Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

[Deleted User]

lookstraightahead said:

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.

That is a fine approach which i like for sensible tenants . Contingencies are necessary. However for a tenant like this who makes debatable choices its akin to a blank cheque book.

Personally the 2 bolts on the door are the immediate backup in this situation. The landlord should have reaped the rewards of having this in place. 

rahrah21

[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.

Hi Brett, sorry - who are you referring to? I've not commented on anyone's repair protocols? 

rahrah21

lookstraightahead said:

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.

We made some calls, to local companies, following T's contact. Hence offering to get someone out the following day. So we did sort it but T decided to go ahead anyway without agreement. This T as I said earlier has called an emergency plumber out for a broken bath plug. We did not wait for the T do sort it. We advised T that as property secure the next day we would have a locksmith out to sort. 

rahrah21

sheramber said:

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.

2 things. firstly I am a she not a he. secondly, as in opening post, T was by this point being highly abusive. Me as a female visiting agressive male T on a bank holiday evening wasn't an option, tools and equipment aside. 

GDB2222

sheramber said:

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.

That's all possible. If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that the tenant could bolt the front door from the inside. Then, he could exit from one of the other two doors, which he could lock behind him. 

I am not trying to justify the landlord's position. The ONLY thing that concerns me is that some daft tenant might do the same as this tenant did, and find himself £400 out of pocket!

lisyloo

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

I wonder what a court would say a reasonable person would do/expect.
I’d expect a professional landlord to comply with standard expectations e.g. I’d consider the standards insurers use to be a reasonable yardstick but IANAL.
if landlords consider that a standard for contents then that would be the minimum for personal safety (which is more highly prized than worldly goods).

lookstraightahead

rahrah21 said:

lookstraightahead said:

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.

We made some calls, to local companies, following T's contact. Hence offering to get someone out the following day. So we did sort it but T decided to go ahead anyway without agreement. This T as I said earlier has called an emergency plumber out for a broken bath plug. We did not wait for the T do sort it. We advised T that as property secure the next day we would have a locksmith out to sort. 

Best thing you can do is use an agency, it's a bit more expensive but they will deal with it and have their own set of tradespeople. It means everything is dealt with third party and stops you or the tenant feeling vulnerable.

rahrah21

lisyloo said:

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

I wonder what a court would say a reasonable person would do/expect.
I’d expect a professional landlord to comply with standard expectations e.g. I’d consider the standards insurers use to be a reasonable yardstick but IANAL.
if landlords consider that a standard for contents then that would be the minimum for personal safety (which is more highly prized than worldly goods).

As I stated earlier, T refuses to take out tenant content insurance so insurance is a moot point here

dil1976

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

I wonder what a court would say a reasonable person would do/expect.
I’d expect a professional landlord to comply with standard expectations e.g. I’d consider the standards insurers use to be a reasonable yardstick but IANAL.
if landlords consider that a standard for contents then that would be the minimum for personal safety (which is more highly prized than worldly goods).

As I stated earlier, T refuses to take out tenant content insurance so insurance is a moot point here

How do you know they dont have insurance? They are not obliged to tell you if the have it or not are they!

lisyloo

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

[Deleted User] said:

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. 

I wonder what a court would say a reasonable person would do/expect.
I’d expect a professional landlord to comply with standard expectations e.g. I’d consider the standards insurers use to be a reasonable yardstick but IANAL.
if landlords consider that a standard for contents then that would be the minimum for personal safety (which is more highly prized than worldly goods).

As I stated earlier, T refuses to take out tenant content insurance so insurance is a moot point here

I don’t think that entitles you (a professional service provide) to put their good at higher risks (insurance or not). In fact one could argue security is even more important.

the question is what would a judge think a reasonable person would do.

personally I think it’s too close to call to go to court, but do please let us know how it ends (win or lose) as it may help others.