Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

GDB2222

74jax said:

GDB2222 said:

74jax said:

As someone who has had a secure upvc door with really good locks and bolts broken by someone to gain entry, I'd have been really uneasy staying there. The alternative of a hotel isn't much use as it would mean I felt safe, but I'd know my belongings were not (although appreciate the LL thinks so).

I'm also a LL and no way would consider this not an emergency. Also a parent and wouldnt be happy if this happened to my DD. 

That makes no sense. You've just said that really good locks don't help!

Sadly in my case no. I was, for a very long time, under red alert with 999, and my locks etc were all OK and police checked. I felt 'suitably' secure. However if someone wants in, they get in. Thankfully mine was broken into whilst I was placed in a secure house and so I wasn't actually at home.
It took a long LONG time to be able to relax again with the usual locks and bolts. But I do 100% know I could in no way stay in my house with no locks. Even though it's 15+ years on and I have a husband now. 
It might not make sense, but it's just my feelings on it. 

Sadly, if you have been through something really traumatic, it can affect you for many, many years. You have my sympathy, and I'm sure many others', too.

Unfortunately, if someone is determined to do you harm, without regard for the consequences for themselves, it's almost impossible to keep them out of ordinary domestic premises. 

Hannimal

[Deleted User] said:

In another topic you dont know about holding deposits. Now you are contradicting well respected posters about repair protocols. From novice to expert in the space of a few posts.

I am not sure what I am contradicting. The LL here can serve S21 and dispute the tenant's request for them to cover the repair of the lock but we all know that the law is on the tenant's side here. I do agree that it is a really big bill for a very small job, but that seems to be besides the point given it was a bank holiday and likely the only locksmith available at that hour and at that time who could do the job. It's very difficult to see how legally the LL would be in the right here. 

While I am empathetic to the LL's position that that is a very large bill, I also see the tenant's side and their right to feel safe. I wouldn't feel safe without being able to lock my doors. We've had several break-ins on my street this past year and I would want to get my lock fixed asap if it broke. 

GDB2222

Hannimal said:

saajan_12 said:

Hannimal said:

sidneyvic said:

I bet you if Tennant owned the house and would have had to foot the bill, they would have waited until after the bank holiday.
Tell them to do one.

But they don't and they pay rent to cover costs like these, so it doesn't really matter what they'd do if they owned the property. 

As a property owner myself I would probably not wait as an unlocked door would deem my house insurance void and it's not a risk worth taking. 

It absolutely is relevant what they'd do as an owner occupier - if its the same person feeling the pain of the cost vs the inconvenience of waiting for the fix, then they can make a balanced decision. In theory, if an average owner occupier wouldn't pay up for a same day fix, then the implication is that its reasonable to wait a day. 

That doesn't mean that the tenant actually pays for the next day fix if that's the reasonable timeframe (assuming they're not at fault). Their rent would cover the cost of the next day fix. However if they want something sooner, then they can pay up for the difference. 

No, it really isn't. As a tenant you are paying for the whole package. As an owner you boot the cost of repairs when it comes to it. So for example if my shower breaks and I decide I can put up with it for a few months and shower at work and the gym while I wait, then that's a decision I make for myself. But if I am renting i am paying for a door that locks and a shower that works, and my landlord can't make the choice for me that I'd have to l ive somewhere unsafe or somewhere without a shower. 

If the tenant felt unsafe with a broken lock, as I would, then they're absolutely within their rights to demand it be fixed asap. I totally get it's a pain to boot that bill but at £400-or-so it's hardly life-changing and it's a part and parcel of being a landlord. If the LL wishes to not provide a safe habitat to their tenants, then they should reconsider being a LL. 

my landlord can't make the choice for me that I'd have to l ive somewhere unsafe or somewhere without a shower.

Your landlord's obligation is to make repairs in a reasonably timely manner. So, in the case of a shower, that might typically be 2 or 3 days. If you choose instead to move into a hotel, that'll be at your own cost.


If the tenant felt unsafe with a broken lock, as I would, then they're absolutely within their rights to demand it be fixed asap. 

No, you are simply wrong in law. However you feel about it, your landlord's obligation is to make repairs in a reasonably timely manner. If you feel unsafe, that's part of the equation and it  might affect how long is reasonable. 

In this case, the front door could be secured with bolts top and bottom. There was an alternative lockable entrance. So,  reasonable time for a repair would be a few days, although the LL was going to be far quicker than that. 


I am saying all this just in case you are a tenant, and so you don't make a costly error like the op's tenant did.  

GDB2222

Hannimal said:

canaldumidi said:

Letter politely explaining

* not an emergency as door could be secured overnight with bolts, and alternative exit/entry available

* LL had offered repair in reasonable timescale - next working day

* LL had explicitly not authorised emergency repair - tenant made unilateral decision so is responsible for related costs

* tenant has not established if repair was necesitated due to wear and tear, or tenant damage

* even if it had been an emergency, unreasonable to employ a locksmith 70 miles away

Consequently LL rejects T's request for reimbursement..

