I have a very hard time raising rent on tenants, and we end up renting significantly below market value. We just finally raised the rent after years on some of them, and explained that we were only raising the rent to over rising HOA costs and property taxes, which was true, and that they were still well below average. Everyone reacted very well, I’m sure because they know what a deal they have. In particular, I have a terrible time raising the rent on people I like a lot, I delay it as much as I can (my husband presses for it, but I just keep “forgetting” to do it). If we had tenants that we didn’t like (ie complained about every possible thing and didn’t pay the rent on time), I could see raising the rent to market value like most everybody else does. I don’t think the state/city can do anything about that…if I go to market rent for some tenants, and let other ones pass.
@buenavista You are correct, and this was illegal and a fire hazard. D and friends knew this and could have taken legal action. However, the landlord made and kept a lot of other promises before they moved in and they liked him personally. This was a two-family house and a small-time operation. The kitchen renovations were not finished when they moved in, and he gave them a discount while his crew finished them over the next few weeks. They came out superb. There was no good way for him to know about the quality of the insulation before he bought the house the previous June. They knew he was doing the best that he could and didn’t want to cause a lot of problems for him. They had all experienced less caring landlords. The whole city was undergoing hopefully a once in a lifetime weather. I have never seen snow piled as high in my lifetime of northeast living. They were terrific tenants, and they thought he was a good landlord. They didn’t want to leave their home and their new kitchen, and they didn’t want him to get into trouble.
@busdriver11 You are exactly the kind of landlord that I always sought out when I was renting, and I hope that your tenants appreciate you. Back in graduate school, my roommate and I were the first tenants my landlord ever had that brought the rent check to them (they lived upstairs). All of their previous tenants they had to chase down the rent. I planted grass seed in the backyard. I drove them to the store sometimes (they didn’t drive). They didn’t raise the rent for over 4 years and then did so apologetically. They were my landlords, but also my neighbors.
Whew…this sure is getting off topic!
I came back wondering if the OP’s kid had made her case yet…and what the outcome was.
Raising rent…? Whole other topic!
Not my kid actually.
Last I heard, the tenants requested credit for 1/2 off monthly rent plus the extra spent on electricity. They were offered $300 in response. I suggested they try to negotiate more. Not sure if they will or not. I have done a lot of negotiation in my life as a result of my employment and kind of enjoy the back and forth but a lot of people really aren’t comfortable doing so. In this case, I’d say they are even conflict avoiders which probably allowed the landlord to get away with dragging the repairs out for 2 weeks.
I’ve made my suggestions and its up to them to pursue it further or not but at least they have something. Thanks to all for chiming in.
I’m okay with twists and turns of the conversation. It is CC after all. 
Not in Manhattan. My d has moved 4 times in 5 years because, despite being a good tenant (quiet, rent paid on time, no complaining, helpful neighbor), each landlord raised the rent ridiculously each year. Units don’t stay empty for long.
Yeah, I think in a lot of areas there is a very tight rental market. The rental market in my less built up area is much tight than the residential RE market. Though relatively affordable compared to many parts of the country, rents have been rising a lot lately.
@younghoss: Yes, yes, all that is understood. I assume such intentions for self-preservation and income, as well as the lean toward prudence and consideration, in many who rent out their properties, at the start anyway. I’ve acknowledged that both sides/either side can be found to be lacking in … the care to maintain good relations. Many times the greater leverage rests with the property owner, it has seemed to me.
True, I did inquire about whether there were strictures in place to prevent a hike from a tenant’s rent at one level to one which spikes to market level (particularly when that is not the ‘neighborhood’ the rent was in before the spike). You answered that, which I gave a nod to, and I suggested a different reason for a property owner to move more incrementally toward the higher rent.
thank you, waiting2exhale.
And they were offered $300. Surely this covered the space heaters…which can be purchased for about $30 each.
Why would they get more? They didn’t move out.
