If you and your partner have separated, you will be keen to
start your life afresh and may be wondering whether you can change the locks on
your house or apartment. This may be particularly
appealing if the relationship breakdown has been acrimonious and you have
concerns that your former partner will turn up unannounced, remove belongings
while you are out, or cause a nuisance. You may even have concerns for your
safety.
‘While it can be unsettling, it is important that you do not change the locks without seeking legal advice’ explains Melissa Cunningham, Head of Family Law expert with IMD Solicitors London, Manchester and Birmingham, ‘as the legal position varies depending on your circumstances’.
For married couples
If you are married, then the starting point is that your
spouse has a legal right to enter their matrimonial home – regardless of who
owns the property.
Unless you have a court order, you cannot change the locks legally
without your spouse’s consent. Asking
for permission may not be well received, and you need to weigh up whether this could
increase animosity and reduce trust which might lead to a prolonged divorce
with unnecessary costs.
Changing the locks does not affect the legal ownership or financial entitlement to the value of the house or the belongings inside it, so you need to assess if this will be beneficial in the long run. If you change the locks without consent, your spouse may decide to employ a locksmith to gain entry, or they may take you to court for illegally excluding them. It is generally expected if your spouse moves out that they will not return unannounced and enter the house when you do not want them there.
For cohabiting couples
If you lived together and were not married, then it is
important to establish who legally owns the house.
If you own the property in your sole name, you are entitled
to change the locks once your former partner has moved out. However, this does not prevent your former
partner from bringing a claim for a share in the value of the equity in the
house or its contents. If they do you
should seek immediate legal advice.
If you own the house jointly, then the position is similar
to that of married couples. You are not
entitled to change the locks and exclude your former partner from the house without
consent or an order from the court.
Harassment or violence
If your spouse or former partner harasses or pesters you by
returning to the house, then you may be able to obtain an order from the court
to stop them. This is known as an
occupation order and can exclude your former spouse or partner from being
allowed to reside in the home. You may
also be able to obtain an occupation order if you have been the victim of
domestic violence. If such an order is
granted, then you can normally change the locks.
Agreeing access
Following a separation, it is best to try and reach an
agreement over access to the house. It
may be that your former spouse or partner needs access to remove personal
belongings or paper work. This ideally
should occur at a prearranged date and time.
You may wish to write out an inventory of what you have agreed that they
can take from the home. You may also
want a friend or family member present to help ensure only items on the
inventory are taken.
It may well be that you cannot reach agreement yet over substantial
items, such as the division of furniture or a pet. If that is the case, until the issues are
resolved, your former spouse or partner should at least be able to remove their
own personal clothing and toiletries, and those of any child that is residing
with them.
For further information, please contact Melissa Cunningham in the family law team on 0333 358 3062 or email info@imd.co.uk.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.
F v F - Acted for a German husband in a complex financial remedy matter. He decided to instruct IMD Solicitors after he had lost trust in his previously instructed solicitors and feared that he would not achieve a favourable outcome from the proceedings. The relevant assets were spread across the globe with some located in the UK (including a multi-million pound business), Gibraltar, Spain, Dubai, and Poland. The overall value of assets exceeded £24 million. The husband had been cut off from the matrimonial assets and excluded from control of the business that had been established by his family. The case involved the instruction of numerous experts, for business valuations, Capital Gains Tax reports, and opinions on the enforcement of orders in foreign jurisdictions, and dealing with several applications, including applications for orders to freeze assets, prevent the disposition of assets, for the joinder of parties, and to litigate conduct issues. The final result exceeded the client’s expectations.
L v L - We were instructed by a mother in a complex international children matter. She was required by orders of the UK courts to return the child to the UK from Poland. She had travelled with the child to Poland but, following unsuccessful application to extend her stay there in August 2017, she decided not to return to the UK because the child disclosed sexual abuse by a member of the paternal family and the father. In September 2018, the Polish court dismissed the father’s Hague Convention application for the child's return on the basis of Article 13(b), a decision which the father appealed. In March 2019, the father applied to the UK High Court for an order for the child’s return pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 11(6) – (8) of the Brussels IIA Regulation. Despite the father's unsuccessful Hague Convention application in Poland, the UK court ordered the return of the child. Article 11 does not allow the court of the returning country much discretion. After all of this, the mother instructed IMD Solicitors to apply to discharge the orders of the UK Court for the return of the child. Even in the face of the fact that most applications to discharge such return orders fail, we succeeded. We are currently awaiting a decision in the UK courts on a further application for the transfer of jurisdiction to the Polish courts where the mother resides with the child.
