Also, how reasonable your request is also depends on how far the distance from the resident's individual front door is to the front door to the shared area.
I know she's fat and lazy and could do with the exercise but it's not really her problem. I know the bike is gone now, but if someone broke into my communal area (presumably because a bike was on show) I would be pretty pissed off at whoever had left items there (remember people can look through letterboxes too, or even just see you entering a building with a bike).
To then be told I had to adapt to the wants of that person would piss me off a fair bit.
Annoyingly the problem in my block is almost the opposite, someone's intercom in their flat doesn't work, so they just leave the gate to the block open. But then they are complete arseholes so I'm not surprised.
@sillav nitram sorry but I think that you're being unreasonable.
Your bike shouldn't be stored in the communal hallway (fire regs). You've messed up the intercom system and really should reinstate it. You're seeking to impose something on your neighbour (double locking the door) that isn't part of the tenancy agreement and arguably is a matter for the management company. It would be perfectly understandable if your neighbour made a complaint to the management company that you're being unreasonable and have been harassing her.
Her weight, her son that could do more and her takeaways are irrelevant and your reference to these points suggest that you've lost your objectivity. And I say this as someone that used to get wound up unreasonably by neighbours.
Piss take tbh , I'd have thrown your bike out the front door took your lock off and told you to sort your own paranoia out, keep your bike in your own house and put as many locks on your own front door . The communal one should have an intercom and it doesn't because you wanted a new lock that fucked it ,
It became ineffective when a thumb lock was added to the main door to the building.
The layout of the building is, two flats on the ground floor. So they're not inconvenienced and don't have a problem with intercom.
My flat, is the only flat on the first and hers being on the floor above. I don't have a problem with intercom, she does but does have a son who could answer the door. There ain't that many stairs!
I didn't keep my bike in my flat because the flat is small and there was no where to put it, without it being in the way. My problem I know.
At the time of having the bike, it was kept outside my flat, the only flat on that level.
It wouldn't have been visible, had someone been looking through the letterbox but of course someone could of seen me taking it inside. As anyone can, when any of the other residents might be having items taken inside, that may look valuable and nickable, should the flat have been watched.
I did ask all concerned including management and particularly the occupants at the time, of the flat above, who would be the most inconvenienced if it would be ok. Nobody at the time said it wouldn't and were quite happy for me to do so.
So I didn't just leave my bike, without consideration for others, I asked all concerned.
I except that the law may have regarded it a fire hazard but that wasn't made clear to me and nobody mentioned it at the time, either. Had it, then of course I wouldn't have kept it there.
I no longer have a bike, so the issue of the inconvenience in the communal area is no longer relevant.
I accept when one lives in a communal block, one tries to be accommodating and considerate. I believe my asking everyone, shows that I was trying to be just that.
The fact I was unfortunate to be a victim of theft, does that make it my fault? Thieves are very adapt at their job and regardless of precautions we may take are very skilled and brazen at getting the job done.
It was therefore a building agreement to have an additional lock added to the main door to the building, not mine alone. It is a thumb lock and presumably meets safety standards?
We all have neighbours who are bloody difficult for the sake of it and might be considered arseholes, I may be one of them, to some people.
I don't believe and of course it's just my opinion, that she is that inconvenienced by this. Or that her hips are such a concern. She doesn't appear to have any issues moving around that I can see, doesn't use any aids, sticks, crutches etc., That I realise doesn't mean she doesn't.
But the focus of the argument was, having taken all precautions to secure my own flat, double locks etc., would my contents insurance be null and void, if it could be proved that the communal door to the building was securely locked?
My Insurance company suggest it's a grey are and are non committal on giving a divinitive answer. Hence my on going paranoia about being burgled.
The front lock to the building, if an electronic release, should have an green override button on the inside and preferably a firemans switch on the outside.
Your insurance company sound like a bunch of shysters if they are unable to provide you with this simple cover that hundreds of thousands of other leaseholders have.
Having issues with stairs, why the hell did she buy/rent a flat on the second floor without a lift??? It's like my 91 Nan buying it! Plenty of ground floor flats around, that's what doesn't add up. However Martin, if she hadn't of moved in we wouldn't be having this great debate
You're being totally reasonable, but I don't see how you can make her lock the door.
My 25 year old son still goes out and leaves the front door open occasionally, which drives us mad, but there's little I can do about it, other than keep reminding him.
You can remove all the contents of his bedroom to the dump while he's out, and then tell him that some very particular burglars had obviously been in...
