FYI for Americans, it is generally illegal to change your locks and not provide the owner (or agent aka landlord) with a copy.
It's their property, not yours, and depending on state/lease they have the right to have the locks drilled/replaced at YOUR expense because you are not allowed to lock an owner out of their property.
There are only a few US states which have laws permitting tenants from changing locks and not notifying the owner or giving them a copy (CA, NJ are two). Other states permit tenant to change locks (or don't have explicit rules) but require the tenant to give a copy to the owner (like say NY).
The reason why this is tricky is because in the case of an emergency if the owner of the property needs to make emergency repairs, but cannot because you have locked them out, depending on the law and the lease in question, you could be liable for all of the damage to the property since you barred the owner from making repairs. That could be a 5 or 6 digit lawsuit pretty quickly depending on the property, the emergency and if it's multi or single family. (Think burst pipe in a multi-family flooding other tenants.... very expensive very fast)
I live in CA, and my lease has a clause specifically prohibiting changing/adding locks to the doors. I wonder if the CA law invalidates this clause. It's not a problem for this lease because my landlord is very hands-off - I've never even met them, only communicated via email. But I'll definitely be paying attention to clauses like this in the future, especially if there's a "smart" lock on the unit.
In Iceland, if the owner of a rented apartment would request key access to his tenants apartment, well… That would be considered "batshit crazy". But it probably comes down to cultural differences, America is very authoritarian.
I think you might be conflating our current executive for the rest of America, which is 50 independent states operating together with a Federal government. Each state has its own way of doing things, and they're all different.
Recent Federal pushes into authoritarian areas, while an indicator that things are moving in that direction, do not make the country as a whole "Authoritarian", let alone VERY authoritarian.
We do tend to lean towards protection for owners of property, rather than renters of property (citation needed? In many states there are STRONG protections for non-owners even those squatting on land that is not theirs) That also severely limits the rights of the government to access the property without cause. That seems... decidedly _not_ authoritarian? But certainly skewed towards ownership.
The thought that someone could enter the place that holds everything I own is more shocking to me. If my landlord wants to enter my flat, he can ask me and I'll let them in - I can't make sure that my landlord doesn't enter my flat.
I disagree with you. It is absolutely authoritarianism at the root of these issues. (As an American who has been observing this for some time.)
A few hours ago I was summarizing this article to someone in person and concluded with "but this country is very authoritarian", the implication being that the letter and spirit of tennant laws are not widely known, and the more authoritarian cultural norms, biased towards landlords, end up as the de facto rules.
Where I live (Seattle), a landlord can enter your apartment immediately if there's an emergency (ie something like it's an apartment and the downstairs neighbor reports water leaking from the ceiling), or with two days (48 hours) notice. My current apartment does the second one twice a year for fire alarm testing and, well, that's been it.
B:
>differing interpretations of property rights
The American interpretation is authoritarian. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't make it untrue. The landlords are renting out a dwelling for someone, and because they are the authority of that land they get to enforce rules on who has access to it. That is authoritarian
> But it probably comes down to cultural differences, America is very authoritarian.
That has nothing to do with the property owner but "America" based on my read, but I do appreciate this interpretation of the OP. If that's their meaning, I could see why the word comes up.
You know, I think my interpretation was wrong after re-reading, but I dont think I would disagree still. America has a very strong cultural thread of authoritarianism. You see it in places like a cops word being given greater weight in court than a citizens, or how people treat rights as something the government has to give you rather than the government taking rights from you
If you need to get in a house you own in an emergency that could cost 100's of thousands of dollars why wouldn't you just break a window, or call a locksmith? I don't think the tenant would be responsible for these damages unless the incident was caused by their negligence.
I'm not a lawyer but in many states these liability claims go through a system which determines the % of liability for each party.
A tenant illegally locking their landlord out and causing delay of several hours for a time-sensitive emergency would almost assuredly get a lot more % liability blame than a tenant who properly gave their landlord a copy of the key and who was able to give access to the plumber immediately.
Hopefully they have enough renters insurance to cover the claim and their insurance company will handle the court side of things when other tenants sue!
That's not the question at hand at all though. The question is what kind of liability you incur by legally locking your landlord out.
IANAL, but I'd guess that if you change the locks in a state where it's not legal to do so you're totally hosed in terms of liability. I have no idea how liable and to what degree renter's insurance would cover you if you change the locks in a state that guarantees your right to do so.
I don't think there's any state that allows you to change the locks and not give the landlord access.
I've rented an over-the-garage studio in the past, and the landlord came in one time without notice when I was away because the supply line to the toilet burst and there was water dripping from the garage ceiling. That's the sort of emergency we're talking about here, where a landlord needs immediate access, and any delay will cause additional structural damage.
This is false. It's up to state law but generally speaking landlords can enter the premises without warning in case of an emergency, and can otherwise enter the premises for nearly any reason (inspection, routine maintenance, showing prospective clients, etc) with a 24 hour notice. Some states may increase that 24 hour notice to 48 hours, but yes a property owner can enter their property.
This is one of those cases where owners have rights too, and renters who want more rights should consider owning.
It's a common carve out in most states to allow immediate access for "emergency access", which is why everyone in the thread is discussing exactly that.
This is not true in California. I had a landlord who wanted to enter all apartments to inspect for evidence of pets (someone had seen a cat inside the building) and I told them exactly where they could shove it.
(Paraphrased from CA Civ Code 1954)
A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:
- In case of emergency.
- To make necessary or agreed repairs, exhibit the property, or perform move in/out inspections.
- When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.
If I were your landlord and you refused, I would sue for violating a no-pets clause in the lease to get a court order to allow the inspection. Or perhaps just initiate eviction proceedings for the lease violation.
It's their property, not yours, and depending on state/lease they have the right to have the locks drilled/replaced at YOUR expense because you are not allowed to lock an owner out of their property.
There are only a few US states which have laws permitting tenants from changing locks and not notifying the owner or giving them a copy (CA, NJ are two). Other states permit tenant to change locks (or don't have explicit rules) but require the tenant to give a copy to the owner (like say NY).
The reason why this is tricky is because in the case of an emergency if the owner of the property needs to make emergency repairs, but cannot because you have locked them out, depending on the law and the lease in question, you could be liable for all of the damage to the property since you barred the owner from making repairs. That could be a 5 or 6 digit lawsuit pretty quickly depending on the property, the emergency and if it's multi or single family. (Think burst pipe in a multi-family flooding other tenants.... very expensive very fast)