Yes, I’m speaking as a landlord. Thank you. But that doesn’t mean I automatically side with their LL’s perspective. It means I am a person with actual life experience with housing laws and LL/tenant policy from the perspective of a tenant and as a landlord. I am/have been both, and that’s an advantage for a fuller perspective I have that not all here have.
You cite a good law there, looknigforward. I mentioned those possible redresses pages ago, and others did too. Since you may have missed it, I will repeat.
There is no indication from the Op that the LL refused to fix the furnace. The OP has told us the repair took longer than expected. I posted a similar experience that happened to me. And the tenants here chose NOT to avail themselves of any of the remedies provided in the law you quoted. Now that the furnace is fixed, the law you quoted has no application here. That law is all about what a tenant can do to get a necessary repair done, or the tenant’s right to move out.
So now, first what does apply is what reduction is required by law; then second, what might be fair given their actual additional cost plus any additional reduction as good will for their inconvenience. There is no law in my state that requires a LL to pay for good will toward inconvenience. Nevertheless, I have stated it would be my policy to offer something as good will in addition to covering the actual additional cost.
The LL in this situation has done the same, offering more than the actual cost.
I think some here(NOT specifically lookingforward) are conflating opinions on what redress they feel the tenants deserve for their inconvenience with what the LL is required to do. They are not the same. Tenants have an absolute right to try to persuade the LL to give them more than he has offered so far if they don’t feel he has been generous enough. They might be successful negotiating more. I am ok with that. But I don’t think they can OBLIGATE him to give more for inconvenience. Obviously, if they feel he was too stingy, they could choose not to renew their lease and move out when this one ends. They don’t have to continue doing biz with him. But that works both ways- if the LL thinks they are too greedy, he can choose not to renew when the lease ends and they will have to move. He doesn’t have to continue doing biz with them. There is nothing in housing laws that either bind them or protect them if one of these 2 parties no longer wish to remain in biz together. So the money offered is a risk for the LL(is it enough to keep them renting?) but refusing it is a risk for the tenants(want too much to continue leasing?).
But I wouldn’t have been as patient as they were for 2 weeks, either. All I can do in this situation is advise, which I have done. Bottom line, they got something which is more than they would have received had they not asked. Frankly, IMO the landlord should have offered something without having to be asked.