"I no longer have a bike, so the issue of the inconvenience in the communal area is no longer relevant"
If you have nothing else stored in the communal areas and have a double lock on the door to your own flat (and i assume an alarm?), why are you still so bothered about the double lock on the main entrance door?
Irrespective as to the lady's physical condition, I think I would be a little put out if I had to walk down and back up from the second floor every time someone came over to visit me.
I assumed, correctly, that the issue was that the intercom doesn't work with the extra lock on, but does if that lock isn't put on. Under the circumstances, if I were living the furthest from the front door that was equipped with a 'modern' intercom I would be tempted to leave it off.
You, obviously, and understandably, wanted the lock on and he two people on the first floor aren't inconvenienced at all but it was unrealistic to expect a lady with even the slightest reason to want to avoid going down, and up, two floors every time someone knocked on her flat to use it.
Is there a reason as to why the 'extra' security wasn't added in such a way as to make it all work with the intercom? I'm no security expert, but I would have thought that would be the perfect solution.
I, personally, am more relaxed about security in my house. If someone gets in and steals something I can replace it. I can't replace my son If we have a fire and he can't open the door to get our because there are too many locks on it.
It does sound like this has become a matter of principle now - something I am all too familiar with (I really would cut off my nose to spite my face) but maybe, for your own wlll being, just let it go. If you leave nothing in the communal area your insurance should be covered as all your valuables would be in your flat.
You could satisfy yourself by always locking the door to inconvenience your upstairs neighbour as much as possible - including coming down stairs as she comes in and locking the door while she watches just to annoy her. Alternatively you could agree to pay for a new intercom lock that is much more secure, that offers the level of security you desire, and allows your neighbours to open the door from their flats.
Which ever approach you choose to take don't let this occupy any more of your time and don't let it add stress to your life. There is more than enough stress out there that you can't control, no need to pile on more is there?
On a separate note, how cool are intercoms that you can use to open the front door from your flat two floors above. I've never lived in a flat, so never had one, but it's almost like Star Trek territory, especially if you have one of those little screens so you can see the visitor before you decide if you are going to let them in!
Go to sleep last night this thread is on 8 or so posts, everyone seemed to be in agreement, wake up this morning, 50 odd new posts, new perspectives, and subtle hints at Chubb porn
Having issues with stairs, why the hell did she buy/rent a flat on the second floor without a lift??? It's like my 91 Nan buying it! Plenty of ground floor flats around, that's what doesn't add up. However Martin, if she hadn't of moved in we wouldn't be having this great debate
"I no longer have a bike, so the issue of the inconvenience in the communal area is no longer relevant"
If you have nothing else stored in the communal areas and have a double lock on the door to your own flat (and i assume an alarm?), why are you still so bothered about the double lock on the main entrance door?
Having issues with stairs, why the hell did she buy/rent a flat on the second floor without a lift??? It's like my 91 Nan buying it! Plenty of ground floor flats around, that's what doesn't add up. However Martin, if she hadn't of moved in we wouldn't be having this great debate
Go to sleep last night this thread is on 8 or so posts, everyone seemed to be in agreement, wake up this morning, 50 odd new posts, new perspectives, and subtle hints at Chubb porn
Are we talking a fetish for fat women or a specific type of lock here?
Having issues with stairs, why the hell did she buy/rent a flat on the second floor without a lift??? It's like my 91 Nan buying it! Plenty of ground floor flats around, that's what doesn't add up. However Martin, if she hadn't of moved in we wouldn't be having this great debate
Maybe she assumed she'd be able to use the intercom.
I'd never have anyone come to my place if the intercom didn't work, but then I do live in a penthouse on the 33rd floor.
Sorry Martin, but I have to look at this from another angle.
I assume this is a converted terraced house? If so, over how many floors and is there a single means of escape?
As a landlord of several of these nightmare properties the Fire Safety Order is quite clear on what the requirements are. You need to check the Fire Safety Risk Assessment for the block.
Firstly, I would expect all common parts to be kept sterile - so no bike, except within your flat. I would give you four weeks to remove it and if you didn't, arrange for a torte notice to be served on you.
Secondly the main block entrance door is your primary means of escape from what could be a burning building. A single thumb turn lock would be sufficient. Definitely no additional dead lock on this door as it would hinder both means of escape and/or possible rescue.
It became ineffective when a thumb lock was added to the main door to the building.
The layout of the building is, two flats on the ground floor. So they're not inconvenienced and don't have a problem with intercom.
My flat, is the only flat on the first and hers being on the floor above. I don't have a problem with intercom, she does but does have a son who could answer the door. There ain't that many stairs!
