Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

Slithery

lookstraightahead said:

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.

'A bit more expensive' could be a massive understatement. When I used to work as a builder/handyman who had a contract with a national lettings agency they would usually double my quote for the work and then add VAT on top even though it was already included in my bill. Also because they didn't usually pay me for 4+ months my original quote would be higher than for a regular customer to compensate me for the cash flow issues that they always created.
The LL having to pay triple to the agency what they would have done if they'd employed me directly instead wasn't unusual at all.

rahrah21

dil1976 said:

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!

We know because they tried to claim off us, for something that should have been a content insurance issue. purely T responsibility. When we advised them to contact insurance we again got abuse and a long wordy sweary rant about insurance being a scam. 

GDB2222

lisyloo said:

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.

The property was perfectly secure, because the front door was bolted.  It's an open and shut case for the landlord.

rahrah21

lisyloo said:

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.

We didn't put them at risk with a double bolted door that to be honest is probably more secure than a standard door lock . A reasonable person would likely consider 2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night, with the offer of an arranged and reliable lock repair the following day. I would find that acceptable were I the T. T didn't help by the sweary abusive messages sent either, which had not been the case I would have gone over. 

sidneyvic

aoleks said:

I’m not exqctly sure what you’re expecting here, OP, you’re clearly wrong on this one. Where the property is located ia conpletely irrelevant, I must be able to lock the door at all times. That was an emergency, whatever you think, and the bank holiday has nothing to do with it…

That is the most ridiculous comment I have ever seen. £426.00 to change a barrel when the door could still be secured and there were other entrances is just plain stupid. 
I would pay the £40.00 odd to change the barrel, the rest is the tenants responsibility. If they don't agree section 21 and get shot or next time it might be thousands !

Emmia

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

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.

We didn't put them at risk with a double bolted door that to be honest is probably more secure than a standard door lock . A reasonable person would likely consider 2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night, with the offer of an arranged and reliable lock repair the following day. I would find that acceptable were I the T. T didn't help by the sweary abusive messages sent either, which had not been the case I would have gone over. 

But this boils down to your view of what you think vs what your tenant thinks a reasonable person would do

GDB2222

Emmia said:

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

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.

We didn't put them at risk with a double bolted door that to be honest is probably more secure than a standard door lock . A reasonable person would likely consider 2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night, with the offer of an arranged and reliable lock repair the following day. I would find that acceptable were I the T. T didn't help by the sweary abusive messages sent either, which had not been the case I would have gone over. 

But this boils down to your view of what you think vs what your tenant thinks a reasonable person would do

Ultimately, it boils down to what a judge thinks. Contrary to many people's expectations, judges are reasonable, sensible, and quite clever, people. What conclusion do you think they will come to? Will they  think "2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night"? 

I am not particularly concerned with the OP's case, as the tenant has clearly dug his own grave. What concerns me is that a tenant might read this thread, and I don't want him/her to draw the wrong conclusions.

sidneyvic

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. 

Thats the trouble with this country, it is absolutely not revenge. The LL explicitly did not agree to these charges as it was not an emergency and now the Tennant is attempting to blackmail him into paying.
The tenant will now be in rent arrears so exactly what section 21 is for.

rahrah21

GDB2222 said:

Emmia said:

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

brett19852010 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.

We didn't put them at risk with a double bolted door that to be honest is probably more secure than a standard door lock . A reasonable person would likely consider 2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night, with the offer of an arranged and reliable lock repair the following day. I would find that acceptable were I the T. T didn't help by the sweary abusive messages sent either, which had not been the case I would have gone over. 

But this boils down to your view of what you think vs what your tenant thinks a reasonable person would do

Ultimately, it boils down to what a judge thinks. Contrary to many people's expectations, judges are reasonable, sensible, and quite clever, people. What conclusion do you think they will come to?

That was why I asked on here, but kind of regretting doing that now as no one seems to be even remotely concerned that T has threatened and abused repeatedly. I have decided on this occasion to pay the invoice, as it seems the jury is out on what the actual law is, but why is noone concerned at the T's abuse? 

GDB2222

rahrah21 said:

GDB2222 said:

Emmia said:

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

rahrah21 said:

lisyloo said:

brett19852010 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.

We didn't put them at risk with a double bolted door that to be honest is probably more secure than a standard door lock . A reasonable person would likely consider 2 heavy slide bolts to be reasonably secure for one night, with the offer of an arranged and reliable lock repair the following day. I would find that acceptable were I the T. T didn't help by the sweary abusive messages sent either, which had not been the case I would have gone over. 

But this boils down to your view of what you think vs what your tenant thinks a reasonable person would do

Ultimately, it boils down to what a judge thinks. Contrary to many people's expectations, judges are reasonable, sensible, and quite clever, people. What conclusion do you think they will come to?

That was why I asked on here, but kind of regretting doing that now as no one seems to be even remotely concerned that T has threatened and abused repeatedly. I have decided on this occasion to pay the invoice, as it seems the jury is out on what the actual law is, but why is noone concerned at the T's abuse? 

You have not really majored on the tenant's abuse, so nobody really concentrated on that.  I agree with you that it's unacceptable.

You have been advised to get rid of the tenant as soon as you can. It helps in that regard if you do NOT agree to the invoice, but that's your choice.

I don't know if it helps, but you strike me as a decent, caring person, and I'd happily rent from you.