Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

sidneyvic

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? 

Absolutely do not pay this invoice. This lot would not know the law if it slapped them around the face. No judge would ever consider it reasonable for you to have to foot this charge. Look at shelters website and advise on withholding rent. Even they say it should never be done ! 
Please do not be bullied by these people. I saw your earlier comment about a plumber and broken bath plug, it seems to me they are severely taking advantage of you. Please section 21 get rid and get some nice tenants who appreciate your thoughtful nature.

Emmia

GDB2222 said:

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.

I agree on your assessment of judges, but personally I think the OP shouldn't have brushed off the tenants - two bolts also wouldn't be enough for me personally (perhaps the tenant usually locked and bolted the door?).

*I'd probably have paid for the locksmith myself though, and not charged it to the landlord.

GDB2222

Emmia said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

I agree on your assessment of judges, but personally I think the OP shouldn't have brushed off the tenants - two bolts also wouldn't be enough for me personally (perhaps the tenant usually locked and bolted the door?).

Of course, 2 bolts PLUS a lock would be a little bit better than 2 bolts.

If this were your house, and you had to pay, would you really pay around £400 extra to get the job done on Monday night, compared to Tuesday? 

Ath_Wat

Emmia said:

GDB2222 said:

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.

I agree on your assessment of judges, but personally I think the OP shouldn't have brushed off the tenants - two bolts also wouldn't be enough for me personally (perhaps the tenant usually locked and bolted the door?).

*I'd probably have paid for the locksmith myself though, and not charged it to the landlord.

It entirely depends on the bolts.

You can have a bolt that is next to useless, and you can have bolts which when slid render the keyed lock irrelevant.

Why on earth would an inch diameter steel bar sliding four inches directly into drilled stonework be considered in any way insecure? I've lived in a  house with bolts like that.   Of course, we don't know it was that, it could be a flimsy little thing held in by one screw.

Conversely the main lock could be a multi point upvc door  lock or could be a rubbishy little Yale thing.

But saying "bolts wouldn't be enough" just doesn't cut it if you don't know what kind of bolts they were.  Bolts are just hand operated rather than keyed locks.  The problem is not that they are insecure , it's that you can't work them from outside.

theoretica

What I have not seen asked is what the tenant would be doing on a working day - and if they would be working did the landlord offer to come over and meet the locksmith, or did the tenant feel expected to take time off for this.

Hannimal

Slithery 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.

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...

Perhaps the question should be why the tenant should accept that they and their possessions are left unsafe with a broken lock. There is a reason the insurance is void if there is no working lock. 

Hannimal

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 struggle to see why this is important. Would you have been willing to fix the lock in a timely manner if the tenant had insurance? 

GDB2222

Hannimal said:

Slithery 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.

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...

Perhaps the question should be why the tenant should accept that they and their possessions are left unsafe with a broken lock. There is a reason the insurance is void if there is no working lock. 

That’s irrelevant. The landlord has a duty to repair the lock within a reasonable time. Given the alternative means of securing the property that would mean within a few days, although the landlord was offering to do it the next day.

Hannimal

sidneyvic said:

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.

Mustve missed the comment about rent arrears. Sorry about that. That of course changes the picture. It's a bit hard to follow as the LL seems to remember one thing after another as the thread goes on.. 

Ath_Wat

Hannimal said:

Slithery 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.

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...

Perhaps the question should be why the tenant should accept that they and their possessions are left unsafe with a broken lock. There is a reason the insurance is void if there is no working lock. 

Why do you keep saying this, when there were bolts. 

If the bolts were good bolts, the problem was not that the house was insecure, but just that they had to come and go through the back door.