If T accepts this, all well and good lessons learned all round.

If T disputes this, and continues to claim money and/or deducts from rent, S21 Notice followed by deposit dispute when tenancy (eventually) ends.

Good luck issuing a valid S21 following a dispute over who is responsible for a lock repair. Very easy for the tenant to challenge this. 

It is also TERRIBLE advice to ask the landlord to evict someone as a revenge because they wanted to have secure doors. I am assuming that even though the OP (understandly) is upset about the high cost of the repair, they are not a terrible person and so would not do this. 

This is highly misleading. You can find the law here:

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/repairs/revenge_eviction_if_you_ask_for_repairs

GDB2222

Hannimal said:

[Deleted User] said:

In another topic you dont know about holding deposits. Now you are contradicting well respected posters about repair protocols. From novice to expert in the space of a few posts.

I am not sure what I am contradicting. The LL here can serve S21 and dispute the tenant's request for them to cover the repair of the lock but we all know that the law is on the tenant's side here. I do agree that it is a really big bill for a very small job, but that seems to be besides the point given it was a bank holiday and likely the only locksmith available at that hour and at that time who could do the job. It's very difficult to see how legally the LL would be in the right here. 

While I am empathetic to the LL's position that that is a very large bill, I also see the tenant's side and their right to feel safe. I wouldn't feel safe without being able to lock my doors. We've had several break-ins on my street this past year and I would want to get my lock fixed asap if it broke. 

The tenant has no such right. The LL has a duty to make repairs in a reasonably speedy manner. 

Your opinions about what you would  like the law to be are just as valid as anyone else's, of course.

lookstraightahead

GDB2222 said:

jrawle said:

GDB2222 said:

You don’t need a locksmith. Any handyman can do that job in five minutes. Anyone with a screwdriver can do it. Undo one screw. Take the old lock barrel out. Put the new one in. Do the screw up.  The lock barrel costs a few £££.

£426 for that job is just plain ridiculous. 

It’s an uneasy relationship between LL and T, but it’s best to try to get on. An incident like this makes both parties unhappy, so it’s best if the T leaves and finds somewhere else to live.

Where do you get the new barrel from at 7pm on Bank Holiday Monday?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/bank-holiday-2022-diy-store-26814719

The Mirror published an answer to your question before you posed it.

If only the op had sorted it out then, rather than waiting for the tenant to have to deal with it. 

When I rented my landlord gave me a list of people to contact - he was happy for me to contact them as long as I was happy to organise it so it worked both ways.

I had an electrician, a plumber, a locksmith, a window cleaner, a gardener on the list. Even had a babysitter they used.

lisyloo

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal said:

saajan_12 said:

Hannimal said:

sidneyvic said:

I bet you if Tennant owned the house and would have had to foot the bill, they would have waited until after the bank holiday.
Tell them to do one.

But they don't and they pay rent to cover costs like these, so it doesn't really matter what they'd do if they owned the property. 

As a property owner myself I would probably not wait as an unlocked door would deem my house insurance void and it's not a risk worth taking. 

It absolutely is relevant what they'd do as an owner occupier - if its the same person feeling the pain of the cost vs the inconvenience of waiting for the fix, then they can make a balanced decision. In theory, if an average owner occupier wouldn't pay up for a same day fix, then the implication is that its reasonable to wait a day. 

That doesn't mean that the tenant actually pays for the next day fix if that's the reasonable timeframe (assuming they're not at fault). Their rent would cover the cost of the next day fix. However if they want something sooner, then they can pay up for the difference. 

No, it really isn't. As a tenant you are paying for the whole package. As an owner you boot the cost of repairs when it comes to it. So for example if my shower breaks and I decide I can put up with it for a few months and shower at work and the gym while I wait, then that's a decision I make for myself. But if I am renting i am paying for a door that locks and a shower that works, and my landlord can't make the choice for me that I'd have to l ive somewhere unsafe or somewhere without a shower. 

If the tenant felt unsafe with a broken lock, as I would, then they're absolutely within their rights to demand it be fixed asap. I totally get it's a pain to boot that bill but at £400-or-so it's hardly life-changing and it's a part and parcel of being a landlord. If the LL wishes to not provide a safe habitat to their tenants, then they should reconsider being a LL. 

Not a case of not wanting to provide a safe habitat, but I would consider double bolts as safe for a temporary period of potentially no more than one night. I think the comment of reconsidering being an LL given how some LL's treat their properties and tenants is unfair. 

What about their insurance and yours?
Serious question - why should they accept their contents being uninsured even if only for 1 night when they are paying for a professional service.

Slithery

lisyloo said:

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal said:

saajan_12 said:

Hannimal said:

sidneyvic said:

I bet you if Tennant owned the house and would have had to foot the bill, they would have waited until after the bank holiday.
Tell them to do one.

