When I was last renting (in the UK) I changed my locks the day I moved in, then swapped them back to the original cylinders when I left.
I thought it was pretty good practice not to have a door with an unknown number of previous tennants, cleaners, letting agents, landlords etc with access.
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.
I did this as well after having a couple of snooping landlords.
Also it's empowering. One rental I had, prior to the tenancy deposit protection scheme I had a serial con artist landlord. At the end of the tenancy, he billed my entire £600 deposit return to three companies he owned. One for gardening, one for cleaning and one for maintenance. This made it difficult for a claim to be placed upon him. This was without entering the property, because I had changed the locks. The property was left immaculate. I took photos to cover my arse. Edit: to note I completely ripped out the overgrown garden in that time and cleaned it up to the point it was workable and decorated half the place so I added value to his property. He evicted us because he could rent it out for more money.
Retribution was simple. He didn't have a valid address on the tenancy contract. When he asked where to return the keys to, he sent me an SMS to just put them through the letter box. So I did. I put the keys inside a zip lock bag and used an 8 foot bamboo stick to poke them through the letterbox half way down the hall, double locked the security door from the outside and chucked the keys for the actual barrels down the drain in the street. My wife decided to add insult to this injury by spreading marmite all around the inside of the letter box.
The next morning I woke up to about 20 missed calls and 3 voice mails calling me all sorts of names and threatening to kill me and was going to sue me for new locks and a new shirt.
I went and bought another pay as you go SIM and never heard a thing.
Edit: just looked the guy up. He's still going. If you rent in Nottingham, keep an eye out for a cunt who turns up on a motorbike. Ask for a passport or driving license for ID from direct rent landlords, not just business correspondence.
We changed the locks originally because we caught him in the place doing an inspection unannounced. All our clothes had been gone through and the computer turned on. Funny sounding inspection.
The marmite was deserved. If you’re going to make someone’s life miserable and insecure for six months then we’re going to roll out the red carpet on pettiness.
Nothing is gained by being an asshole to an asshole. All you've done is provided him with documentable proof for how terrible and vindictive he thinks you are. It doesn't matter if every other claim he's made about you was a lie.
How does smearing marmite make the unfair gain worthless? It might make you feel smug for a few hours, but if your enemy is vindictive, it could be used against you.
I just asked my other half how she was feeling about it after 16 years and she laughed so clearly petty justice has a lasting effect.
I think the person in question would be in vastly larger amounts of trouble for even raising his head above the cesspool he floated in for a moment. It would be like a chase from the Benny Hill show with local housing enforcement, HMRC, the police and a trail of angry and abused tenants.
The best move is making the game worthless so there are no winners. Shit on the board. It's a stalemate then.
Unlikely. There was some intelligence behind it. He was aware the locks had been changed as I explained his in an SMS so I did what he asked explicitly. Secondly I could apologise for the mistake of leaving the wrong keys inside the property. As for the marmite, some kid did a prank! Ooops. Based on the police's previous attitude, would they likely come out for a bit of marmite in a letterbox.
The put the keys through the letterbox thing was actually a masterpiece of idiocy on his part which I refrained from mentioning to him.
I think you need to read my post again, I'm not talking about real ethics or so-called Christian ethics. I'm talking about doing what's in your selfish best interest. Put simply, don't do things that can be used against you by your enemy.
Maybe it's my hyper-legal American sentiments (pardon the joke at the expense of America's litigious culture, if that's not your particular breed of sardonic humor), but I'm in full agreement here and a little surprised at some of the comments waving this off as anything other than something that would result in justifiable legal-reprisal, if the landlord really wanted to mess with people.
But again, that's probably (very most likely) just the result of me existing in a hyper-litigious culture where In pari delicto is very much a thing.
Right, but now he's telling his mates about how his absolute arsehole of a tenant spread marmite on his letterbox for no reason whatsoever. He still has a story, except this one just makes tenants look evil.
I'm a Brit who has been living in the US for over a decade now. Every now and then I try to introduce American friends and co-workers to the delights of Marmite, but to no avail. Luckily for me, it's relatively easy and affordable to purchase Marmite via Amazon.
