Well, it seems the forum saga continues, now with new accusations.
As it seems to me, on the thread there are four suggestions as to the law:
- It is illegal for a landlord to hold a set of keys – This has been resolved as human error and our article here.
Then, three new suggestions namely:-
- There is no automatic right for a landlord to hold keys,
- To be safe he should obtain the permission of the tenant but the tenant could rescind this permission anytime, and
- A tenant has a TOTAL RIGHT to change a lock
Let’s start at the beginning. Nobody is disputing anytime throughout the thread that the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment overrules the landlord’s right of entry. This, I entirely accept and will go a step further and actually provide the case law where this comes from.
Exclusive possession is the ability on the part of a tenant to exclude all persons, including the landlord, from possession. [Street v. Mountford  2 W.L.R. 877]
However, the holding of keys by a landlord is not a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment. The question to ask is why those keys are being held. Assuming those keys are being held solely for the purpose of carrying out landlord’s responsibilities such as repairs, gas safety record etc. then the landlord may hold those keys [Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2)  EWCA Civ 2]. However, if the keys are being held for the purpose of entering twice a day just to annoy the tenant, then still the holding of keys are not the breach of quiet enjoyment, it is the entering twice a day that is (I assume case law is not needed for that assertion!)
- 1 There is no automatic right for a landlord to hold keys
- 2 The tenant could rescind this permission anytime
- 3 A tenant has a TOTAL RIGHT to change a lock
- 4 Other miscellaneous
There is no automatic right for a landlord to hold keys
It is respectfully submitted this is incorrect. We live in a free country meaning an individual may do anything they like unless there is some Act of Parliament, Regulations, orders, case law (common-law) or finally contractual term prohibiting or requiring an individual to do or not to do something.
It is an implied covenant of every tenancy granted for a term of less than seven years that “…the lessor, or any person authorised by him in writing, may at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, enter the premises comprised in the lease for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.” [s.11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985].
You will note however, that s.11(6) is only allowing a landlord to enter “for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair“. It is not a covenant allowing the landlord to actually carry out repairs. This is where assured shorthold tenancies have an advantage for landlords and to make our life easier section 16 Housing Act 1988 provides (emphasis added):-
It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy that the tenant shall afford to the landlord access to the dwelling-house let on the tenancy and all reasonable facilities for executing therein any repairs which the landlord is entitled to execute.
As it is an implied term that the tenant shall “afford” access to the landlord, it is in turn an implied (or automatic) right that a landlord may hold keys. (You will also note there is no requirement for prior notice to be given when actually carrying out the repairs, compare with s.11(6) although that doesn’t give an automatic right of entry)
The tenant could rescind this permission anytime
As a landlord has an implied (or automatic) right to hold keys as discussed above, could the tenant rescind this right at anytime? It is respectfully submitted this is not correct. There is no case law to support either way but I think section 11(6) L&TA1985 and section 16 Housing Act 1988 above is sufficient. Parliament could have placed at the end of section 16 that a tenant could opt out of the requirement to afford access upon giving notice for example. However, Parliament have chosen not to and have made the term in every assured shorthold tenancy an absolute right for a landlord with no preconditions attached.
In practical terms, how would this work anyway? Presumably the tenant would need to write to the landlord seeking that the landlord destroys his set of keys? Then what? As with any purported “right” the tenant would presumably need to get a court order enforcing his purported right. Good luck with that is all I can say to the tenant! There is unfortunately no case law to back up what I am saying here (probably for obvious reasons) but I think I can safely say that if a tenant is able to write to me and obtain a court order that I destroy my set of keys, it’s time for me to sell up!
A tenant has a TOTAL RIGHT to change a lock
Again, I cannot agree although I will admit this gives landlord’s more of a problem than if a tenant attempted to seek an order for a landlord to destroy his keys. Firstly though, there is NO “right” for a tenant to change the locks [Bishop v Elliott  11 Ex. 113]
With respect to locks and keys, bolts, and bars, there can be no question, whether properly called fixtures or not, that the tenant cannot remove them; they are as much part of the house, and to go with it, as the doors or windows to which they may be attached or belong … (Coleridge, J)
To say therefore, that the tenant can change the locks as a “right” is no different to saying they can remove the doors and windows to which the lock is attached.
In addition, a term of the tenancy is perfectly acceptable in prohibiting both landlord and tenant changing the locks as long as the purpose of the provision is for allowing the landlord entry in the event of an emergency [Aslan v Murphy (No 1 and 2)  EWCA Civ 2]. If it were a tenant’s right, I’m quite certain the Office of Fair Trading would have added the clause prohibiting changing locks to their very lengthy and detailed list of example terms guidance that are unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations 1999 and suggestions of how to reword them (or delete them).