I didn't keep my bike in my flat because the flat is small and there was no where to put it, without it being in the way. My problem I know.
At the time of having the bike, it was kept outside my flat, the only flat on that level.
It wouldn't have been visible, had someone been looking through the letterbox but of course someone could of seen me taking it inside. As anyone can, when any of the other residents might be having items taken inside, that may look valuable and nickable, should the flat have been watched.
I did ask all concerned including management and particularly the occupants at the time, of the flat above, who would be the most inconvenienced if it would be ok. Nobody at the time said it wouldn't and were quite happy for me to do so.
So I didn't just leave my bike, without consideration for others, I asked all concerned.
I except that the law may have regarded it a fire hazard but that wasn't made clear to me and nobody mentioned it at the time, either. Had it, then of course I wouldn't have kept it there.
I no longer have a bike, so the issue of the inconvenience in the communal area is no longer relevant.
I accept when one lives in a communal block, one tries to be accommodating and considerate. I believe my asking everyone, shows that I was trying to be just that.
The fact I was unfortunate to be a victim of theft, does that make it my fault? Thieves are very adapt at their job and regardless of precautions we may take are very skilled and brazen at getting the job done.
It was therefore a building agreement to have an additional lock added to the main door to the building, not mine alone. It is a thumb lock and presumably meets safety standards?
We all have neighbours who are bloody difficult for the sake of it and might be considered arseholes, I may be one of them, to some people.
I don't believe and of course it's just my opinion, that she is that inconvenienced by this. Or that her hips are such a concern. She doesn't appear to have any issues moving around that I can see, doesn't use any aids, sticks, crutches etc., That I realise doesn't mean she doesn't.
But the focus of the argument was, having taken all precautions to secure my own flat, double locks etc., would my contents insurance be null and void, if it could be proved that the communal door to the building was securely locked?
My Insurance company suggest it's a grey are and are non committal on giving a divinitive answer. Hence my on going paranoia about being burgled.
Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.
Your insurance company are obliged by the FCA high-level rules to deal with you fairly. Tell them that their response is a breach of both Prinicple 6 and 7 of the FCA's high level standards. Six: A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly. Seven: A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading. What is clear is that they are failing in this regard. Tell them that. It is their policy, they drafted it they should fucking well know the answer. It is not a grey area. It's their choice, yes or no. Get the response in writing.
Sorry Martin, but I have to look at this from another angle.
I assume this is a converted terraced house? If so, over how many floors and is there a single means of escape?
As a landlord of several of these nightmare properties the Fire Safety Order is quite clear on what the requirements are. You need to check the Fire Safety Risk Assessment for the block.
Firstly, I would expect all common parts to be kept sterile - so no bike, except within your flat. I would give you four weeks to remove it and if you didn't, arrange for a torte notice to be served on you.
Secondly the main block entrance door is your primary means of escape from what could be a burning building. A single thumb turn lock would be sufficient. Definitely no additional dead lock on this door as it would hinder both means of escape and/or possible rescue.
Comments
Also, how reasonable your request is also depends on how far the distance from the resident's individual front door is to the front door to the shared area.
I know she's fat and lazy and could do with the exercise but it's not really her problem. I know the bike is gone now, but if someone broke into my communal area (presumably because a bike was on show) I would be pretty pissed off at whoever had left items there (remember people can look through letterboxes too, or even just see you entering a building with a bike).
To then be told I had to adapt to the wants of that person would piss me off a fair bit.
Annoyingly the problem in my block is almost the opposite, someone's intercom in their flat doesn't work, so they just leave the gate to the block open. But then they are complete arseholes so I'm not surprised.
Your bike shouldn't be stored in the communal hallway (fire regs). You've messed up the intercom system and really should reinstate it. You're seeking to impose something on your neighbour (double locking the door) that isn't part of the tenancy agreement and arguably is a matter for the management company. It would be perfectly understandable if your neighbour made a complaint to the management company that you're being unreasonable and have been harassing her.
Her weight, her son that could do more and her takeaways are irrelevant and your reference to these points suggest that you've lost your objectivity. And I say this as someone that used to get wound up unreasonably by neighbours.
* edit- typo
Selfish to the core
It became ineffective when a thumb lock was added to the main door to the building.
The layout of the building is, two flats on the ground floor. So they're not inconvenienced and don't have a problem with intercom.
My flat, is the only flat on the first and hers being on the floor above. I don't have a problem with intercom, she does but does have a son who could answer the door. There ain't that many stairs!
