Who's responsible

[Marney]

Hi all,

Does anyone have any thoughts re the following?

My property was broken into whilst the tenant was out and a spare set of keys was stolen. The property manager thus changed all the locks, which cost over a thousand dollars and billed me, advising me that I can claim it on my building insurance.
I'm not sure that I am the one who should be paying for this. Firstly, is it negligence on the part of the tenant to have left the keys where they could be stolen?
Secondly, because it was theft of contents (as opposed to building)
that this matter arises from, maybe the tenant has to take more responsibility for what has happened.
Does anyone know a NSW/ACT sollicitor who would have knowledge of this sort of thing?
Thanks.

 

[Xenia]

Hmmm.... If you didn't authorise for the locks to be changed I would argue that you don't have to pay the bill!

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

I agree with Xenia - but it's not the tenants fault either. That's like saying that if their t.v. got stolen, they shouldn't have left it out to be stolen. What are they supposed to do? Put everything in a lock up storage space everytime they go out? Are they to blame because someone else broke in?

I would say that the property manager is at fault here - like Xenia said, they changed the locks without your authorisation. A guy I used to flat with got a set of keys cut (unbeknownst to me) after I kicked him out for reasons which shall remain private. He broke in while I was at work, so I got the locks changed - which I paid for (it was only $70 though) as I discussed with the landlord and we agreed that was the fairest outcome.

Mark

 

[buzzlightyear]

Marney,

I am assuming a NSW property here. Under Residential Tenancies Act (NSW) under locks and security, they do not allow either the landlord or tenant to change or remove locks without the permission of the other except for;

* in an emergency
* with a resonable excuse
* with an order from the CTTT

Under urgent repairs, one of the conditions is that any fault that causes the premises to be unsafe or not secure

I would argue that the changing of the locks in the circumstances you mention is not unreasonable given the above. The thieves did steal the keys! I wouldn't feel secure in those circumstances either.

The cost is another issue though. Over a $1000 seem pretty high, but we don't know your property.

Maybe legal advice will tell you differently. Depending on that advice maybe the tenant would be willing to cover the cost of the excess from your insurance?

 

[Marney]

It's a 4 bedroom house in Canberra.

 

[Dazz]

Marney,

As with most other threads on this forum like this one....and there are hundreds of them with differing twists - believe me, it's always the same....the residential Landlord gets diddled, thinks something just isn't right and/or fair, and then asks why they should always have to cough up with the dollars, looking for any such way to wriggle out of it...it being the subject no-one ever talks about when the phone calls are made - who pays ??

1. Tenant ain't even responsible for breathing or anything remotely lower on the priority scale....OK...no joy there. Read your RTA from cover to cover. It hasn't been written and legislated with your best financial interests at heart.

2. PM ain't responsible for much either....read the very very fine print and sub clauses of the agreement between yourself and them. It's usually extremely clear, especially if a branch of the local REI has drawn it up in their "standard" format, and almost always states you hold them harmless for most things other than gross provable negligence on their part. The principal of the business usually won't do business with you any other way. This ain't even close. No joy there.

3. That only leaves your lap....welcome to the wonderful world of being a residential Landlord.


Look on the bright side - it's all small chump change right...compared to the capital gains you're getting, or so everyone keeps saying.

 

[geoffw]

1. Checkout your landlord insurance first. If they can cough up, it's not worth the hassle or cost of taking it further.
2. $1000 for changing locks sounds hugely excessive. Can this be justified?

 

[buzzlightyear]

$1000 for changing locks sounds hugely excessive. Can this be justified?

. The cost is another issue though. Over a $1000 seem pretty high, but we don't know your property.

Was the work done out of normal hours ie emergency. I know locksmiths charge a premium for any work during those times. That may have attracted a premium which may partly explain the additional cost?

 

[Ricardo29]

locks and keys replacement by theft, is a pretty hit and miss affair insurance wise.

good policies cover it, poorer cheaper policies do not. 50/50 chance id suggest.

limits are generally $500....$800 (why an insurer would set 800 i dont know)....or $1000.

which may mean you aint going to be covered on such, or only up to a limit which isnt perhaps adequate. $1000 is not uncommon replacement costs on a full home, depends on keyed window locks as well, they certainly cost a bit.

i think its a fair act from pm...only protecting your interests. but a quick phonecall to allow you to check your insurance policy might have been the pm's first phonecall i wouldve thought.

 

[tubs]

You could get another quote from a different locksmith and if its cheaper, get the PM to be responsible for that amount.

If they'd done the right thing and asked for your permission, you would have had the opportunity to choose the cheaper locksmith.

 

[sailor]

I'd certainly query the cost of replacing those locks...seems a tad excessive to me. I'm also of the opinion that despite not getting prior approval from you, the PM acted in your best interest. I would be concerned if the PM did absolutely nothing in this case. Hopefully your insurance will cover most of the cost.

 

[Marney]

A win/win outcome

After querying my PM about the matter she decided to ask the tenant to pay for half of the expense, so I only ended up paying about $600. I feel this was a fair outcome and am satisfied with it.

 

[geoffw]

A good outcome Marney- without legal expenses. Well done.

 

[Programmer]

After querying my PM about the matter she decided to ask the tenant to pay for half of the expense, so I only ended up paying about $600. I feel this was a fair outcome and am satisfied with it.

It might seem I'm a little more sus than your average bear but I reckon something's a little weird here;

- Did the tenant do something (like accidently leave something unlocked etc) to render the property unsecure, or did it actually get broken into? If so, fair enough;

- Win/Win? The tenant had to pay maybe $400 to feel secure again. A win for you and the PM, not the tenant. Are you actually aware of the tenant being notified?

If the tenant did not do anything to leave the place unsecure then I reckon they'd have a right to be fairly 'peeved' about this. They've left the place secure and it's been broken into.

Bit late now but I would have double-checked that the PM is not spinning it somehow, or the tenant is hiding something else - maybe knowing the culprit?

If all is kosher then I'd be sending that tenant a Xmas presi.