Lost thieves break into homes by breaking into the front door. Insurers therefore refuse to cover burglary when this door is not equipped with a “three-point lock”, expected to put up some resistance. The price of such a door ranges from 400 euros to 2000 euros (when, in addition, it has shielding and reinforced hinges), depending on the network Locksmiths of France, which awards a label to quality professionals. However, some landlords do not equip their homes with them, as the following case shows.
On June 15, 2015, Mr. X rents an apartment whose door only has a single-point lock. The day he was robbed, his insurer refused to compensate him, because this closure “did not comply with the required safety device at the time of the subscription of the contract ». Mr. X summons his owner, claiming 3,300 euros. It was dismissed, at first instance and then on appeal.
The Court of Appeal of Colmar judges indeed, September 12 2022that“no legal or regulatory provision requires the lessor to ensure the closure of the rented premises with… a multipoint closure”. It considers that that of Mr. X “has met its obligations” by providing “a one-point lock”. If the tenant wanted to be insured, it was up to him “to request the installation of two locks, or even to proceed with it himself”.
Ground floor window
Louis du Merle, Legal Director of the National Agency for Housing Information (ANIL)is surprised at this severity: in “a similar case”, judged October 8, 2020 by the Court of Appeal of Nîmes, the tenant, Mr. Z, won his case, he underlines. The dispute did not concern the door, but a window on the ground floor, devoid of shutters, on which Mr. Z claimed bars, in order to be covered by his insurer. However, the decree of January 30, 2002 “relating to the characteristics of decent housing” does not require more bars than multipoint locks.
It is therefore not the content of this text, but its purpose, that the magistrates of Nîmes took into account: they recalled that it imposes “deliver accommodation that does not pose a risk to the safety of persons”.
They felt that the concept of ” security » should cover not only the risks of electrocution or falling (to which the decree refers), but also the “possible attacks”. They judged that “the absence” bar “is likely to harm [la] physical security » of M. Z, since it makes possible “an intrusion”. They ordered it put up.
However, such an interpretation of the texts being risky, shouldn’t the law require the owner to install the equipment required by the insurer? “It would be logical, believes David Rodrigues, legal manager of the association Consumption housing living environment (CLCV). And this, especially since the tenant is not going to leave with the door at the end of his lease! »