Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of you are out to lunch. Putting them up in a hotel was the bare minimum obligation of the landlord, and while they probably weren't justified in refusing that I could understand why they might not be happy with it. An apartment with no heat in the winter is not habitable, and one of the landlord's chief duties is to provide a habitable residence. I don't know how well the space heaters heated the place - maybe that was enough, but I doubt it. It's irrelevant whether they would have replaced their own furnace - they don't own the place, the landlord does, and he should have been prepared to make emergency repairs if needed.
At the end of the day, is the landlord actually damaged? Are you seriously claiming that the cost of putting them in a hotel was less than the rent they deducted? Even if they weren't legally justified in withholding rent, do you really think a small claims court judge is going to hear you explain how they should have replaced your furnace for you and then withheld that amount? You can't even get someone to repair a gas line without the property owner's permission, so how in the world would they have done that? The bottom line is that even though they breached the lease, there aren't any damages since you would have paid out of pocket to put them in a hotel room that likely would have cost 5 times as much as the deducted rent.
Thanks to all for the helpful input. This is not an isolated incident.
Two major repairs have been needed on this property in the last several months. Before the furnace, there was a leak occurring underneath the back concrete patio. It was happening after the water flows through the water heater, which increased their gas and water bill. We agreed to pay the difference in the gas bill year over year and their water bill (until an adjustment was made). Needless to say, this was a very expensive ordeal. The water leak did end up being an inconvenience as it took a little more than a week to resolve.
They were not satisfied with the water adjustment by the city, as the last two months ended up being $55 more, with the adjustment, than the prior two months. They have deducted this amount from their rent (which we never discussed), which we will be asking them to pay ASAP. Their logic escapes me on this one.
Everything was fine with these guys, until a year ago. They had been a few days late on their rent consistently, so we asked them to please start sending it in a timely fashion. We never charged them a late fee. They started sending it timely, but the relationship has deteriorated ever since. There was a clog in their kitchen sink, which we told them we will not pay for any repairs that weren't related to system or structural failures. This irritated them. They were unable to repair the guts of a toilet, which we had to send someone out to fix (this is a long distance rental). We re caulked the kitchen sink because they complained of excess and permanent mildew (which sounds to me like they never cleaned). My father in law was kind enough to do this, as he lives in the area. I feel like we've done more than was needed over the last year. When the husband blew up about the furnace and threatened legal action at the 60th hour the following Monday, it was the last straw. We are no longer inclined to be flexible, but by the book and it sounds as if I have every right to refuse these deductions under GA law.
We always want to do the right thing and be good and honest landlords. I want to make sure I'm still being fair in this situation and I appreciate all your feedback. I hope I can reciprocate.
Naptowner, I understand your argument, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I never expected them to replace the furnace and was always going to repair it myself. I also understand that no heat does render the home uninhabitable, which is why I'm torn. It's not the money, it's the principal. We are not inclined to renew the lease with these tenants, nor am I inclined to do anything beyond my legal obligations going forward.
Naptowner, I understand your argument, which is why I asked the question in the first place. I never expected them to replace the furnace and was always going to repair it myself. I also understand that no heat does render the home uninhabitable, which is why I'm torn. It's not the money, it's the principal. We are not inclined to renew the lease with these tenants, nor am I inclined to do anything beyond my legal obligations going forward.
I didn't mean to come of as insulting to you. I realize you were just asking a question. My comments were directed more at kinkytoes, who said the tenants were "nutty" for deducting rent for two days when the place was without anything but space heaters for a week, and others who made similar comments. There's a difference between not providing AC and not providing heat in February, which I know that you get. What I would ask all the pro-landlord people on the thread is what they would think is fair compensation for the tenants? If I were paying for a place with a furnace, would I be satisfied living with space heaters for a week? Would it be okay for me to take my newborn to stay in a cramped hotel room where I can't prepare my own food? Are the tenants not entitled to anything for the time in which they had no heat whatsoever? I don't get the attitudes, frankly.
Anyway, by all means write them a letter explaining they cannot deduct rent, but understand that "principle" isn't going to get you very far if you go to court. For you to recover for a breach of contract, you have to have some damages as a result. Were you going to provide them with a hotel room of comparable size or just a typical one-room, two beds kind of thing? Even if you did, wouldn't that have cost you more than the two days' rent? I don't understand how you feel you are damaged. If anything, they probably saved you money by not taking you up on the hotel room offer.