To anyone reading this: if this happens to you, please talk to a lawyer. Please do something to protect future tenants, get the landlord's info online. Don't seek retribution just for yourself.
> We changed the locks originally because we caught him in the place doing an inspection unannounced. All our clothes had been gone through and the computer turned on. Funny sounding inspection.
That may be a criminal act in your jurisdiction. My local laws allow the landlord access, but the landlord needs to provide 48h notice of the inspection (with a list of specific exceptions for emergency work, mostly around plumbing and electrical work) and cannot bar the tenant from being present during the inspection.
I experienced stuff like that from a couple of landlords while I was a student - one of the reasons I was quite happy to buy my first flat at 23 (mind you - that was a long time ago).
Edit: I almost attacked one landlord when I found someone rummaging in a cupboard at night! Landlord was quite indignant when we pointed out he couldn't come and go as he pleased.
Yeah that's roughly what happened here. Although I knew he was likely in there because he parked his motorbike outside.
He was actually in my 2 year old daughter's bedroom when I opened the door. I heard him leave it and come down the stairs.
Small argument ensued and he sent me an SMS right there on his phone saying that he was coming to do an inspection on date X which was that day. Then said "oh sorry must have been delayed" with a smirk on his face, got back on his motorbike and rode off.
That's probably a great way to get shot, especially in the US. Not only is sneaking into a tenants place (at night of all times) an asshole move, likely illegal, and a clear abuse of power, but it's also such an incredibly stupid thing to do if you value your life.
Nothing at all. Paid on time every time and basically decorated the place. Went on the market for £100/month more the moment the tenancy expired and he evicted us.
The guy ran umbrella companies to hide his assets and address and to rip people off, got caught going through our stuff.
He’s still a landlord and has been the director of about 12 companies now in the last 20 years all dissolved.
Who’s the bad one? Hmm
Edit: also the place we had after that I rented for 11 years with no problems direct from landlord and they were excellent and we were excellent back.
And you basically did a disservice to all his future tenants by not reporting him to the police after being caught by you illegally accessing your home and destroying your property? By not reacting you basically silently allowed him to keep doing this. I would understand that he had some kind of power over you and you were afraid to react and report him, but you choose to confront him by being asshole to him, without doing the right thing and reporting him to whatever authority in UK is responsible for this.
Because of that, both of you are bad, though he is a bit worse.
Actually it's not quite that easy. If you think anyone even gives a crap about this sort of stuff then you're mistaken. Even today.
Firstly, I spoke to the police and they said they couldn't do anything because I likely couldn't prove he was snooping and couldn't prove that it wasn't against the terms and it wouldn't be worthy of their time investigating it and it was probably a civil or contractual issue. "go see a solicitor". Which I couldn't afford.
Secondly, local housing officer was contacted and I was asked to attend the local council about it and I sat there for 4 hours and was told to go home because they had run out of time. I got a letter apologising and attempts to get a second appointment were fruitless.
This was option three.
This was one of the points in my life I realised there is no magical state run safety blanket who will protect you from dickheads.
Sounds familiar. I have some friends suing their old landlord for essentially walking off with their entire deposit (several thousands of £). They moved out of that place more than a year ago - the case is still working its way through the courts. Nothing is simple.
Oh screw that. Come into my home when I'm not there, and enter my 2 year old daughter's room? If the police don't see that as a crime, it's vigilante time. The chances your landlord wasn't attempting some creepy perverted shit is zero to none.
Have you considered some of the landlord's actions might not have been illegal? Anyone from the UK that can chime in on this? Is there an authority responsible for this?
Here's a clause from a U.K. (England and Wales) lease agreement that is pretty standard:
35. Landlord's Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment
The Landlord covenants with the Tenant, that, so long as the Tenant pays the rents reserved by and complies with the obligations of this lease, the Tenant shall have quiet enjoyment of the Property without any interruption by the Landlord or any person claiming under the Landlord except as otherwise permitted by this lease.
There are clauses covering emergency entry for repairs (e.g. burst water pipes, leaking gas) in short-term rental agreements but - as others have said - they require "reasonable" notice in almost all cases aside from dire emergency, and the tenant can still refuse entry.
