Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

rahrah21

Hannimal said:

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.. 

There was no comment on rent arrears from me as LL thats why

rahrah21

theoretica said:

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.

T doesn't work, and also has partner who also doesn't work

rahrah21

Hannimal 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 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? 

Insurance was of no concern in regards to this, it was in response to the numerous comments about invalidating insurance. Can't be invalidated if it doesnt exist. Which T has yet again confirmed in one of many ranting text messages saying we "have to pay as they don't have insurance" 

rahrah21

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. 

Not unsafe - double bolted front door, access though side and back locking doors. 

rahrah21

Ok, so my lesson for today - don't ask a genuine request for advice on this forum unless you are prepared to feel like the worst person on the planet. Outcome - invoice has been paid, as doesn't seem to be a clear way to resolve without legal action. T has behaved appallingly, in such a manner that I would not have felt safe going to the property on that evening. I have been advised on here to "reconsider being an LL", that I am "just wrong" and all I wanted was to try to establish if the T was being fair asking for such a hefty call out and what my rights are. I know there were local companies as I had called them to ask for costs for the next day, and in doing so their bank holiday call out charges.  I had a lengthy discussion via text with T, including how to secure the property and T felt it was an "inconvenience" to begin with. The property was secure, T even said so until questioned on cause of lock issue. T does not work, and had no appointments the next day, but said did not want to be "woken up by a racket" in the morning. Various comments have been made about my "adding to the story". I had not realised I should have written a long post detailing interactions. I have been accused of "brushing the T off", "leaving them to sort it". My gosh. I won't ask a for advice on here again. I care about my T, even with the behaviour so they are reimbursed, despite everything. 

Hannimal

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal 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 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? 

Insurance was of no concern in regards to this, it was in response to the numerous comments about invalidating insurance. Can't be invalidated if it doesnt exist. Which T has yet again confirmed in one of many ranting text messages saying we "have to pay as they don't have insurance" 

I think the other point is here that if insurance companies do not deem houses without locks safe enough for them to cover contents in said houses, why should tenants accept them as safe? I am not in agreement that the tenants' course of action was the most sensible one, but I see why it was important for them to have working locks. Whatever you decide to do, please keep us up to date. I would be very surprised if any judge ruled in your favour, but then UK is a country where LL set the rules... 

rahrah21

Hannimal said:

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal 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 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? 

Insurance was of no concern in regards to this, it was in response to the numerous comments about invalidating insurance. Can't be invalidated if it doesnt exist. Which T has yet again confirmed in one of many ranting text messages saying we "have to pay as they don't have insurance" 

I think the other point is here that if insurance companies do not deem houses without locks safe enough for them to cover contents in said houses, why should tenants accept them as safe? I am not in agreement that the tenants' course of action was the most sensible one, but I see why it was important for them to have working locks. Whatever you decide to do, please keep us up to date. I would be very surprised if any judge ruled in your favour, but then UK is a country where LL set the rules... 

I have covered the cost of the invoice. No idea why you keep talking about court. I never mentioned anything about legal action. 

Slithery

rahrah21 said:

Ok, so my lesson for today - don't ask a genuine request for advice on this forum unless you are prepared to feel like the worst person on the planet. Outcome - invoice has been paid, as doesn't seem to be a clear way to resolve without legal action. T has behaved appallingly, in such a manner that I would not have felt safe going to the property on that evening. I have been advised on here to "reconsider being an LL", that I am "just wrong" and all I wanted was to try to establish if the T was being fair asking for such a hefty call out and what my rights are. I know there were local companies as I had called them to ask for costs for the next day, and in doing so their bank holiday call out charges.  I had a lengthy discussion via text with T, including how to secure the property and T felt it was an "inconvenience" to begin with. The property was secure, T even said so until questioned on cause of lock issue. T does not work, and had no appointments the next day, but said did not want to be "woken up by a racket" in the morning. Various comments have been made about my "adding to the story". I had not realised I should have written a long post detailing interactions. I have been accused of "brushing the T off", "leaving them to sort it". My gosh. I won't ask a for advice on here again. I care about my T, even with the behaviour so they are reimbursed, despite everything. 

Have you been reading a different forum to me?

Once you had explained the situation in full the majority of reasonable posters agreed with you as well as explaining how to legally deal with the situation... There will always still be a few that don't understand the law or just keep ranting though

Most of the other comments came before you informed us about the property still being secure due to the bolts and alternate exits - these are facts which massively change the situation so should have been given in the OP.

Ath_Wat

Hannimal said:

rahrah21 said:

Hannimal 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 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? 

Insurance was of no concern in regards to this, it was in response to the numerous comments about invalidating insurance. Can't be invalidated if it doesnt exist. Which T has yet again confirmed in one of many ranting text messages saying we "have to pay as they don't have insurance" 

I think the other point is here that if insurance companies do not deem houses without locks safe enough for them to cover contents in said houses, why should tenants accept them as safe? I am not in agreement that the tenants' course of action was the most sensible one, but I see why it was important for them to have working locks. Whatever you decide to do, please keep us up to date. I would be very surprised if any judge ruled in your favour, but then UK is a country where LL set the rules... 

Bolts ARE locks.

They are locks that don't work from outside.

If you have another door to use, bolts secure a door perfectly well.

Why do you just ignore this however many times people say it to you?

canaldumidi

15 pages and still going strong! Amazing! So OK, there are two camps. The tenant-is-afraid-camp because the house is insecure, and the landlord-is-reasonable camp because the door can be bolted and the LL offerered to repair next day.

Those 2 camps are clearly never going change their minds or agree, but does it warrant 15 pages of repetition?

OK, a few red herrings along the way, like insurance (makes NO diference to the rights or wrongs), and other alleged tenant wrong-doings (still makes no difference to the rights or wrongs of an emergency repair).

OP must decide whether to pay the tenant, not pay the tenant, evict the tenant or not evict.

Now, please can I get some sleep?