As for the water line issue, their logic seems clear to me - your water line began to leak, which caused them to be charged for more water than they were using. You got the city to adjust the account by deducting the charges for some of the water, but even after the city adjusted it, their water bill was still $55 a month higher than it should have been because of the leak. You want them to eat the cost when it was your water line that broke and caused them to incur the extra cost. They're not paying for it. How is that difficult to understand? Why should they have to repair your broken toilet? The sink clog I understand because they caused the clog.
I hear you. First, their bill was over by $55 for four months (I misspoke..the adjustments were made across two bi-monthly billings) and not one compared to what they say is an average 4 months. I defer to the city, who makes estimated adjustments all the time. Utilities fluctuate. How am I to know that's due to the water line? I never said that we felt that they had to repair the toilet. But, it's the simple guts to a toilet that just about anyone can fix. Fix it and deduct from the rent. It was just annoying. I guess that's the price we pay for a long distance rental and probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Bottom line is we were well within our legal obligation in fixing the furnace in a "reasonable" amount of time. I'm not calling for damages, but a breach of contract for deducting from their rent when they had no legal right to do so in the first place. We offered to make sure they were comfortable in any way over the weekend and were more than attentive to their needs. They chose to stay in the home, which they had use of. Bottom line is, if the tenant hadn't screamed at me with legal action (when we were doing everything in our power to resolve the situation) over the phone I probably would allow it. At this point our flexibility is non-existent. We have no further obligations, damages or no.
Again, I understand your argument, but our patience has run out.
Last edited by patdave132; 02-28-2009 at 08:50 AM..
Naptowner -- I'm not one of the others who's out to lunch. This whole thread covers two parts: the legal obligations as well as the moral course of actions. I think both sides have been discussed well.
Florida law, and I believe it's the same with Georgia, requires a landlord to provide heat, but it does not have to be central heating - space heaters are considered "providing heat". Perhaps one thing patdave132 could do is store a couple of electric space heaters at the house so that if the furnace should go out, they are still meeting their obligations (by the legal standpoint) of providing heat. Morally is that the best idea? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the individual.
"Reasonable amount of time" is subjective. To expect a toilet to be repaired within 24 hours, yes that's reasonable. To expect a furnace to be replaced within 24 or even 48 hours is unreasonable. The fact that patdave132 went beyond any obligation to offer a hotel stay shows their moral standpoint on the matter. So what if the tenants would be "stuck" in a two-bed room for a couple of days ... when someone's house burns to the ground and their insurance company puts them up in a hotel, do you think the insurance company covers the cost of a comparably-sized house? No, of course not. I don't think patdave132 were thinking about the extra cost for the hotel - they were thinking about doing what was right for the tenants.
Let's go back to the toilet repair. Some leases specifically say that such repairs are the responsibility of the tenant and not the landlord. (We're in such a lease.) Can a landlord fix it? Yes, he can. Does he have to? No. It all depends on how a landlord feels about what it morally right for him.
However this comes out, I'm glad to hear patdave132 that you're inclined not to renew the lease. <sigh> Wouldn't it be nice if Ultrarunner's "Welcome to Property Management" meant something warm-fuzzy?
As long as I was getting it fixed I would have told them to sue away.
As long as it could be fixed you should not be required to replace it with a new one.
And when their lease is up I'd tell them good bye. They sound like nothing but trouble anyway.
These are the type of people that need to own their own home and have to fix everything them selves.
Ya learn fast when it comes out of your own pocket.
An apartment with no heat in the winter is not habitable, .
Two words for you: Savannah, Georgia
Average winter temp in Savannah during January and February is something like 65 deg F. No heat in an apartment won't exactly make it "unhabitable" in those temperatures.
This was the end of January, so it was the coldest part of the year. I think it got down to the low 40's maybe high 30's at night that weekend.
I think the OP stated that the tenants Refused spaceheaters and Refused to let him/her pay for a hotel. Based on the fact that they paid rent late several times, it sounds like they may have financial problems and want to use this as an excuse to get a rent deduction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