G v P - We represent a Spanish mother in respect of an urgent application for a Child Arrangements Order and Specific Issue Order in the UK seeking the relocation of the child to Spain. This was after the return of the child to the UK under Hague Convection proceedings which this mother lost in Spain.
She was asking for an order for the relocation of the child back to Spain and an urgent interim Child Arrangements Order to allow her to see the child pending the final outcome of the UK proceedings. IMD successfully argued that, regardless of the return of the child to the UK under the Hague Convention, the mother should be allowed unsupervised overnight contact with the child. We were delighted to be able to secure her contact with the child for Christmas and she said that it was the best Christmas gift she could have wished for. The outcome of the application for the relocation is pending.
S v V - We currently represent the father in Child Arrangements Order proceedings issued by the mother in relation to variation of a UK order made in the face of numerous other international proceedings. He is an Italian National who has been living in France for the last 20 years and the mother is a Lithuanian national. The child is now 11 years old and proceedings concerning the child have been ongoing in various jurisdictions for the majority of the child`s life. Contested divorce proceedings including child arrangements took place in Monaco. The French Court and authorities were also involved, and various proceedings had been ongoing between parties since 2013 in France and Monaco.
The parties’ divorce was pronounced in Monaco. Thereafter, in December 2020, the mother submitted an application to relocate to England with the child, and the relocation took place in June 2021. Upon relocation, the she lodged a child arrangement order application, seeking to register a judgment made in Monaco and to vary the same in respect of the contact arrangements between the father and the child. The father seeks for the child’s return to Monaco.
Due to the parties’ mutual allegations and the associated international elements, various authorities and courts that have been involved in the case, the local authority has become involved with the family and a guardian has been instructed to represent the child in the UK proceedings. At present, these proceedings in England are ongoing and the outcome of the professional reports regarding the family are awaited.
P v P - We have acted for the Respondent Husband in relation to the financial remedy proceedings in the UK. The parties had various assets in the UK and Romania consisting mainly of the portfolio of properties but conduct issues were raised by the Wife due to a business of the Husband over which she had lost control and her allegations of dissipation of assets. The value of assets excluding the business were in a region of £3 million.
K v K - We act in financial remedy proceedings for a wife who is a Polish national. The matter's complexity mainly comes from a dispute between the parties around land in Poland. Its value was initially in dispute but was then assessed by a joint expert to be in the region of half a million pounds. The total assets in this case are estimated to be worth over £1 million. The land in Poland is a subject to contract with a third party and is being leased as a photovoltaic (solar) farm. The division of the land to achieve an equal share of the assets is complicated due to the contract in place and plans for the future use of the land. Currently the parties are awaiting a final hearing but efforts are being made to reach a settlement with the aid of alternative dispute resolution and in order to save the parties money and avoid further delays.
R v O - We acted pro bono and worked together with a law firm in Poland to ensure that the Costa Rican Mother regains access to her child. The Mother's only child was abducted from the UK in 2014. The Mother was successful with the abduction case and the UK family courts ordered the return of the child. The orders were recognised in Poland but unfortunately due to various issues with the Mother's immigration status and court's delays in Poland, the orders were never enforced. The Mother was facing removal from the UK and prospects of never seeing her child again. We have corresponded with various courts in Poland dealing with international abduction matters and we decided that an application for contact should be issued rather than any proceedings for further enforcement of the orders, as the Mother had not seen the child for around 7 years. At the same we secured the Mother's stay in the UK making successful outside of immigration rules application to extend her stay. We now receive regular photos from the Mother with her daughter, as face to face contact is taking place. We helped to secure an order of the Polish courts for the Mother to see the child regularly in person, whilst when she instructed us she was facing a prospect of never seeing her child again and being deported to Costa Rica.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
By clicking "Accept", you'll be letting us use cookies to improve your website experience.Accept
Talk to us today 
CONTACT US TODAY
0330 107 0107