Your opinion, @thumper1, which you are entitled to. Mine is different. Read the thread for my opinions and those of others that have been expressed. Not going to rehash it all when it is in here. Pretty sure you’ve been following along anyway as you’ve posted several times so I’ll consider your question rhetorical and just a re-expressing of your opinion.
Let’s remember questions like- What is the LL obligated to do? What are tenants entitled to? What would they like to happen? What is fair? All good questions, but not the same answer for each question. Doschicos recommends the tenants try for more. The LL has made an offer already that appears is more than he has to do. But could he do more still? Should he do more? Will the tenants choose not to renew if they feel the LL was too cheap? Will a tenant being too demanding generate ill will if the LL sees the demands as unfair? That is a risk for the tenants too, that to my recollection no one has mentioned here as a possibility.
You are right on the math, thumper. Their additional cost was $100 to $150, but were offered $300. So the extra $150 to $200 would have been considered a good will gesture for the inconvenience. In my state there is no requirement for a LL to offer such a good will gesture at all. But in an earlier post, I stated it is usually my practice to do so.
As an analogy, I might offer this: Suppose someone here turned in his taxes to an accountant and was told they’d be completed in 2 weeks. But it took 3. Would they expect a 50% reduction in the charge because it took 50% longer than expected?
If, while doing their taxes in that last week, the accountant turned off their heat, forcing them to purchase space heaters that heated the area to less than 50 degrees, I would expect a 100% reduction in their charge. 
Completely different scenario. One scenario is a slight inconvenience, the other, a completely uncomfortable situation.
Yeah, that analogy isn’t working for me. Totally, apples and oranges.
My thought was that both parties have promised to provide a service and both parties(in my example) did not properly provide that service for 50% of a time period. I can agree though, it isn’t the best of analogies. My scenario did not state how much the accountant inconvenienced the client, other than it was implicit that the inconvenience wasn’t so great that the client canceled the service and took his biz elsewhere, just like the tenant did not choose to cancel and go elsewhere.
“just like the tenant did not choose to cancel and go elsewhere”
This assumes that a) moving out is an easy thing to do. Actually, int his case, the landlord is fortunate they didn’t because space heaters are unsafe to use without being present and not having space heaters on could lead to issues like frozen pipes and 2) that all people have the resources and options to do so. Not all do. The one tenant who had an option, utilized that option.
I don’t think we’ll have agreement among some of us on his because we disagree on the inconveniences and on whether the landlord provided tenants with what they contracted to. Fine to disagree.
who said anything about easy? Not me. The tenant weighed their options to move out or not and chose not to move out.
I think where we disagree is on how much the LL should have to pay tenants for their inconvenience. In my state, zero is required of a LL for inconvenience. So in my state a LL does not have to offer even a penny for inconvenience. Then the question becomes how much does LL want to give? I can only respond on my legal requirements as well as my personal policy to my renters. As I said earlier, I would give 100% of their actual additional cost plus a couple hundred as a good will gesture for their inconvenience.
So, to get back to question in the OP, I believe the $300 is a fair compensation offer. A person might have hoped for more, but also might have been offered less- maybe even zero. $300 sounds reasonable to me.
The accountant example isn’t about habitability laws. And picking up a folder of paperwork, taking it to another accountant is much simpler than moving.
You’re speaking as a landlord, younghoss. Understandable, but.
Go back to http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-rights-book/chapter7-2.html
If the landlord refuses to provide or repair these aspects of your home, you may, depending on where you live, be able to:
withhold rent
, or pay for repairs yourself and deduct the cost from your rent
, or sue the landlord, or
move out without notice and without liability for future rent.
In the detailed view, this LL didn’t technically “refuse,” but did fail to provide adequate heat for a period. That’s germane. The time period it took to repair was a period not meeting habitability expectations.
This is a kind of ‘live and learn.’ The tenants are seeking redress after the fact, after the repairs. They couldn’t have known how long the repairs would take. Thus, their option to move wasn’t a “reasonable” solution they can be expected to make.
But how it actually shakes out depends on the particular state.