It's not quite that straightforward here in the UK. Well it is but the other way. The landlord has no right to enter a property outright. The property is for exclusive enjoyment by the tenant according to law. They can give 24 hours' notice and enter to do repairs etc but you can refuse that outright and they have no rights beyond that without taking you to court.
If they turn up unannounced this is actually harassment under UK law.
We had some rather unpleasant slum landlords between the 1950s and 1970s which caused a few laws to be introduced. Unfortunately the nature of being a landlord seems to attract certain people who find new and creative ways to be dicks. Not the majority of landlords I will say who are mostly pretty good, but enough to cause problems.
You might be interested in the not very good movie "Pacific Heights" about a psychopathic tenant, if you want to see a fictional telling of how bad it can get for a landlord.
I certainly understand how bad it can get for landlords. I'm not excusing any bad tenants here for sure. I will at least read the synopsis for that film :)
I thought I went too far for a few years to be honest. Now I realise that no protection whatsoever was afforded to any private tenants back then other than taking the landlord to court which was expensive, time consuming, resulted in unpaid days off work and generally a waste of time. The moral high ground doesn't necessarily drive the point home either.
Now we have a deposit scheme in the UK which stops landlords doing this because the deposit is held in trust. The landlord has to prove it. Therefore there's escrow and a third party involved. Not being in this scheme is illegal and results in fines that go directly to the tenant as well.
This action is not necessary now, but changing the locks still is because it's your personal space and security and you genuinely don't know who has access to that unless you do it. Could even be the previous tenants with key copies.
There are two types of eviction in England: section 8 (non-payment of rent) and section 21 (no blame).
There are strict protections around section 21 during the "fixed term" (normally 6 months to a year), but after that it's pretty easy to get tenants out even if they've done nothing wrong, and it's common to evict tenants, re-paint, then re-let the property at a big markup.
If you're a tenant in England it's probably a good idea to talk to the landlord each year about a small rent increase.
Is this legal? At least here in Germany, the apartment owner is allowed to enter your apartment using his key in emergency situations. [0]
I can imagine that you can be held liable if, for example, a fire breaks out in your apartment, the apartment owner notices it, tries to enter your apartment to extinguish it, cannot enter because of changed lock, and the building burns down.
[0] as others have mentioned below, this does not seem to be enforceable, even if it is part of the contract, and you are free to change locks after moving in. You only have to give the landlord access to the apartment in case of emergency, and he may enter forcefully if you don't do that (or if you are not present / have changed locks).
> "At least here in Germany, the apartment owner is allowed to enter your apartment using his key in emergency situations."
I am not a lawyer but I know that this is a common misunderstanding in Germany. The landlord is not allowed to keep a key to the apartment he rented out, unless you're explicitly consent to it.[0]
You have to grant him access in case of an emergency and if you don't do that, forced entry may be legal (like in the case of a pipe burst).
It's most likely built into all standard landlord agreements. I can't imagine a landlord not wanting to have keys a unit they rent out.
In most US states, landlords are required to give 24 hour notice prior to entering a unit (unless it's a maintenance emergency like a broken water pipe).
My rental contract in the Netherlands forbids it, but at one time I discussed it with a lawyer and it's not an enforceable clause. Eventually I had to get the lock replaced and I have no intention of giving the property company a key.
>the apartment owner notices it, tries to enter your apartment to extinguish it, cannot enter because of changed lock, and the building burns down.
The fire department/emergency services would absolutely be allowed to (force) enter...why should the landlord be the savior? Perhaps it's different in Germany.
It's legal in the UK for a tenant to change the locks, and there's also no law requiring them to provide the landlord a copy of the key. You do have to allow the landlord in for certain reasons (like maintenance) with advance notice, but you can do that by just being home and letting them in yourself. However, the letting contract might prohibit it, and I think commonly does. It's not a right of the tenant to be able to change the locks, so the contract can restrict it, but it's allowed by default if the contract doesn't say anything.
Tenants have common law "exclusive possession" and "right to quiet enjoyment" in a UK residential AST. Landlord's presence must be with tenant's consent, it is trespass and possibly an "unlawful eviction" offence otherwise. Landlord don't even have a right of entry to comply with their own statutory requirements, e.g. gas safety check. The only exception is in an "emergency", e.g. a fire.
