Changing the locks

Raekwon

Okay this is a tricky one (& long one) so bear with me.

I moved into an apartment last January. Around 6 weeks into the lease I was getting out of the shower at around 10am and was shocked to see some Polish guy standing in the hallway looking around. He claimed that he was a plumber and he was there to check the boiler, but I was never told that he was coming and there was nothing wrong with the boiler. He said that he works for the company that own the building and that he has a key for all the apartments.

After I booted him out I rang the estate agent & landlord but I couldn't get through to either of them plus they never got back to me even though I left a couple of messages. Obviously I wasn't to happy about strange people being able to just walking into my apartment, so I decided to change the locks (with a view to change them back when I was moving out). I know that this is a direct violation of the lease that I signed but so was letting somebody else enter my apartment without making an appointment with me in advance. (Btw, now that the locks are changed I have noticed that the handle on the door has become loose like somebody was tampering with it!)

Anyway, nearly 12 months on I am planning on extending my lease and I called the landlord to have a chat. He agreed and said that they he will send out a new lease within the next 4 weeks. Fine I thought. He then asked did I change the locks??? I said no (because I can change them back at anytime) and I asked him why. He said no reason and we ended our conversation.

This has got me worried for a number of reasons. Firstly how does he know the locks where changed? He has never been to the apartment when I have been living there and I have had no problems so nobody should have been trying to get in at anytime this year. Secondly if he knows for sure that I changed the locks, can boot me out no questions asked? (Even though somebody has a spare key for my apartment and has entered it uninvited).

Kipperhell

You really don't have the right to change the locks. As the landlord is suspicious you changed the locks lying to him was probably not the best move.

While they landlord should always give you notice when planning to enter a property misunderstandings happen. If you are using any additional labour they can easily get some details wrong such as which place has boiler issues.

You appear to be the unreasonable person. The landlord has the right to be able to enter his property in case of emergencies so must be given copies of the keys.

MysticalSoul

In apartments, if under a Management Company, you are supposed to give a spare key to someone, in case there are leaks etc coming from the apartment above you etc.

ixoy

irishamethyst wrote: »

In apartments, if under a Management Company, you are supposed to give a spare key to someone, in case there are leaks etc coming from the apartment above you etc.

Aren't they obliged to notify you regardless? No attempt seems to have been made here.

homeOwner

Two wrongs dont make a right. I think you should change the locks back to the old ones for the time being. Then request in writing to the agency that they notify you in writing of any attempts to enter the apartment.

If the situation occurs again call the police and report the intruder. If you are not notifed prior to a stranger entering the apartment as far as you are concerned it is a break in - how would you know the difference.

I do sympathise with your situation it cannot have been pleasant but make sure you dont break the law either.

MysticalSoul

ixoy wrote: »

Aren't they obliged to notify you regardless? No attempt seems to have been made here.

No, as is a nominated person of your choice. I imagine such a person would be nominated by the Landlord here though, so reckon talking to landlord about this would be the best way to go forward.

Raekwon

Kipperhell wrote:

You appear to be the unreasonable person. The landlord has the right to be able to enter his property in case of emergencies so must be given copies of the keys.

Why am I an unreasonable person? If you were renting an apartment and somebody entered your house/apartment uninvited would you be completely unfazed & offer them a cup of tea?

Anyway if there was an emergency then the landlord can contact me and I can arrange to let him in. A landlord cannot enter his property uninvited when a tenant is occupying it. By law he has to give me adequate noticed of when he wants to view his apartment and I have to be present when he is there.

Raekwon

homeOwner wrote:

Two wrongs dont make a right. I think you should change the locks back to the old ones for the time being. Then request in writing to the agency that they notify you in writing of any attempts to enter the apartment.

If the situation occurs again call the police and report the intruder. If you are not notifed prior to a stranger entering the apartment as far as you are concerned it is a break in - how would you know the difference.

I do sympathise with your situation it cannot have been pleasant but make sure you dont break the law either.

I totally agree with this. I am of course going to change the locks back even though I am still uncomfortable about the fact that some people seem to think that it's okay to allow strangers to waltz into a private residence unannounced.

I'll be sure to sort this out with the landlord in due course, hopefully he will see both sides of this argument.

Thanks for all the feedback!

