Tenant called locksmith on bank holiday

JuanBallOfWimbledon

OP, if you’re referring to my comment earlier about it being better to put all the info into your first post, I was simply trying to say that it’s easier to get proper advice if all details are shared from the off. I wasn’t suggesting you were conveniently changing your story (although obviously some may read it that way. It happens here from time to time; someone will get answers they don’t like and add more and more details vilifying their LL/tenant/vendor/buyer/EA etc). Some people only read the OP and a few replies, then chime in, I’ve done that myself. I was trying to explain why you were still getting answers which weren’t taking those additional details into account. I probably shouldn’t have, my apologies if you took it as a ‘dig’. 

Glad it’s all sorted now, even if it wasn’t the ideal outcome for you.

CKhalvashi

missile said:

rahrah21 said:

Tranboy said:

But how much is the bill?

£426 which is a lot for a basic barrel change 

I would terminate tenant's contract at earliest opportunity

And that someone has the power to throw someone out of their home so easily is exactly why S21 needs to be repealed.

That's a disgusting attitude. OP is paying for the skill and experience of someone installing a lock on a public holiday in addition to a new barrel, and this has a cost too.

They had the opportunity to shop around and decided not to. This is on them, not their tenant.

CKhalvashi

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? 

Just to add to the above, if you are being threatened you need to contact the police at the time threats are being made, every time. This will open Section 8 to you on several grounds.

lookstraightahead

What happens if you hand your keys in a day late at the end of a tenancy? Us there a security risk? What can you be charged for?

Ath_Wat

canaldumidi said:

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?

The 2 camps are basically "bolts cannot ever secure a door adequately" and "don't be absurd, of course they can".  That is the point of "debate" here.   The problem is those in the first camp don't like to directly address it because even they know they are wrong if they stop to think about it, so they keep trying to talk about something else.

theoretica

rahrah21 said:

The property was secure, T even said so until questioned on cause of lock issue.

I think that may be a lesson too - many people react pretty badly when they feel things are being made out to be their fault.  And for all the questioning on here about did the tenant destroy the lock- the very job of a lock is to be robust, but they are mechanical things that do go wrong or wear out.  How often do locks actually get destroyed through someone's actions compared to just one of those things or gradual wear?

diystarter7

I read the first 20 or so posts and then a few more towards the latest comments.

Couple of things.

Someone else said it and I agree and have experience of this but not to this extent.

Several attacked the OP for asking the question and attacked the OP viciously. A newbie or anyone reading posts like that would put me off from asking a question

We ask questions as we are seeking guidance. Help can be given in a way where the OP is not attacked but be given in a polite and professional manner. EG ie from me.  Hello OP. Not having a locking front imo is an emergency and contents etc would/may not be insured and T's at risk. I'm not sure re the exact law but I'd feel unsafe and vulnerable with a front door and no working lock. 
Then - ok, the OP added about the locking bolt. That changed the dynamics a little

There is no reason to be nasty as people are genuinely asking questions and the OP may have been charged 4/500 quid easily
when it could have been done for about 120 to 180 easily if the LL was given a chance


What was the legal stance on this if the door could be bolted from the inside and they were not going out on the BH and the item was to look at repaired the next day?

NB: are people aware that even with the best will thing cannot be repaired there and then?

Bottom line, no need to be nasty if if you know the answer as the reason someone asks a question is they don't and need help/gudiance.

diystarter7

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. 

I've never been a T or a LL but I'm in full agreement with you. There is no need for several of the posts on this thread.

What you asked, did, think, IMO you are a good, ordinary LL that hates paying poss hundreds more than it should have cost.

May I ask you what the build was and the exact fault?

Possibly for future reference take out insurance. Hoepfully you will never need to use it as its often a piece of mind but something like this will save you the stress, and strain and even one repair like this may cover you for a few years insurance re emergency cover for plumbing/locks/etc.

You can privately message me here if they have something like that.

Good luck

Sarah1Mitty2

canaldumidi said:

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?

Landlord wins this one for me.

lookstraightahead

What equivalents can be taken into account from a security perspective though, but from the opposite side.  what if a tenant loses their keys and doesn't hand them in at the end of the tenancy? How much money can be taken out if a deposit scheme for this? I'm sure a lot more than a quick visit to b&q.

From the opposite perspective, we had hundreds of pounds taken from us (years ago) for a stain on some silk curtains. We didn't do it but we neglected to check them properly on the checking in inventory. Landlords do not need to replace items even if they get paid for them, and those curtains are still there, 20 years later. So unfair and I suppose that's why you have deposit schemes. The jury is out for me on this one. I don't think I would have called an emergency locksmith but the tenant's history is unknown and maybe they thought it would never be done. Or they could be doing it out of spite, or maybe they feel vulnerable.

op if you're not happy it might be worth finding new tenants.