Common property door lock keeps getting changed by one of the unit owners

[543dsa]

The miscreant does that and the block management does that.

[543dsa]

No there isnt on that easy bit.

In fact some of the unit owners do not pay those bills and the property management operation currently isnt doing anything about that. The unit owners are currently changing the property managers, but it isn't a trivial matter to make unit owners pay.

[543dsa]

The legislation specifies that.

[Richard]

So he's bigger than you. Suck it up then.

[NY]

It's reassuring that you've got everything in writing and there's no legal doubt that you are right and the other chap is wrong. As you say, it all boils down to what sanctions can be brought to bear. It may be worth discussing it with a solicitor (maybe if you all chip in to cover his costs) to find out what the options are.

How you (or any of the neighbours) talked to the man to ask why he keeps changing the lock. Has he actually said that he thinks that he has exclusive access, and if so on what grounds? Have any of you tried using the balcony in the times when you've not been locked out and be asked/told to leave "his" balcony?

Is there a residents' organisation or management committee for the group of apartments?

I'm not sure what happens in a civil case if it goes to court and the case is found against him: is there the concept of legal costs being awarded against him so he pays for your legal action? If he disobeyed a court ruling, would be be in contempt of court and would that make it a criminal rather than a civil action from that point on? I really don't know.

Ideally you want to try to keep this amicable and not alienate him, but it may have already got past that point if he keeps paying for new locks.

Maybe you should post this to uk.legal.

Good luck.

[543dsa]

Yes.

If not, or there isn't a

It is in fact legally required, but is being done rather more informally than is legally required, presumably because no on wants to be involved in the considerable effort required.

That is legally required but they choose to not do that, essentially because no one wants to do that.

Which is why I initially asked if there is any to prevent the miscreant from getting a locksmith to change the lock. It looks like there isnt and it also appears to not be that easy to stop him legally. This isnt the US, so the more gung ho legal approaches aren't available. It isnt even possible to have an owner kicked out of the flat he owns and even if it was, there is still nothing to stop him from keeping changing the locks after he has been kicked out.

[543dsa]

But that prevents anyone from using the balcony until the lock is changed.

It doesn?t make sure he can't use it because he just gets a locksmith to change the lock. Just like he does when management gets a locksmith to change the lock after he has got his to change the lock.

At least when the locks keep getting changed, the other flat owners and renters do get to use the balcony at least part of the time. With the use of superglue, they don?t get to use the balcony any of the time.

It is a diy matter if it is possible to get a lock that can not be changed by any locksmith paid to do that. Say a lock that needs an uncopiable key to be used before the lock can be changed by a locksmith. For some reason it appears that there are no locks like that.

But even if that was buyable, presumably the locksmith could just drill out the lock that needs the uncopiable key to be used before the lock is changed.

While in theory it should be possible to alarm the lock so that when a locksmith does start changing the lock, a security operation shows up in person and tells the locksmith that he isnt allowed to change that lock, and that should stop any normal locksmith, that isnt going to be cheap, to ensure that they show up quickly enough to stop the locksmith, or say have a system where the security operation tells the locksmith that remotely and to be sure that that will always happen reliably.

[543dsa]

Its not too bad, $50 or something.

[543dsa]

That is just going to see a full on war with someone having to know when he is out and him then getting that person's flat locks changed or considerable expense to pay some operation to do that and even then, he will know who has already objected to him changing the balcony lock, so he will just get his locksmith to change that flat lock too.

[NY]

Where I used to live, there were several blocks of houses and a large apartment block. There were a couple of brick enclosures with (unlocked) doors on them, and these contained large bins with lids. For the first few years, the instruction was that all residents of the development should put their rubbish in those bins, and place their own recycling boxes in there. Everything was emptied on the appropriate days - I'm not sure whether it was by the council or a private contractor.

Then the rules changed. Now the communal bins were only for use by the people in the apartment block, and everyone else was issued with various bins - one for general waste, one for garden waste and the same boxes and bags as before for cans, bottles and paper.

It quickly developed into a house owners versus apartment owners/tenants row, because the rules had been changed and the house owners suddenly found that they had to accommodate bins that they had not had to do before. It was a particular problem for the few people who actually used their garages to keep their cars in, because it was almost impossible to get to a bin when a car was in the way.

