^ typo. Dont want a bad mark on your record.
I’m confused whether this is a central heating system or if the apartments have individual heating units. If there’s a “heating unit specific to this unit” and in fact only this apartment unit was affected, that suggests there are individual heating units, but a “very old, hot water system with old-timey radiators”, together with the fact that heat is included in the rent would most likely indicate a central system. Repairing an old central boiler and upgrading an individual heating unit are two entirely different propositions.
In any event, absent facts about the nature of the system or how it failed, it’s anyone’s guess what would be a reasonable time frame to complete a repair.
We don’t know the repair/replace timeline. Possible the repair efforts were legit. Possible that retrofitting a replacement to an older master system was complex. Like an old car, you don’t always know if the first repairs are enough.
But I personally think what matters now is, first, that they have reliable heat for the remainder of winter (and hot water, indefinitely. ) And second, some compensation for the period it wasn’t legally habitable.
In New England, days requiring heat can run to summer. Ay yup. 50 degree days aren’t 50 degree nights. And old buildings retain heat differently.
As a landlord, I can say yes, in my state we have to provide a place that is habitable. No heat in the winter would be uninhabitable; they could move out without penalty. However, they found an alternative heat source so it was habitable, and they CHOSE not to move. A tenant cannot (credibly) claim a place was uninhabitable if they continued to live there the whole time. It blows their argument out of the water. But it was uncomfortable.
Now that we know their additional cost was $100 to $150 month we look at what adjustment do I owe morally?
I would look at how long they’d been tenants and how much their rent is.
I’d likely write them a check for $200-250.
I’m on the fence, younghoss, because it seems they didn’t complain after the first bad-cold nights. Without that input, the LL could have reasonably assumed the space heaters were enough. And they did stay (more or less, though one overnighted elsewhere.)
I’m a landlord (only one unit). In Massachusetts, the State Sanitary Code requires heat from September to June, 68 degrees daytime, 64 at night. It doesn’t matter if the tenants can manage, heat is required. Space heaters do not meet the requirement. It doesn’t matter if the landlord tried in good faith to fix it, rent could be withheld. (Although tenants are also supposed to notify the landlord in writing, and then call the health department for an inspection–which tenants don’t usually do, because they assume it will be fixed quickly.) If my tenants didn’t have heat for two weeks, I wouldn’t expect them to pay rent. That’s part of the cost of being a landlord.
They should check the laws in their state–call a library for help.
Agree with buenavista, state laws vary, but there were a lot of things the tenant could have done. But from what I’ve read, they did not use those remedies. Instead, they chose to stay and get by with supplemental heat. In my state, rent cannot be held for a repair AFTER the repair has been completed. Withholding is used as a legal tool to incentivize a repair. So looking back after-the-fact on what they could have done is really no help now. The OP wants to know what we think is a fair adjustment now. Where buenavista and I differ is that I wouldn’t expect them to live in my unit free; but I would pay the additional costs incurred for that substitute heat, and maybe a little more as a goodwill gesture.
Let’s keep in mind too, doschicos said they were w/o regular heat for 2 weeks, and the bill was $100-$150 higher for the month. Obviously the whole extra cost for the month was not due to the heat trouble. Because we haven’t been told the rent(not that I remember) it is hard for me to give a % of rent I’d discount. That’s why I gave a dollar figure based on their additional cost plus some for inconvenience.
I agree with buenavista. The landlord should automatically refund the rent for the 2-week period.
Well, they did call and complain numerous times throughout the two week period. It was never stated that it would take that long, more like it got strung along. Perhaps, if at the outset, they were told it was going to take two weeks, they might have tried to make some other arrangements. I’m not sure if those were available to them .One of the tenants did but that was because they had a SO to stay with.
Not all people have resources to go stay in a hotel. That is why people bear it and "make do’. In my volunteer work with people with limited resources, some people just don’t have that choice.
“Let’s keep in mind too, doschicos said they were w/o regular heat for 2 weeks, and the bill was $100-$150 higher for the month. Obviously the whole extra cost for the month was not due to the heat trouble.”
