Hi Whale, it is getting to sort of a theoritical argument but I guess the distinction is whether a “person” has done anything to “hinder or obstruct” access to rectify the problem. Section 65 of the SSMA 1996 is the relevant section, refer subsection (5)
In the case of a ‘non compliant not approved’ lock a person would done something to ‘hinder or obstruct’ if access couldn’t be gained because of the lock.
In the case of a leak in a wall a ‘person’ probably wouldn’t have been involved, although I am sure one could think of a situation where a person could have been involved eg, by doing something to the wall.
In caj’s orignial post the question was asked “Who is responsible for the locksmith fees?” I was just trying to point out, in response to a hypothetical put by Jimmy, that the legislation provides that in certain circumstances the OC would not be liable. The legislation doesn’t state who would be liable and in practice the result of who is liable would be result of negotiation and available evidence.