Afuera

Raekwon wrote: »

if he knows for sure that I changed the locks, can boot me out no questions asked? (Even though somebody has a spare key for my apartment and has entered it uninvited).

Under Irish law, it would be totally unenforceable for him to throw you out on those grounds alone. If he said you have broken the tems of the lease and attempts to serve you notice because of that, all you have to do is put the original locks back and dispute that the lease was ever broken. If he claims that he could not enter the property before, then you can raise the point that this must have been without your permission since you have no recollection of when he requested to enter your home. There's no way for the landlord to conclusively prove that you're breaking the terms of the lease without admitting that he has broken the law himself. The problem with Irish law though is that he could find any other number of reasons to kick you out such as the need to redecorate, let a family member use the property etc. if he felt you were going to cause him trouble.

Kipperhell wrote: »

You appear to be the unreasonable person. The landlord has the right to be able to enter his property in case of emergencies so must be given copies of the keys.

As a tenant how can it be unreasonable to expect quiet and exclusive enjoyment of the property he's paying for? Based on the lack of response from the landlord and agency in the first place, this appeared to be the only way to guarantee it. On occasion, the emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) also have the right to enter a premises. They don't need a key to achieve this.

The Chessplayer

Raekwon wrote: »

Why am I an unreasonable person? If you were renting an apartment and somebody entered your house/apartment uninvited would you be completely unfazed & offer them a cup of tea?

Anyway if there was an emergency then the landlord can contact me and I can arrange to let him in. A landlord cannot enter his property uninvited when a tenant is occupying it. By law he has to give me adequate noticed of when he wants to view his apartment and I have to be present when he is there.

I would go apesh!t if a maintenance guy let himself into my apartment without the management company giving me written notification of an appointment. Sounds like you had no option given that he wouldn't answer your calls. I added a lock on my place, but I own it so it's no-one else's business.

Does the landlord own the entire block? Sounds like he asks the caretaker to keep an eye on things for him, perhaps to check now and again that it isn't being sub-let (e.g. 4 people in a 1 man apt), or to make sure you're not living like a savage. Either way, they have no right to invade your privacy like that.

Don't know why you didn't tell him about the locks - after all, he never returned your calls.

Raekwon

Cheers to the last couple of posters! That was the type of response/advice that I was looking for when I started this thread.

To answer your questions, as far as I know the landlord owns the entire building but he doesn't deal directly with tenants, he uses an estate agent for this. As you can imagine I had to jump through a few hoops to get hold of him personally. I agree with the theory that he possible asked a caretaker to check the place over when I wasn't there and looking back he did entre the apartment at 10am on a Tuesday morning possibly thinking I was out.

The only reason I said I didn't change the locks when he asked me was because I always had planned to put them back on when ever he made an appointment to view the apartment. The fact that he questioned the locks being changed just further proves that he (or somebody under his instuction) was trying to enter the property without my consent yet again, which is totally unreasonable of him.

I agree that it is a landlords market, they can pick and choose who they want in their property but they really do need to respect their tenant’s privacy especially when people are paying the ridiculous rents that they are charging (which are all increasing I might add!)

Kipperhell

Afuera wrote: »

As a tenant how can it be unreasonable to expect quiet and exclusive enjoyment of the property he's paying for? Based on the lack of response from the landlord and agency in the first place, this appeared to be the only way to guarantee it. On occasion, the emergency services (police, ambulance, fire) also have the right to enter a premises. They don't need a key to achieve this.

It isn't it is unreasonable to change locks and then lie about it. A landlord has many reasons to enter a property and they shouldn't involve breaking a lock to his own property.
The tenant does not have the right to change the locks regardless.

OP just because certain people agree you did the right thing it does not mean you have done the right thing or the landlord will accept you lying or changing the locks. Just because you think somebody must have tried to enter the place to figure out you changed the locks doesn't make it so. Somebody might have seen you doing it! He has little grounds to kick you out now but he may get very annoyed and take any other action the wrong way.

Afuera

Kipperhell wrote: »

A landlord has many reasons to enter a property and they shouldn't involve breaking a lock to his own property.

Out of those "many reasons" can you give one in which they would need to enter without prior permission from the tenant?

seamus

Kipperhell wrote: »

A landlord has many reasons to enter a property and they shouldn't involve breaking a lock to his own property.