But they don't and they pay rent to cover costs like these, so it doesn't really matter what they'd do if they owned the property. 

As a property owner myself I would probably not wait as an unlocked door would deem my house insurance void and it's not a risk worth taking. 

It absolutely is relevant what they'd do as an owner occupier - if its the same person feeling the pain of the cost vs the inconvenience of waiting for the fix, then they can make a balanced decision. In theory, if an average owner occupier wouldn't pay up for a same day fix, then the implication is that its reasonable to wait a day. 

That doesn't mean that the tenant actually pays for the next day fix if that's the reasonable timeframe (assuming they're not at fault). Their rent would cover the cost of the next day fix. However if they want something sooner, then they can pay up for the difference. 

No, it really isn't. As a tenant you are paying for the whole package. As an owner you boot the cost of repairs when it comes to it. So for example if my shower breaks and I decide I can put up with it for a few months and shower at work and the gym while I wait, then that's a decision I make for myself. But if I am renting i am paying for a door that locks and a shower that works, and my landlord can't make the choice for me that I'd have to l ive somewhere unsafe or somewhere without a shower. 

If the tenant felt unsafe with a broken lock, as I would, then they're absolutely within their rights to demand it be fixed asap. I totally get it's a pain to boot that bill but at £400-or-so it's hardly life-changing and it's a part and parcel of being a landlord. If the LL wishes to not provide a safe habitat to their tenants, then they should reconsider being a LL. 

Not a case of not wanting to provide a safe habitat, but I would consider double bolts as safe for a temporary period of potentially no more than one night. I think the comment of reconsidering being an LL given how some LL's treat their properties and tenants is unfair. 

What about their insurance and yours?
Serious question - why should they accept their contents being uninsured even if only for 1 night when they are paying for a professional service.

This was covered earlier in the thread. The tenant has been advised previously by the OP to get contents insurance but refuses to do so...

[Deleted User]

lisyloo said:

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal said:

saajan_12 said:

Hannimal said:

sidneyvic said:

I bet you if Tennant owned the house and would have had to foot the bill, they would have waited until after the bank holiday.
Tell them to do one.

But they don't and they pay rent to cover costs like these, so it doesn't really matter what they'd do if they owned the property. 

As a property owner myself I would probably not wait as an unlocked door would deem my house insurance void and it's not a risk worth taking. 

It absolutely is relevant what they'd do as an owner occupier - if its the same person feeling the pain of the cost vs the inconvenience of waiting for the fix, then they can make a balanced decision. In theory, if an average owner occupier wouldn't pay up for a same day fix, then the implication is that its reasonable to wait a day. 

That doesn't mean that the tenant actually pays for the next day fix if that's the reasonable timeframe (assuming they're not at fault). Their rent would cover the cost of the next day fix. However if they want something sooner, then they can pay up for the difference. 

No, it really isn't. As a tenant you are paying for the whole package. As an owner you boot the cost of repairs when it comes to it. So for example if my shower breaks and I decide I can put up with it for a few months and shower at work and the gym while I wait, then that's a decision I make for myself. But if I am renting i am paying for a door that locks and a shower that works, and my landlord can't make the choice for me that I'd have to l ive somewhere unsafe or somewhere without a shower. 

If the tenant felt unsafe with a broken lock, as I would, then they're absolutely within their rights to demand it be fixed asap. I totally get it's a pain to boot that bill but at £400-or-so it's hardly life-changing and it's a part and parcel of being a landlord. If the LL wishes to not provide a safe habitat to their tenants, then they should reconsider being a LL. 

Not a case of not wanting to provide a safe habitat, but I would consider double bolts as safe for a temporary period of potentially no more than one night. I think the comment of reconsidering being an LL given how some LL's treat their properties and tenants is unfair. 

What about their insurance and yours?
Serious question - why should they accept their contents being uninsured even if only for 1 night when they are paying for a professional service.

I do not think that the landlord has offered any legal commitment to comply with the particulars of a tenants insurance policy. 

sheramber

GDB2222 said:

jrawle said:

GDB2222 said:

You don’t need a locksmith. Any handyman can do that job in five minutes. Anyone with a screwdriver can do it. Undo one screw. Take the old lock barrel out. Put the new one in. Do the screw up.  The lock barrel costs a few £££.

£426 for that job is just plain ridiculous. 

It’s an uneasy relationship between LL and T, but it’s best to try to get on. An incident like this makes both parties unhappy, so it’s best if the T leaves and finds somewhere else to live.

Where do you get the new barrel from at 7pm on Bank Holiday Monday?

B&Q were probably open. However, the property was secure, so this could have waited until Tuesday.  

The point is that the tenants turned a sub-£100 job into one costing over £400, and then expected the landlord to foot the bill. 

SO the LL could have gone and got a new lock and fixed it himself.

Maybe the T had to go to work the next day.; had an important meeting to attend, a hospital appointment to attend.