On Aug 15, 9:09*pm, "sweetheart" hotmail.com wrote:
"NT" wrote in message

To be honest its a good idea to do that anyway, I'd do it if its
practical.

That is the problem. I asked OH *a few weeks ago ( coincidentally ) about
locks and he said that our main *front and back doors wont take a change of
lock ( they are non standard or something _ I am not sure but the doors came
with the house when we bought it, as did the locks). The one has a *seven
lever mortice chubb lock apparently which is up to the new specification but
the other has a standard Yale deadlock which isnt acceptable it seems.

Neither the patio doors nor the French doors could *have proper locks on
them, again because of construction. They do have locks and chains and even
bolts but not the spring bolts specified.

Might be worth showing us a pic of all the issueful locks.


The windows *have never had locks but I would defy anyone to get through any
of them. *They are too small. If there was a fire we would almost certainly
be trapped here. I have known that for a number of years. You wouldnt even
get a head and shoulder through sideways. Unless they are taking to burgling
with two year old todlers like in Dickens time?

right.

But the thing is, the house is no different, why then suddenly make a
condition that surely RBS know is unacceptable to meet in the time frame? I
assume they want rid of me? *But I dont know why. As I said, its not as if I
have claimed and I have been with them a long time. *Since there is always
someone in the house I would have thought I was a very good risk

I presume they realised this is a way to reduce their payouts, the
resulting risk will be less. But insisting will lose them a lot of
customers, I'd talk to them to see if they'll backtrack on that on the
ground that standard approved locks arent compatible, and the windows
are already unenterable anyway. If they wont, they've just screwed
their business model up.


NT