Ah, yeah I encountered the same in Netherlands. A while back the law changed and some legal liability shifted towards landlords if their tenants were found to be growing cannabis. So my property management company decided that they would do random, unannounced inspections of all their tenants four times per year. Plainly contrary to the authorized, agreed-upon reasons for visits and counter to my right not to be bothered. Cue some unknown to me guy knocking on the door asking to look around. Nope! After I argued with the company a few times and refused them entry they finally stopped pestering me. And I'm not growing cannabis...but neither am I a freshman in a college dorm!
g) Permit the Landlord or the Landlord's agents on reasonable notice and at reasonable hours to enter the premises to view the state and condition thereof and if necessary to carry out repairs, alterations or other works.
s) Not to change or install any locks on any doors or windows of the premises or to make duplicate keys thereto and to return all such keys to the Landlord or the Landlord's agents at the end of the tenancy.
v) To permit the Landlord or the Landlord's agents during the last two months of the tenancy to enter the premises at reasonable hours during the day time together with any prospective tenants or purchasers to view the premises.
The first and second terms are unpalatable but could be tolerated under limited circumstances. I would look at concealing a remote-monitored security camera by the front door to catch and alert any unwelcome visitors.
But that third term is a deal-breaker. Eight weeks of living in an unsafe, insecure home with no privacy? I'm not paying rent for that.
My rental contract (AU) has those three clauses parent poster presents, verbatim. It's sickening. I actually have a mind to go and find out from a lawyer if they're enforceable.
I'm not Australian, but my sense is that tenants are viewed by the law as something between children and moral degenerates.
EDIT: and landlords are permitted to (and do) "inspect the property for damage" on a six monthly basis. At which point they tell you the day before they'll be poking around in your home. I don't know why we stand for it, frankly.
That third one is pretty common in many countries. In New Zealand one of my letting agreements allowed them to show the unit a month prior to moving out.
> At least here in Germany, the apartment owner is allowed to enter your apartment using his key in emergency situations.
This is completely wrong. In Germany the apartment owner is not even allowed to keep a copy of the key unless you voluntarily give them one. I live in Germany and I also changed the lock the day I moved in and the landlord is not allow to forbid me from doing that.
If it is really an emergency (fire, heat failure, plumbing emergency, etc), not kicking down the door will cost far more than the $200 that a new door costs.
Apparently everyone decided I was proposing letting it all burn down. I was only wondering if, by letting the landlord have a key who could be used in an emergency, the tenants where reducing the risk of being on the hook for those extra $200. Of course the emergency must be dealt with.
In Australia you’re legally allowed to change the locks on your rental but you’re required to give a copy of the new keys to your Agent within x hours (my contract says 24hrs).
We do it for all properties and highly recommend it, as we’ve had an ex-contractor (had worked on renovations) walk into our rental a week after we moved in, letting himself in with his keys thinking no one had moved in yet. Wifey was on the couch and let out a hell of a yell, and we chased him out before calling the Police.
In my experience (UK), a typical rental agreement will require you to inform the landlord/agent and provide them with a key, or even get their prior consent to make the change. (I'm not sure if there's actual law on the subject or if it's purely down to the terms of the contract.)
UK rentals typically require prior approval for any sort of modification made to the home - I've had contracts where they considered hanging a picture to be a modification, so I'm pretty sure changing the locks would come under that clause.
The owner is allowed to keep a key only if the tenant is allowing him. You can change all the locks as tenant if you do not allow him and if you are not sure he is not keeping a key. If your contract stipulates that you must leave the owner a key, you can still change the lock, the clause in the contract is by law not valid.
Wouldn't say fire, they're going to break the door down anyway, but something like a pipe burst or sewer backup, is also time sensitive but not life threatening and in that situation, you might be liable.
Then you aren’t allowed to use a door latch. A rule an owner is allowed to enter doesn’t mean you have to make it possible, just that you can’t complain if he succeeds in entering.
