The key to tenants’ hearts? Changing a few locks

Question: I manage a large apartment complex. There are several new tenants who have requested that the door locks either be replaced or re-keyed. The owner does not want to comply due to the high cost. Do I have to honor these requests?

Answer: In California, there is no legal requirement for landlords to automatically replace or re-key locks for new tenants.

However, as part of a landlord’s habitability obligation, Civil Code Section 1941.1 requires that all doors and windows be secured with proper locks. Door locks should be re-keyed if failing to do so would raise a safety issue.

For example, a new tenant might be at risk if the previous renter damaged the existing lock or did not turn in all the keys. Since there is no way to verify that previous renters turned in all the keys, replacing the locks would ensure that only the new tenants have keys.

This action also would generate goodwill and encourage the tenants to continue living at the complex.

Renter balks at signing waiver

Question: In about three months, I am selling the duplex I own. The real estate agent handling the sale wants my tenants to sign a waiver in case something is broken or stolen during the open houses, inspections or repair work.

One tenant signed, but the other has refused. I don’t want to be responsible. Is there anything I can do to force the tenant to sign?

Answer: The tenant has no obligation to release you from any liability for lost, broken or missing personal property.

In fact, for this specific reason, there probably is a clause in the listing agreement you signed with your real estate agent stating that you agree to maintain homeowners insurance on the property during the sale period.

This homeowners insurance would cover this situation as well as any damage to the property itself done by open house visitors, inspectors or repair personnel.

‘No’ could mean legal hot water

Question: My doctor has prescribed a hot-water treatment for a rare skin disease I have. The treatment requires a lot of hot water, but the volume and temperature in my bathroom sink are not sufficient. I asked the resident manager to install a hot-water device. A few days later, she told me the property owner had refused.

I believe that my medical condition falls under the Americans With Disabilities Act and that the owner should comply with my request. What do you think?

Answer: In residential housing, it is the Fair Housing Act -- not the ADA -- that offers special protections to people with disabilities. One of these is the right to reasonable accommodations and also reasonable modifications in housing where they are necessary for a person with a disability to fully enjoy the dwelling.

For an accommodation or modification to be reasonable, it must not pose an undue financial burden on the landlord, and the tenant must be able to verify, if requested, that the accommodation or modification is deemed necessary by a medical professional.

Your situation is a good example of a reasonable modification, because it requires a physical change to the unit.

A landlord must allow any reasonable modification once a request is made, but the tenant is required to pay for it; the tenant is also required to return the modified premises to its former condition when moving out.

So, in your case, you may have to pay for the installation of the device, though the management would be required to allow it. Any denial or delay of such a request could be illegal.

This column is prepared by Project Sentinel, a rental housing mediation service. Questions may be sent to 1055 Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road, Suite 3, Sunnyvale, CA 94087.