Nobody has permission to enter a property where someone else is living, without their consent. Landlord, maintenance man, emergency, it's all irrelevant. The landlord cannot enter the property without permission from the resident. The maintenance cannot enter the property without permission from the resident. If there's an emergency and they break in to fix it, the resident can bring charges of trespass (though a judge would probably laugh at them).

Someone nominated as a "keyholder" for a property is someone who has the permission of the resident(s) of that property to enter without notice. Just because someone has a key to a property, does not mean thay have permission to enter it.

Changing the locks would only be a breach of your lease if the lease specified that such changes had to be approved by the landlord. Though if you do change the locks, common sense would dictate that you inform the landlord (after all, he should be doing it) and provide him with a key.

But to re-iterate, nobody has permission to enter your home without your permission, period. Ok, so a Garda holding a search warrant can, but nobody else can

SimpleSam06

Another lovely shambles from the Irish tenancy rights system...

Raekwon wrote: »

I agree that it is a landlords market, they can pick and choose who they want in their property but they really do need to respect their tenant’s privacy especially when people are paying the ridiculous rents that they are charging (which are all increasing I might add!)

Its not actually a landlord's market, or at least it won't be shortly. Rental properties on Daft have spiked sharply upwards in the last month, it will soon be very much a tenant's market, as properties are pulled off the for sale list and put on the for rent list. Expect rental rates to drop soon in many areas.

And yes, landlords have no right to enter a property without arranging a prior appointment. Not that that stopped a few of the beauts I have witnessed, one lady woke up on the couch after coming off the night shift to find the nasty old geezer looming over her. Needless to say the PRTB was as useless as usual in that case.

Raekwon

Kipperhell wrote:

OP just because certain people agree you did the right thing it does not mean you have done the right thing or the landlord will accept you lying or changing the locks. Just because you think somebody must have tried to enter the place to figure out you changed the locks doesn't make it so. Somebody might have seen you doing it! He has little grounds to kick you out now but he may get very annoyed and take any other action the wrong way.

If you read my original post again you will see that I knew what I was doing was wrong but under the circumstances I felt like I had no alterative. I have a PC, laptop, tv/dvd and other valuables lying around, I cannot afford to a take the chance of leaving the apartment vulnerable to another intrusion.

Anyway, at the end of the day, it is the landlord's word against mine. When I change the locks back *I will deny them ever been changed in the first place then if he challenges me on it I will ask him to prove it. Of course he won't be able to. The only thing he can say is that he tried to get into the apartment (without my permission) and he couldn't, so assumed that the locks were changed. He is then openly admitting to be in violation of the lease agreement and tried to enter my apartment without my permission. There was no other way he would know that the locks were changed.

*Worst case scenario.

Afuera

seamus wrote: »

Changing the locks would only be a breach of your lease if the lease specified that such changes had to be approved by the landlord.

Are you sure this is correct seamus? As far as I was aware, if you want to make any changes to the decorations/fittings of a rental property in Ireland, you have to get written permission from the landlord. The thing is though that when it comes to changing the locks, it is completely un-enforceable. Since the landlord requires prior permission to enter, they have no legal way of finding out whether the locks are being changed or not. Also, if someone has no legal right to enter a property without permission, it's hard to see why they should be granted "keyholder" status against the better judgement of the tenant in the firstplace. It appears to be another example of how ill-thought out our Landlord-Tenant legislation is.

Borzoi

seamus wrote: »

Nobody has permission to enter a property where someone else is living, without their consent. Landlord, maintenance man, emergency, it's all irrelevant. But to re-iterate, nobody has permission to enter your home without your permission, period. Ok, so a Garda holding a search warrant can, but nobody else can

Not so fast there Seamus.. Many managed apartment blocks have a clause allowing the management company (or their agent) to enter the premises in an 'emergency' situation. If the landlord knows what they're at the general tenancy lease will refer to the agrement between the landlord (owner of the apartment) and the ManCo (owner of the overall structure). And that the tenant agrees to those provisions. Unfortunately very few tenants read those leases that carefully. So it is possible to have waived those general rights to privacy.

Not to say it applies in this case - but it can do.

Afuera

Borzoi wrote: »

Many managed apartment blocks have a clause allowing the management company (or their agent) to enter the premises in an 'emergency' situation.