I didn't keep my bike in my flat because the flat is small and there was no where to put it, without it being in the way. My problem I know.
At the time of having the bike, it was kept outside my flat, the only flat on that level.
It wouldn't have been visible, had someone been looking through the letterbox but of course someone could of seen me taking it inside. As anyone can, when any of the other residents might be having items taken inside, that may look valuable and nickable, should the flat have been watched.
I did ask all concerned including management and particularly the occupants at the time, of the flat above, who would be the most inconvenienced if it would be ok. Nobody at the time said it wouldn't and were quite happy for me to do so.
So I didn't just leave my bike, without consideration for others, I asked all concerned.
I except that the law may have regarded it a fire hazard but that wasn't made clear to me and nobody mentioned it at the time, either. Had it, then of course I wouldn't have kept it there.
I no longer have a bike, so the issue of the inconvenience in the communal area is no longer relevant.
I accept when one lives in a communal block, one tries to be accommodating and considerate. I believe my asking everyone, shows that I was trying to be just that.
The fact I was unfortunate to be a victim of theft, does that make it my fault? Thieves are very adapt at their job and regardless of precautions we may take are very skilled and brazen at getting the job done.
It was therefore a building agreement to have an additional lock added to the main door to the building, not mine alone. It is a thumb lock and presumably meets safety standards?
We all have neighbours who are bloody difficult for the sake of it and might be considered arseholes, I may be one of them, to some people.
I don't believe and of course it's just my opinion, that she is that inconvenienced by this. Or that her hips are such a concern. She doesn't appear to have any issues moving around that I can see, doesn't use any aids, sticks, crutches etc., That I realise doesn't mean she doesn't.
But the focus of the argument was, having taken all precautions to secure my own flat, double locks etc., would my contents insurance be null and void, if it could be proved that the communal door to the building was securely locked?
My Insurance company suggest it's a grey are and are non committal on giving a divinitive answer. Hence my on going paranoia about being burgled.
Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.
Your insurance company sound like a bunch of shysters if they are unable to provide you with this simple cover that hundreds of thousands of other leaseholders have.
A/1 How fat are we talking?
B/2 Is she definitely single?
If you have nothing else stored in the communal areas and have a double lock on the door to your own flat (and i assume an alarm?), why are you still so bothered about the double lock on the main entrance door?
I assumed, correctly, that the issue was that the intercom doesn't work with the extra lock on, but does if that lock isn't put on. Under the circumstances, if I were living the furthest from the front door that was equipped with a 'modern' intercom I would be tempted to leave it off.
You, obviously, and understandably, wanted the lock on and he two people on the first floor aren't inconvenienced at all but it was unrealistic to expect a lady with even the slightest reason to want to avoid going down, and up, two floors every time someone knocked on her flat to use it.
Is there a reason as to why the 'extra' security wasn't added in such a way as to make it all work with the intercom? I'm no security expert, but I would have thought that would be the perfect solution.
I, personally, am more relaxed about security in my house. If someone gets in and steals something I can replace it. I can't replace my son If we have a fire and he can't open the door to get our because there are too many locks on it.
It does sound like this has become a matter of principle now - something I am all too familiar with (I really would cut off my nose to spite my face) but maybe, for your own wlll being, just let it go. If you leave nothing in the communal area your insurance should be covered as all your valuables would be in your flat.
You could satisfy yourself by always locking the door to inconvenience your upstairs neighbour as much as possible - including coming down stairs as she comes in and locking the door while she watches just to annoy her. Alternatively you could agree to pay for a new intercom lock that is much more secure, that offers the level of security you desire, and allows your neighbours to open the door from their flats.
Which ever approach you choose to take don't let this occupy any more of your time and don't let it add stress to your life. There is more than enough stress out there that you can't control, no need to pile on more is there?
On a separate note, how cool are intercoms that you can use to open the front door from your flat two floors above. I've never lived in a flat, so never had one, but it's almost like Star Trek territory, especially if you have one of those little screens so you can see the visitor before you decide if you are going to let them in!
I've had my suspicions about myself, ill now campaign to get myself evicted!
Can't have arseholes like me ruining other people's lives;)
I'd never have anyone come to my place if the intercom didn't work, but then I do live in a penthouse on the 33rd floor.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gHGB1wODkIs&sns=em
What is clear is that they are failing in this regard. Tell them that. It is their policy, they drafted it they should fucking well know the answer. It is not a grey area. It's their choice, yes or no. Get the response in writing.
lets hope she's not a lesbian.
0-2 coyr