sorry must have been delayed" with a smirk on his face, got back on his motorbike and rode off.
I think I would have phoned the police at that point!
Something about your comment makes me think there's more to this story.
The guy ran umbrella companies to hide his assets and address and to rip people off, got caught going through our stuff.
He’s still a landlord and has been the director of about 12 companies now in the last 20 years all dissolved.
Who’s the bad one? Hmm
Edit: also the place we had after that I rented for 11 years with no problems direct from landlord and they were excellent and we were excellent back.
And you basically did a disservice to all his future tenants by not reporting him to the police after being caught by you illegally accessing your home and destroying your property? By not reacting you basically silently allowed him to keep doing this. I would understand that he had some kind of power over you and you were afraid to react and report him, but you choose to confront him by being asshole to him, without doing the right thing and reporting him to whatever authority in UK is responsible for this.
Because of that, both of you are bad, though he is a bit worse.
Firstly, I spoke to the police and they said they couldn't do anything because I likely couldn't prove he was snooping and couldn't prove that it wasn't against the terms and it wouldn't be worthy of their time investigating it and it was probably a civil or contractual issue. "go see a solicitor". Which I couldn't afford.
Secondly, local housing officer was contacted and I was asked to attend the local council about it and I sat there for 4 hours and was told to go home because they had run out of time. I got a letter apologising and attempts to get a second appointment were fruitless.
This was option three.
This was one of the points in my life I realised there is no magical state run safety blanket who will protect you from dickheads.
35. Landlord's Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment
The Landlord covenants with the Tenant, that, so long as the Tenant pays the rents reserved by and complies with the obligations of this lease, the Tenant shall have quiet enjoyment of the Property without any interruption by the Landlord or any person claiming under the Landlord except as otherwise permitted by this lease.
There are clauses covering emergency entry for repairs (e.g. burst water pipes, leaking gas) in short-term rental agreements but - as others have said - they require "reasonable" notice in almost all cases aside from dire emergency, and the tenant can still refuse entry.
It could still have been illegal, but it was definitely in the lease.
If they turn up unannounced this is actually harassment under UK law.
We had some rather unpleasant slum landlords between the 1950s and 1970s which caused a few laws to be introduced. Unfortunately the nature of being a landlord seems to attract certain people who find new and creative ways to be dicks. Not the majority of landlords I will say who are mostly pretty good, but enough to cause problems.
They probably have to do this repeatedly to meet the threshold for harassment.
For example, $75k in fines:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/02/24/landlord-fined-7...
Now we have a deposit scheme in the UK which stops landlords doing this because the deposit is held in trust. The landlord has to prove it. Therefore there's escrow and a third party involved. Not being in this scheme is illegal and results in fines that go directly to the tenant as well.
This action is not necessary now, but changing the locks still is because it's your personal space and security and you genuinely don't know who has access to that unless you do it. Could even be the previous tenants with key copies.
There are strict protections around section 21 during the "fixed term" (normally 6 months to a year), but after that it's pretty easy to get tenants out even if they've done nothing wrong, and it's common to evict tenants, re-paint, then re-let the property at a big markup.
If you're a tenant in England it's probably a good idea to talk to the landlord each year about a small rent increase.
I can imagine that you can be held liable if, for example, a fire breaks out in your apartment, the apartment owner notices it, tries to enter your apartment to extinguish it, cannot enter because of changed lock, and the building burns down.
[0] as others have mentioned below, this does not seem to be enforceable, even if it is part of the contract, and you are free to change locks after moving in. You only have to give the landlord access to the apartment in case of emergency, and he may enter forcefully if you don't do that (or if you are not present / have changed locks).
I am not a lawyer but I know that this is a common misunderstanding in Germany. The landlord is not allowed to keep a key to the apartment he rented out, unless you're explicitly consent to it.[0]
You have to grant him access in case of an emergency and if you don't do that, forced entry may be legal (like in the case of a pipe burst).
In most US states, landlords are required to give 24 hour notice prior to entering a unit (unless it's a maintenance emergency like a broken water pipe).
>the apartment owner notices it, tries to enter your apartment to extinguish it, cannot enter because of changed lock, and the building burns down.
The fire department/emergency services would absolutely be allowed to (force) enter...why should the landlord be the savior? Perhaps it's different in Germany.
It's not.
Details: https://www.urban.co.uk/landlord-university/questions-and-an...