The clauses in a management agreement can not take away from the rights that a tenant has from the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Permission to enter the premises must always be sought from the tenant.

SimpleSam06

Borzoi wrote: »

Not so fast there Seamus.. Many managed apartment blocks have a clause allowing the management company (or their agent) to enter the premises in an 'emergency' situation.

Despite the inflated opinion many management companies have of themselves, they cannot rewrite the Irish statute books. Waive their rights indeed.

seamus

Borzoi wrote: »

Not so fast there Seamus.. Many managed apartment blocks have a clause allowing the management company (or their agent) to enter the premises in an 'emergency' situation. If the landlord knows what they're at the general tenancy lease will refer to the agrement between the landlord (owner of the apartment) and the ManCo (owner of the overall structure). And that the tenant agrees to those provisions. Unfortunately very few tenants read those leases that carefully. So it is possible to have waived those general rights to privacy.

As others have said, such clauses and leases wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on. You can't sign away your basic legal or constitutional rights in a contract. Thankfully

The Irish constitution says that "The home is inviolable, save in accordance with the law". The only laws on the books that allow violations deal with the Gardai entering to execute search or arrest warrants and a couple of other fringe items. No civilian is granted any powers by the law to enter another person's home for any reason.

Many people don't realise this though and think that they're bound to the worthless contracts they've signed. I've heard of people buying apartments and then saying they can't get a pet because "The management company says so". :rolleyes:

Where a resident has signed an agreement saying that, "The management company may enter my property for an emergency", that doesn't make it legally binding, but presented in court it could easily crap all over any trespass action (provided that it actually was an emergency). A tenant doesn't "inherit" any agreements between the landlord and management company, so anything the landlord signed in regards to the inside of the property is irrelevant.

Borzoi

seamus wrote: »

. I've heard of people buying apartments and then saying they can't get a pet because "The management company says so". :rolleyes:

There's a difference between "The management company says so" and "the lease that I have signed says so" - and for what it's worth in my opinion a ManCo having a blanket ban is unlikely to hold water.


As for the other matters, IANAL, but if on paper you've agreed to something -it's likely to stick.

seamus

Borzoi wrote: »

There's a difference between "The management company says so" and "the lease that I have signed says so" - and for what it's worth in my opinion a ManCo having a blanket ban is unlikely to hold water.

Of course, the landlord can specify "No Pets", it's his property.

But a lot of people who actually buy apartments to live in seem to think of the management company as some sort of pseudo landlord who can make rules about people not having pets or music or putting up pictures. All of the residents tend to agree to a set of "rules" with the management company, and sign them, but ultimately they are mostly non-binding. You cannot agree with your neighbour that he can't (for example) get a dog and then sue him when he gets one.

As for the other matters, IANAL, but if on paper you've agreed to something -it's likely to stick.

Only if it's not superseded by legal, constitutional or other rights. Contracts and agreements are generally the lowest item in the pecking order so if you can find a law that provides the right to do X, you cannot sign that away.

Victor

Raekwon, I think it was unwise to lie - you should have just said that you had changed the locks because you found some random bloke wandering around the apartment when you came out of the shower.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a2704.pdf

Residential Tenancies Act 2004, Part 2, Section 16-17

16.—In addition to the obligations arising by or under any other enactment, a tenant of a dwelling shall—

(l) not alter or improve the dwelling without the written consent of the landlord which consent the landlord—
(i) in case the alteration or improvement consists only of repairing, painting and decorating, or any of those things, may not unreasonably withhold,
(ii) in any other case, may, in his or her discretion, withhold,

17.—(1) In section 16—
‘‘alter or improve’’, in relation to a dwelling, includes—
(a) alter a locking system on a door giving entry to the dwelling, and

You may not alter or improve the locks on a door between the property and the outside.

One might be able to fit a separate, additional locking system (you can't improve the existing system though), provided it doesn't do any damage.

At common law (and probably under Occupier Liability Act, 1995) you may not set a trap to catch or injure a trespasser.

seamus wrote: »

The Irish constitution says that "The home is inviolable, save in accordance with the law". The only laws on the books that allow violations deal with the Gardai entering to execute search or arrest warrants and a couple of other fringe items. No civilian is granted any powers by the law to enter another person's home for any reason.

