freehold want leaseholders to remove any locks on internal doors of flats

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    freehold want leaseholders to remove any locks on internal doors of flats


    1.All flats will be inspected once every 5 years, or more frequently, as considered necessary, if there are legitimate concerns raised. The lease conveys that right of reasonable notice of inspection.
    2. No locks are to be placed on any room door (bathrooms & balcony doors, excluded), for health & safety reasons and any locks on those doors to be removed and all repairs made good. Comment/ question: "who has locks on their bedroom and lounge doors?”
    3. An independent assessor is to inspect each and every flat.

    4. A 30 day notice to be issued for non compliance and a surcharge, or invoice to be placed to the individual leaseholder’s service charge, or separate invoice to be made for re-inspection.

    We are ok with the inspection, though not regularly but almost every leaseholder feel strange of removing internal locks. People do install for different reasons.

    I was wondering from legal prospective, does the freeholder have the right to enforce such a rule?

    Many thx!

    #2
    What's that an extract from, the lease itself?
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #3
      I am not sure but I think it is related to the lease.

      Comment


        #4
        That matters.
        Related to the lease isn't a "thing".

        The terms of the lease are probably enforceable (however odd), rules from (say) the buildings management committee may not have the same force.
        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #5
          It is not on my lease. Now the director want to put it as a rule.

          Comment


            #6
            My suspicion is that the clause is one requiring compliance with local and national regulations, however, if there is no such clause, creating an enforceable rule would require a clause allowing for rules to be created.

            Whilst some of my childhood houses had, token, two lever locks on internal doors, the only reasonable reason I can see would be using the flat as an HMO (or brothel)

            The management would not be responsible for own goal fire safety issues in an individual flat, only for ones where actions in one flat could affect the safety of others. In any case, locks which used a thumb turn on the inside are likely to be considered acceptable even for the safety of the occupiers.

            Any surcharge would be an administration charge, not a service charge.

            You should ask to see the fire risk assessment, as I suspect this originates from there.

            Comment


              #7
              I suspect it's so that people don't let out rooms individually in defiance of the lease.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by tiantian View Post
                It is not on my lease. Now the director want to put it as a rule.
                In which case, there will either be a process in place to impose new rules, or one will have to be created.
                The management committee will have procedures that they have to follow.

                It might be helpful to enquire what health and safety concerns prompted the issue.
                You can then decide if you share them.

                Regardling the inspections, if the lease already allows for inspections with notice, there is no need for there to be any decision about frequency (other than as a broad policy) and no need for there to be any increased frequency associated with legitimate concerns raised.

                What makes a concern "legitimate"?
                Why on earth might an urgent inspection be necessary if there are no legitimate concerns raised? That's just legalistic sounding nonsense.

                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment

                Latest Activity

                Collapse

                Working...
                X