Ah, yeah I encountered the same in Netherlands. A while back the law changed and some legal liability shifted towards landlords if their tenants were found to be growing cannabis. So my property management company decided that they would do random, unannounced inspections of all their tenants four times per year. Plainly contrary to the authorized, agreed-upon reasons for visits and counter to my right not to be bothered. Cue some unknown to me guy knocking on the door asking to look around. Nope! After I argued with the company a few times and refused them entry they finally stopped pestering me. And I'm not growing cannabis...but neither am I a freshman in a college dorm!
g) Permit the Landlord or the Landlord's agents on reasonable notice and at reasonable hours to enter the premises to view the state and condition thereof and if necessary to carry out repairs, alterations or other works.
s) Not to change or install any locks on any doors or windows of the premises or to make duplicate keys thereto and to return all such keys to the Landlord or the Landlord's agents at the end of the tenancy.
v) To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's agents during the last two months of the tenancy to enter the premises at reasonable hours during the day time together with any prospective tenants or purchasers to view the premises.
But that third term is a deal-breaker. Eight weeks of living in an unsafe, insecure home with no privacy? I'm not paying rent for that.
I'm not Australian, but my sense is that tenants are viewed by the law as something between children and moral degenerates.
EDIT: and landlords are permitted to (and do) "inspect the property for damage" on a six monthly basis. At which point they tell you the day before they'll be poking around in your home. I don't know why we stand for it, frankly.
This is completely wrong. In Germany the apartment owner is not even allowed to keep a copy of the key unless you voluntarily give them one. I live in Germany and I also changed the lock the day I moved in and the landlord is not allow to forbid me from doing that.
If it's not an emergency, then you don't need to enter the apartment without the tenant.
We do it for all properties and highly recommend it, as we’ve had an ex-contractor (had worked on renovations) walk into our rental a week after we moved in, letting himself in with his keys thinking no one had moved in yet. Wifey was on the couch and let out a hell of a yell, and we chased him out before calling the Police.
[1] https://www.advocard.de/streitlotse/mieten-und-wohnen/schlos...
Upon viewing the place, I make explicitly clear that I expect it to be cleaned and anything that's broken shall be fixed prior to my taking possession and that I will consider the contract null and void if it's not. I ensure this is written into the contract so that if it's not taken care of, the contract is null and void the moment possession is granted.
I ensure that the landlord understands that I expect to be allowed to treat this as my home and that I will decorate to my taste for the duration of my occupation of the property.
The locks get changed the day I move in, pictures are taken to record the state of repair before furniture is moved in. I write up an inspection report with copies of the pictures attached and send it to the landlord.
I decorate as I see fit.
When I leave, I put the house back to the same state or better than it was when I arrived. If I have had to replace any appliances that didn't meet my requirements, I put the original appliances back and take mine with me. The place is left as I would expect it to be when I took possession, which is immaculate.
I take pictures as evidence of the cleanliness of the property and hand copies of these with my keys to the landlord the day I move out. This is mostly as a "You know I took pictures of everything when I moved in, and now I've taken pictures of everything as I'm moving out so don't try anything shady or you will be caught in a lie."
If the landlord wishes to complete an inspection during my stay, they can give me the legally required amount of notice so I can be home to let them in and see them out.
In the 25 years I've been renting properties, I have had only 2 landlords on short leases give me any kind of problems. I've never had a security deposit withheld. I've never been evicted and barring these 2 particular landlords, who failed to meet their obligations as landlords - i.e. fix broken water heaters and burst pipes etc. which I had to foot out of my own pocket and then go through arbitration to recover the costs, I've had nothing but cordial relationships with every landlord I've ever had.
I know there's a shit ton of bad landlords out there and that my experience has largely been one of luck given that I rented student digs too and there's plenty of landlords that prey on students who don't know any better; but it horrifies me how many people allow landlords to treat them with anything less than complete respect. It's your home, you're paying for it. They may own the deed. They may pay the mortgage company. They may be responsible for the upkeep. But it's your home. You should ensure the lease/contract allows room for you to treat it as such before you agree to sign it.
I've had applicants who insist on similar changes, and I'll decline their application every time. It sounds like you're a good guest, but without knowing anything more about someone, I take such behaviour as a big red flag.
If a landlord decided to decline me for those requests, I would equally see that as a giant red flag and would likely consider that I'd dodged a bullet.
I'm a great guest. I treat the home I live in - including the landlord and neighbours with the greatest of respect. If the landlord is unwilling to accommodate such changes to the contract, then I would assume that they're unlikely to treat me with the respect I would afford them. All business relationships are a two way street. If that affordance is not forthcoming, I wouldn't consider that any kind of arrangement I wish to pursue or maintain.
So this argument makes little sense to me.
And as another commenter notes - that's what renter's insurance is for.
Renter's insurance?
I thought it was pretty good practice not to have a door with an unknown number of previous tennants, cleaners, letting agents, landlords etc with access.