Not sure what you mean by this, @younghoss? If the extra amount was above and beyond the previous month, seems like it is attributable to the space heater usage, especially if tenants were there less because of the cold.
“Because we haven’t been told the rent(not that I remember) it is hard for me to give a % of rent I’d discount.”
To me, the amount of rent isn’t relevant to how much should be returned percentage-wise.
This happened to my D. I believe landlord provided space heaters and paid monthly electric bill for that period. He had recently bought the building and the insulation was too poor maintain the apartment at livable levels. It was during snowpocalypse in Boston in 2015 so he couldn’t blow in insulation until spring. Everybody was satisfied that everything was done in good faith.
I agree that the renters should ask for some accommodation, and I would suggest that they start with proposing 1/2 a month’s rent for the inconvenience. By asking nicely, including phrases like “We appreciate the efforts of the staff/crew/workmen who finally resolved the heating problem” and “We understand that sometimes problems will occur, and that resolutions may not always be as prompt as desired, but because the communication of the status of the repair was only upon our repeated requests and because we endured two weeks without heat, we feel that a reimbursement of $x , or 1/2 months rent, is reasonable”
In my recollection, we once had a repair issue in one apartment we rented, and we offered to deduct the difference from the following month’s rent. The landlord explained to us that we needed to pay the full rent, but they would cut us a separate check for the difference. They needed to do this so they could give a copy of the check to their insurance company as proof of their loss.
“because we endured two weeks without heat, we feel…”
Use the word “habitable.”
“Because we endured two weeks without heat, during which the apt wasn’t habitable, we feel…”
But it’s time for them to decide their course.
I’d ask for half. But be willing to take less, as they did stay. That’s me. Ymmv.
So I have had two water losses that were covered by insurance, in units that had tenants in them. I have rental reimbursement as part of my insurance policy. When a unit is considered inhabitable, I am obliged to refund them the rent for that period (but not provide a hotel, their renters policy should cover that). We were able to give one tenant all of their rent back over that time (a water leak that required the water to be turned off), plus we gave them $80 per day to help with a hotel, just to be nice.
The second tenant lost partial use of his kitchen for awhile. Refrigerator, microwave and stove worked, but he couldn’t use the sink and it was a bit of a mess. It took insurance and the contractors way too long to figure it out. The insurers declared part of the apartment as unusable, and gave us partial rent reimbursement, which we gave to him, plus I think we gave him an extra $500 for his trouble. He stayed there and just lived with it. He was very happy with what he got.
I think when I sent the letter, I would be very specific about the cost for the heater and the additional heating costs. I would also specify what they think the temperatures were. If I heard my tenants had to deal with 45 degree temperatures and one of them felt she had to move out, I would definitely reimburse them the rent.
If it’s a property company, I would indicate the dates of no heat and ask for full reimbursement of their rent for that period. What do they have to lose? Worst case, the landlord offers them less. I suspect most state/city codes would consider “no heat” to be a public health violation.
@ClassicRockerDad–Water under the bridge, but if your D’s landlord bought a building and tried to provide heat with space heaters, that is specifically prohibited in the State sanitary code, I assume because of the fire risk. He should have figured out the heat before he rented the building. Massachusetts is very tenant-friendly; if anyone’s kids rent in Mass. it’s a good idea for them to be aware of their rights in case a problem arises. There are a lot of awful landlords who are happy to make lots of money and put our kids at risk.
My daughter loves her apartment. She has great incentive of having a great relationship with her landlord. He is known to not increase rent for tenants he likes or raise it to market rate for tenants he doesn’t like.
@oldfort: “He is known to not increase rent for tenants he likes or raise it to market rate for tenants he doesn’t like.”
Surely that cannot be done in one fell swoop? Aren’t there rules and laws constricting the percent per year of a rent hike? I would think market rate could only come into play for tenants-in-place over a period of years, or if a unit is vacated and completely new tenants move in.
As a LL, I highly recommend tenants do NOT put in their letter that they lived in a place for 2 weeks (post 51) that was not habitable. A person can’t eat the whole steak then refuse to pay saying it wasn’t good.