The management committee directors put the lower price of the new collection before the wishes of the house owners - or maybe they were told that they had no choice in the matter and that it was a new policy of the collection organisation that was non-negotiable.

I moved shortly after this row blew up so I don't know how it ended, but I know there were accusations of house owners "illegally" putting rubbish in the communal bins, and threats to delve through bins looking for letters etc that were addressed to people who should have been using the bins as proof. It was all VERY petty. I got a big cheer from al the other house owners when I made that point at a residents' meeting: that the brick enclosures were built and designated as communal to all residents, and now the rules were being unilaterally imposed on us and they were setting one group of people against another.

We were told in no uncertain terms that we were not allowed to keep our own bins in the communal area and must put them out ourselves on the appropriate day. If you were going away, your bin remained full unless you were prepared to leave a garage key with your neighbours. The previous solution meant that once the rubbish was in the communal bins, you didn't have to be in on bin day.

Some berk from the council even suggested that we keep our bins on our front lawns if we weren't going to be in on bin day - which on an open-plan estate (no fences or hedges between lawns and the communal paths) means that the bins disfigure it for everyone - hence the builders providing the communal bin stores!

So sometimes the problem isn't the general public, its your own neighbours who are "the wrong sort of neighbour" (apartment versus house) ;-)

[543dsa]

No there isnt. You can't have fire exit doors needing the use of a key.

[543dsa]

By getting a locksmith to change the lock, again.

Yes.

[543dsa]

No he isn't and that isnt relevant anyway.

No thanks, I was looking for a decent diy solution that stops him getting a locksmith to change the lock.

You clearly don?t know of one and it appears that there isnt one according the locksmith I asked.

Tho it might be feasible to diy an alarm system that announces to the locksmith who is taking the barrel out to change it that the miscreant has no right to change that lock and that might well stop all but the worst locksmiths.

But if he just hates anyone using the balcony and doesn?t want to use it himself, he can still just superglue the lock.

[Tim+]

And he can do that even when the door is locked? Just curious.

Tim

[543dsa]

I know what the legal options are. The problem is the cost of enforcement and even getting the legal system to do anything when he changes the lock.

Yes.

He believes he bought it when he bought the flat.

Have any of you tried using the balcony

I don?t think he has done that. Not clear whether that?s because he knows he will be ignored or whether he doesn?t have the balls to do that.

In theory there has to be but in practice they don?t even do what the law requires and don?t have a formal secretary etc. They are in the process of changing the operation that is paid to do that usual stuff like organise the insurance and fire inspections and repairs and rubbish collection and the new one has told them that they must do what the law requires, but it isnt yet clear if they can actually find any of the owners who is prepared to do that.

In theory the court can do that, but in practice it has to be a pretty flagrant abuse of the legal system before the court will award costs against one of the parties. Like with a very frivolous claim that has no chance of success involves high legal costs in defending. Even then, its rare that that is awarded.

It isnt that black and white with civil matters. There are plenty of examples where someone has lost a civil action and they are legally required to compensate the winner, where the losing party just ignores the court judgement and nothing happens when they do that.

No, that doesn?t happen here.

It isnt in the uk.

Thanks. I was hoping for a mechanical/diy solution but it looks like there isnt one.

[543dsa]

Any locksmith can.

Don?t forget what that did to the cat.

[Fredxx]

Why not change the lock and provide keys to all except the offender.

[543dsa]

That won't stop his locksmith changing it again.

[543dsa]

But in that case you'd expect he'd just superglue the lock much more cheaply than paying a locksmith to change it.

Not that it would work, the commercial property management operation just claims on the insurance and that has now seen the insurance premium double with some insurers refusing to insure the property.

[michael adams]

Er no. As Rodney himself has pointed out

So that

a) if he just wanted to stop other people using the balcony then why wouldn't he just superglue the lock himself, on the quiet ? Which would look as though it might have been done by anyone ? Why go to the expense of having the lock changed and possibly revealing his identity ?

b) If on the other hand if he wants to use the balcony himself then if the tenants superglue every new lock he instals then he'll soon either run out of money or get really, really upset.

As it is according to Rodney, he keeps installing new locks. Which then raises the question as to who it is who has been paying for all these locks to be installed which he is then replacing each time ?

I don't think Rodney has got around to explaining that bit yet.

michael adams

...