If however, the tenant has changed locks, the problem that arises is what is the loss suffered to the landlord as a result of the breach of the tenancy? This I do accept makes enforcing the term problematic. For assured shorthold tenancies, the procedure could include a section 8 notice on Ground 12 (breach of the term of the tenancy other than rent). But, Ground 12 is discretionary, so although proving the breach of the term will be relatively easy, the court may make an order for possession only if it considers it reasonable to do so [s.7(4) Housing Act 1988]. Therefore the question becomes does the breach warrant possession? Probably not in my view although I would submit it is close and depends on the individual circumstances of the case. A more likely outcome is that the order for possession may be suspended as long as the tenant provides the landlord with a set of keys for example after which the order would cease.
The alternative would be to bring an action to recover damages for the breach or an action to compel specific performance of the contract.
To summarise therefore, there is NO right to change the locks but once the locks have been changed by the tenant, enforcing the breach is going to be difficult without proving some fairly significant loss to the landlord.
I am slightly annoyed because Bill Morgan and Simon Topple quite rightly got in first by asking about HMO’s. I was hoping to be the first one to point that out! This of course is totally different and I would submit makes it an actual offence for a tenant to change the locks (as opposed to above which is a breach of contract) although it would of course depend on the individual circumstances.
Article 14(2)(f) Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 provides:-
emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;
The order only applies to common parts of buildings (and parts of dwellings which lead onto common parts), so for this example let’s say we have a block of three flats with a common hallway. The landlord has put a keyless exit lock onto the main entrance to the flat which leads onto the means of escape (common hallway) which falls under the fire safety order. The tenant now changes the lock to a normal key operated mortice type. Artcile 32(10) provides (emphasis added):-
Where the commission by any person of an offence under this Order, is due to the act or default of some other person, that other person is guilty of the offence, and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this paragraph whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that it is perfectly possible dependant on the circumstances that a tenant may be guilty of breaching the fire safety order. (This is not an exaggerated case, it is based upon an actual case I had personally in one of our properties).
In addition to Article 32 providing “any person” may be guilty of an offence, Article 17 provides that there must be a system of maintenance and anything required under the order is “in efficient working order and in good repair.” Artcle 17(4) also requires “The occupier of the other premises must co-operate with the responsible person…” in this respect. If there is a term of the tenancy prohibiting changing the locks, it is respectfully submitted to then change the locks is not “co-operating with the responsible person”.
Finally, Article 5(3) provides that a tenant is a “person in control of premises” and therefore can be convicted under the order so far as the extent is covered under the terms of the tenancy. See this question and answer for more on this point.
In respect of HMO’s for which the fire safety order does not apply (for example a house let to 3 unrelated persons on a joint and several tenancy), then, the Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006 apply (Similar provisions for Wales). In which case it is the duty of every occupier to:-
allow the manager, for any purpose connected with the carrying out of any duty imposed on him by these Regulations, at all reasonable times to enter any living accommodation or other place occupied by that person; [r.10(b)]
A failure by the tenant to allow entry is a criminal offence and the occupier would be subject to a fine of up to £5,000. [s.234 Housing Act 2004].
Of course throughout this article, if a tenant has changed the locks but freely allows the landlord entry without any fuss, non of the offences mentioned will necessarily apply (except perhaps the fire safety order).
Breach of the term not to change locks
I don’t propose to go into the full law of valuing damages but as a general consideration, the following applies:-
Damages for breach of contract are calculated on the basis that the injured party should be put in the position in which he would have been if the contract had been performed. Accordingly, where the landlord suffers a loss which he would have suffered even if the contract had been performed, he cannot recover damages in respect of it. [C & P Haulage v Middleton  1 W.L.R. 1461].
In addition, damages must not be too remote. The rules of remoteness may be summarised by stating that damages are recoverable if (1) they may be fairly and reasonably considered as arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, as a result of the breach or (2) they may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties when they made the contract as the probable result of a breach. [Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341] (So for example the tenancy may say what damages are payable if the tenant changes the locks i.e. to pay for replacement locks). [para 4.090 Woodfall Landlord and Tenant]
This therefore goes back to the problem discussed above. Although it may be a breach of the tenancy to change the locks, the question that then arises is what loss has the landlord suffered? If there is no loss, then it’s difficult to seek damages. However, that does not mean there was no breach of the tenancy. For a good example of this principle of a loss must be suffered in a surveyor negligence case see Community Gateway Association Ltd v Beha Williams Norman Ltd  EWHC 2311 (TCC):-
The defendant should have been aware that the £16 million of further works had been promised and should have brought this to the attention of the claimant. In particular, the defendant should have checked the contents of the surveyors report against other records and, had they done so, it would have been clear that the report did not represent a complete list of works. This breach of duty had not, however, led to any loss for the claimant. The additional works which had been promised were not works which any individual tenant was entitled to insist upon but were more in the nature of a wish-list of works, an interpretation borne out by the fact that none of the tenants had complained that these works had not been carried out. [summary commentary, housing view 26 September 2011]
The OFT guidance on unfair terms allows the landlord to charge tenants for replacement locks or keys:-
We would also object to a term requiring payment of damages, to an amount equal to the full former rent, for the period that all the keys are not returned at the end of the tenancy. The costs of replacing the locks, where required, or obtaining replacement keys may be considerably less than the penalty charge demanded. [para 3.52]
A tenant may disentitle himself from claiming damages for disrepair if he refuses to permit the landlord from carrying out repairs, for example by refusing to admit his builder [Granada Theatres v. Freehold Investment (Leytonstone)  Ch. 592, CA; Shine v. English Churches Housing Group  HLR 42, CA.]