Ok to say it was barely habitable or that the unit was a terrible hardship.
to answer doschicos query, post 48. I see now that I misunderstood what you said earlier, so my comment about half a month’s bill was meaningless. Sorry.
Barely a month ago, I had a furnace problem that took just over a week to fix. Mine was a 7 yr old natural gas furnace- not an antique. My hvac pros had a very difficult time diagnosing the problem and then had to wait a couple days for the new part to arrive and then a day for them to install it. And each time they put in a replacement part, the furnace worked for a day. Had there been a tenant there, they might have mistakenly felt they were being strung along. So a caring LL, diligent with maintenance can have unexpected delays. I was lucky that it occurred between tenants, in milder weather so the home wasn’t at risk of freeze damage, and no tenant adjustment applied. I just bring it up to show such delays can happen and it doesn’t necessarily mean the LL is too cheap, or too lazy to get a timely fix.
To answer post 55- some states/municipalities are rent controlled, some are not. In my state, it is whatever the market will bear on charging rent. So yes, I could hike a rent plenty if I was unhappy with a tenant, though there are usually better ways to handle it. A LL has to be careful, though. If the tenant with the rate hike is a protected class of person in housing laws, then it could appear to be illegal discrimination.
In NYC, unless an apartment is rent controlled or stabilized, landlord can increase the rent to what the market will bear. Prior to move in to this apartment, D1 was getting 10% increase per year. She is paying below market right now, but she is a good tenant. She pays the rent on time, she and her fiance are out of the apartment most of the time and they take good care of the apartment.
“So yes, I could hike a rent plenty if I was unhappy with a tenant, though there are usually better ways to handle it.”
“In NYC, unless an apartment is rent controlled or stabilized, landlord can increase the rent to what the market will bear.”
Yeah, I hear both of you, but I am having a hard time believing that a landlord who has maintained a steady rate of increase in the rents for tenants would hike the rent, assuming it is not already at top dollar or near it, to express a message to tenant, or simply do so for reasons short of running tenants out for sale of a building (perhaps even combining units for later marketing as larger dwellings). I guess you speak to one hazard of doing that, though, 'hoss.
While there is generally no shortage of people out there looking for a place to stay, unless one is renting out top-shelf units, I would think a landlord would be placing themselves in the unsavory position of having that dreaded empty unit where no monies are coming in.
@younghoss, I’m having a hard time reconciling the wording you are using as a property owner with rentals and what I have seen and known. I think it a rare situation when a landlord would be deemed “caring,” or be characterized by others as acting out of a sense of morality. I have reason to think some enter into renting and managing their properties with the intention to evince such characteristics, but also know the more trying realities of what happens between two parties (landlord and tenant, wear and tear and the need for repairs and upkeep of a property) can turn those intentions into a cold, bottom-line type venture, where there is nothing nice to be said about the other from either side, rightly or wrongly. Maybe you pull it off.
first, post 55 asked if a LL can raise rent on disliked tenants. It didn’t ask if it’s smart, or if it’s good policy; only if it can be done. I answered that question as it applies in my state.
As for me, I entered into the biz hoping to make a profit to help support myself and my family, just as anyone who enters biz does. But how I operate my biz is trying to provide a better value for the tenant. Not seeking 100% of top market value, and providing better service and necessary maintenance is my biz plan. It is my belief that offering a better product will lead to better long-run profits. I have made adjustments for different tenant problems when I wasn’t legally required to do so. I’m no saint, but I want to do better in biz by treating tenants better, not by cheating them.
It is also a rare situation when a tenant is deemed “caring”. If a tenant will be late on his rent, he generally cares very little that I have creditors depending on me to make timely payments, and that those payments are in part, based on my receiving my money on time. My lender doesn’t care if tenant Tommy had an expensive car repair. He wants my payment paid in full on time. No, a tenant often only sees that he is in a money pinch and will be late.
I have learned an awful lot, seeing a much bigger picture now that I’ve been on both sides of this fence.