Probably, at common law, but also statute law anyone can do anything to save life and property in the event of an emergency. That or Seamus gets to not be rescued from his blazing home.

seamus wrote: »

Of course, the landlord can specify "No Pets", it's his property.

But a lot of people who actually buy apartments to live in seem to think of the management company as some sort of pseudo landlord who can make rules about people not having pets or music or putting up pictures. All of the residents tend to agree to a set of "rules" with the management company, and sign them, but ultimately they are mostly non-binding. You cannot agree with your neighbour that he can't (for example) get a dog and then sue him when he gets one.

There is a contract in place - there is also a matter of equity. One has agreed to not carry out a certain behavious. I contend that agreement is enforceable. What makes you think that the landlord's rules are enforceable and the management's companies one's aren't, what with the management's company being the landlord's landlord?

Silverfish

Victor wrote: »

There is a contract in place - there is also a matter of equity. One has agreed to not carry out a certain behavious. I contend that agreement is enforceable. What makes you think that the landlord's rules are enforceable and the management's companies one's aren't, what with the management's company being the landlord's landlord?

But if you've bought the property like seamus said, how would they be the landlord's landlord, if you don't have one?

seamus

Victor wrote: »

There is a contract in place - there is also a matter of equity. One has agreed to not carry out a certain behavious. I contend that agreement is enforceable. What makes you think that the landlord's rules are enforceable and the management's companies one's aren't, what with the management's company being the landlord's landlord?

If the landlord has agreed something with the management company, then he would have a duty to inform his tenant of those conditions and should include them as part of the lease agreement.

If an owner-resident agrees to something with the management company, that's a whole different ballgame. The management company don't own the property, but are rather under contract to perform certain maintenance tasks around the general grounds. Since each property owner part-owns the management company, any agreements are essentially community agreements and any of the residential tenancy acts are irrelevant.

I would argue that any agreement which attmpets to require an owner-resident to adhere to certain behaviours while in their property, would constitute a breach of privacy or would otherwise be overruled by privacy law. Certain behaviours within a property can be controlled by law (excessive noise, drug dealing etc), but a management company still have no ability to enforce such agreements.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

If an owner-resident agrees to something with the management company, that's a whole different ballgame. The management company don't own the property, but are rather under contract to perform certain maintenance tasks around the general grounds. Since each property owner part-owns the management company, any agreements are essentially community agreements and any of the residential tenancy acts are irrelevant.

The management company is a legal person in itself, its can form contracts, blah, blah, blah.

It owns the apartment. Typically, each "owner-resident" merely has a long term lease.

seamus

Victor wrote: »

The management company is a legal person in itself, its can form contracts, blah, blah, blah.

It owns the apartment. Typically, each "owner-resident" merely has a long term lease.

It really depends on the setup. Most apartment blocks in Dublin are shared freehold, not leasehold. The residents have the right to hire and fire management companies at will.

Victor

seamus wrote: »

It really depends on the setup. Most apartment blocks in Dublin are shared freehold, not leasehold. The residents have the right to hire and fire management companies at will.

You are mistaking management companies and management agents.

Only the management company can fire the management agent (albeit generally at the shareholders/residents request).

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

At common law (and probably under Occupier Liability Act, 1995) you may not set a trap to catch or injure a trespasser.

Balls. There goes the idea of trying out all the tricks from Home Alone 1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3, in a house on unsuspecting voctims burglers that try to nick shiney notebooks and 52" TV's left displayed through the window (all items would have a cost of €100 or less, purely for show, non-working, gotten from skips, etc, as they wouldn't be working versions)

SimpleSam06

Victor wrote: »

There is a contract in place - there is also a matter of equity. One has agreed to not carry out a certain behavious. I contend that agreement is enforceable. What makes you think that the landlord's rules are enforceable and the management's companies one's aren't, what with the management's company being the landlord's landlord?

This is why most contracts have a severance clause, it usually goes along the lines of "if any part of this contract is deemed to be opposed to the laws in place, that part of the contract can be severed with no prejuidice to the rest of the contract or its whole". If thats not in place, contracts get thrown out wholesale, and it also makes lawyers rich arguing over the finer points of the law.

However just because something is in a contract doesn't mean its legally binding, if it can be found to be in violation of existing law. I can make a contract saying that if you don't pay me a fiver a month you'll leap from the top of the spike, but any court would throw it out (and probably fine me for wasting court time).