In my judgment, accordingly, the defendants gave the plaintiffs sufficiently clear notice of their intention to do the work and sufficient information as to the nature of that work. What then in those circumstances is the result of their being prevented from doing it and of the plaintiffs repairing the slate roof themselves? On the assumption already referred to (viz. that the work which the defendants intended to do would have been a sufficient compliance with their covenant), the result in my judgment is that on this part of the case the plaintiffs could not succeed. In asking for an order on the defendants to repay them for the work which they themselves did, they are asking in substance for damages for breach by the defendants of their repairing covenant. If, however, the plaintiffs prevented the defendants from performing that covenant and then put it out of the defendants’ power to perform it by doing the work themselves, I cannot see how it can be said that the defendants were then or thereafter in breach at all… (Lord Justice Romer – The Granada Theatres).
If a tenant fails to report defects to his landlord, then even in a case where the landlord’s liability is not dependent on notice of a defect, the tenant’s damages may be reduced because of his failure to mitigate his loss. [Minchburn v. Peck (1988) 20 H.L.R. 392, CA.]. It is respectfully submitted the same principle applies should there be an emergency such as a burst pipe for which the landlord may be entitled to enter without notice but couldn’t because of the tenant’s breach of changing locks. It is certainly possible that any damage caused over and above the initial leak (for example) that was directly caused by the delay in gaining access which otherwise would have been prevented, the tenant may well owe the landlord such losses incurred.
Repairs not harassment
Harassment is a criminal offence under section 1(3) Protection from Eviction Act 1977. However, the offence does not extend to a failure to complete building works which had been innocently begun, in the belief that the tenant had consented to them, [R. v Ahmad (1986) 52 P. & C.R. 346] nor to acts intended to cause a residential occupier to vacate premises temporarily for the purposes of enabling work to be done, and resuming occupation thereafter [Schon v Camden London Borough (1987) 53 P. & C.R. 361]. [para 20.028 Woodfall Landlord and Tenant].
Getting into the property
As has already been suggested in the forum thread, until the keys have been returned a landlord should not assume the tenancy has ended without an order from the court and then the county court bailiff. For only then is the tenancy at an end [s.5(1A) Housing Act 1988]. When deciding whether a tenancy is at an end, the question is not whether the tenant is in occupation but whether the tenant intends to return within a reasonable period (known as animus revertendi) [Wigley v Leigh  2 K.B. 305; Beck v Scholz  1 Q.B. 570; Dixon v Tommis  1 All E.R. 725; Hallwood Estates v Flack (1950) 66 T.L.R. (Pt. 2) 368; Shooter v Gaitley (1936) 80 S.J. 74; Herbert v Byrne  1 W.L.R. 519; Brickfield Properties v Hughes (1988) 20 H.L.R. 108.]
An intention to return within 10 years has been held as a reasonable period! [Gofor Investments Ltd v Roberts (1975) 29 P. & C.R. 366] and mere absence in prison does not destroy a statutory tenancy [Maxted v McAll  E.G.D. 171. Brown v Brash,  2 K.B. 247.]
However, assuming there is certainty that the tenancy of a house is terminated, and the tenant has gone away leaving the house locked, the landlord is entitled to break into the house in order to regain possession. [Hillary v Gay (1833) 6 Car. & P. 284] The fact that the tenant leaves furniture in the premises does not make the break-in unlawful [Turner v Meymott (1823) 1 Bing. 158].
The tenant “owns” the home for a specified period
I entirely accept the many comments in the thread that the tenant is in effect an “owner” of the dwelling throughout the period of the tenancy. This is a useful term to explain to novice landlords in a quick and easy sense the massive thing they are doing when letting property. However, those on the forum seem in my view more than novice landlords. The actual reality is that they are in essence owners of the property but importantly that ownership is “subject to conditions”. If any of those conditions are broken then the ownership maybe brought to an end even before the agreed period has elapsed (by way of an order from the court). Just because the tenant owns the property doesn’t mean they can treat the property as though they actually own it in all circumstances and it is for this reason that the terms of the tenancy are so very important.