Good idea - I did this when I bought my house but didn't bother on rental properties. "Euro Cylinder" locks are standardised and really easy to change.
It never occurred to me not to change the locks. The minute I start paying rent, I always saw it as my home.
Upon viewing the place, I make explicitly clear that I expect it to be cleaned and anything that's broken shall be fixed prior to my taking possession and that I will consider the contract null and void if it's not. I ensure this is written into the contract so that if it's not taken care of, the contract is null and void the moment possession is granted.
I ensure that the landlord understands that I expect to be allowed to treat this as my home and that I will decorate to my taste for the duration of my occupation of the property.
The locks get changed the day I move in, pictures are taken to record the state of repair before furniture is moved in. I write up an inspection report with copies of the pictures attached and send it to the landlord.
I decorate as I see fit.
When I leave, I put the house back to the same state or better than it was when I arrived. If I have had to replace any appliances that didn't meet my requirements, I put the original appliances back and take mine with me. The place is left as I would expect it to be when I took possession, which is immaculate.
I take pictures as evidence of the cleanliness of the property and hand copies of these with my keys to the landlord the day I move out. This is mostly as a "You know I took pictures of everything when I moved in, and now I've taken pictures of everything as I'm moving out so don't try anything shady or you will be caught in a lie."
If the landlord wishes to complete an inspection during my stay, they can give me the legally required amount of notice so I can be home to let them in and see them out.
In the 25 years I've been renting properties, I have had only 2 landlords on short leases give me any kind of problems. I've never had a security deposit withheld. I've never been evicted and barring these 2 particular landlords, who failed to meet their obligations as landlords - i.e. fix broken water heaters and burst pipes etc. which I had to foot out of my own pocket and then go through arbitration to recover the costs, I've had nothing but cordial relationships with every landlord I've ever had.
I know there's a shit ton of bad landlords out there and that my experience has largely been one of luck given that I rented student digs too and there's plenty of landlords that prey on students who don't know any better; but it horrifies me how many people allow landlords to treat them with anything less than complete respect. It's your home, you're paying for it. They may own the deed. They may pay the mortgage company. They may be responsible for the upkeep. But it's your home. You should ensure the lease/contract allows room for you to treat it as such before you agree to sign it.
I don't how it works in Canada, but in the U.S., if the lease becomes "null and void", whatever that means, then you lose the contracted right of possession. If you don't leave immediately, you're in material breach, and the landlord will start eviction.
I've had applicants who insist on similar changes, and I'll decline their application every time. It sounds like you're a good guest, but without knowing anything more about someone, I take such behaviour as a big red flag.
Agreed, if the contract is null and void, then the right to possession is negated. As such, I would expect the return of my deposit, which I usually pay upon signing the contract. I usually negotiate to pay the first month's rent upon acceptance of the property after the move-in inspection, at which point I'm satisfied to accept tenancy. If the contract becomes null and void after this time, I fully expect to be required to vacate the premises in a timely manner.
If a landlord decided to decline me for those requests, I would equally see that as a giant red flag and would likely consider that I'd dodged a bullet.
I'm a great guest. I treat the home I live in - including the landlord and neighbours with the greatest of respect. If the landlord is unwilling to accommodate such changes to the contract, then I would assume that they're unlikely to treat me with the respect I would afford them. All business relationships are a two way street. If that affordance is not forthcoming, I wouldn't consider that any kind of arrangement I wish to pursue or maintain.
Uhm yeah, this is illegal in most states. And in case of emergency (fire, flood, gas/water leak, etc.) where a landlord is unable to get in - guess who's going to pay for damages?
If this happened in a property you owned, the fire department would kick down the door anyway. This is no different. Why would a landlord even know your property is on fire before the fire department kicked the door down? Emergency services would be there long before the landlord even knew anything was amiss... and there's a high statistical probability that it was me that called emergency services in the first place and the door would be unlocked. I'm not calling my landlord first, shit needs to be dealt with now, not when the landlord finally checks their voicemail.
So this argument makes little sense to me.
And as another commenter notes - that's what renter's insurance is for.
I thought it was pretty good practice not to have a door with an unknown number of previous tennants, cleaners, letting agents, landlords etc with access.