Tenants insisting on rent discount due to repairs

Tenants insisting on rent discount due to repairs

Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes

I'm a relatively new landlord and am nearing the end of my first 12-month lease with my current tenants. The property is a 2/1 with me occupying a 300sqft ADU on the same lot. Recently we had some major water damage due to leaking and busted pipes that involved extensive demo of the bathroom and adjacent wall of one bedroom because of mold/water damage. I'm in the military and have been away from the property for several months on deployment, using the ADU as a short-term rental in the meantime. When I learned about the extent of the project I apologized for the inconvenience and told them I'd clear my bookings so they could use my ADU for whatever purposes they saw fit.


They accepted and seemed understanding at first, but the relationship quickly soured. They began insisting that they were entitled to rent reduction or outright abatement since part of the space they technically signed the lease for was uninhabitable. But it's obvious to me from our conversations that they continue to use both the main house as well as my ADU, and the square footage effected is less than the amount I'm giving them access to. Now in addition to an expensive bathroom rehab and loss of short term rental income, they're insisting they also deserve a rent discount for the duration of the project. Again, I've acted as quickly as I could in dealing with insurance, restoration company, and contractors to get this all done. Still, they insist that me granting them access to the ADU isn't a factor, since that's nowhere mentioned on the lease, instead they point to a clause saying that if there are repairs to a part of the home that's uninhabitable, they're entitled to rent abatement.


From my perspective, granting them access to an equal or better space should have negated this part of the contract. Either that or I should be allowed to keep renting out my ADU if they really want to assert their right to rent abatement, but it seems they're trying to have it both ways. I've also continued paying 1/3 of the utilities for the last several months I've been away, even though the ADU has been mostly vacant in that time. I mentioned this fact to them, that I had been basically subsidizing their utilities while away, and again they insisted that it didn't matter and that wasn't a factor since it's what we'd agreed to in the lease- irrespective of whether anyone was occupying the unit. Again, I've no issue upholding my part of the contract on this, but the fact that they refuse to even consider that financial burden on me seems unfair if they're also asking for a break on rent.


In sum, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is in this situation. They've been mostly good tenants up until now, and there's only another 2 months left in the contract. But this whole experience with these renovations has been a nightmare with me having to answer constant calls and texts from them during my work hours, it just seems like it's not worth the trouble anymore and I know at the very least I won't be renewing their contract. Right now I've basically told them if they really feel like I'm breaching the contract, then they can terminate the lease early and move out before their 12 months are over and pay a pro-rated rent. 

Any advice as to how to approach this tricky situation would be greatly appreciated. 

0Reply
144 views

Most Popular Reply

Dan H.Pro Member
Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
5y

I typically agree with what Joe states (except for his strong perspective on cash flow being primary qualifier on quality of RE investment), but this time I mostly agree with the tenants in that what matters is what the lease states.  The tenants are not in the wrong expecting the lease terms to be followed.  

I think you made various mistakes. When you offered the ADU, it should have been clear it was in lieu of any reduction in rent. My lease requires a tenant to have renters insurance and does not offer any discount per lease for these unexpected items. The tenant can choose to use their renter's insurance and stay elsewhere if the impact is more than they desire. In actuality, if the tenants choose to stay in the unit we typically provide them a rent rebate. Because we are not obligated to provide any rebate, the tenants usually appreciate any rebate that we provide.

The number of times I point to terms in our lease to point out issues with tenants, it would be hypocritical if I took a different stance when it benefits the tenant.  Just a month ago I had tenant at max occupancy (and in Ca max occupancy is high), move in a child for every other weekend.  Tenant claimed visitor.  We pointed out lease defines visitor and this does hot qualify.  They claimed child, we stated they are at max occupancy.  We did not hit them up for full fee that lease indicates because it was such low occupancy, but they are paying $100/month extra (lease indicates $200).

Tenants do not need to be your friends or vice versa to be good tenants.  They need to follow the lease, take care of the property, pay the full rent on time, every time.

We end up with good tenants that often stay forever (we had an inherited tenant stay a total of 27 years - only left when he retired and moved to be near their daughter).  

To me the lease is gospel.  To resent a tenant for expecting what the lease states seems unfair.  

Good luck

@Joe Villeneuve

See this reply in the discussion

23 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    5y

    Mistake number one: Telling them you would use the ADU. You just opened the door for them to take advantage of you thinking you would then cover past rents, etc...

    Mistake number two:  Not realizing that since their lease has run out, they have no leg to stand on.  You don't need to, nor should you, compensate them for anything since they were still using the property.  They still have to sign a new lease, which you will NOT offer any compensation in it.  They can always be replaced, and if they fight you on this, you can always show them the door.

    Mistake number three:  Thinking that you want to be a "good guy" and...(I know that's what you're thinking...)...  You're not being the "bad guy", your tenants are trying to take advantage of your god nature.  If you give in now, they will be worse down the road.

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Joe Villeneuve:

    Mistake number one: Telling them you would use the ADU. You just opened the door for them to take advantage of you thinking you would then cover past rents, etc...

    Mistake number two:  Not realizing that since their lease has run out, they have no leg to stand on.  You don't need to, nor should you, compensate them for anything since they were still using the property.  They still have to sign a new lease, which you will NOT offer any compensation in it.  They can always be replaced, and if they fight you on this, you can always show them the door.

    Mistake number three:  Thinking that you want to be a "good guy" and...(I know that's what you're thinking...)...  You're not being the "bad guy", your tenants are trying to take advantage of your god nature.  If you give in now, they will be worse down the road.

    I appreciate your feedback Joe! Being a young first-time landlord, I realize in hindsight that I did make a few mistakes in dealing with this. You're right, I was trying to be a 'good guy' by offering difference accommodations and such. My thinking was that they'd been mostly good tenants up to this point, but I realize now as you said that that opened the door for them to try to take advantage of my good nature, which is exactly what it feels like is happening. 

    To clarify on your second point though, their lease is not up just yet. We're about to start month 11 of a 12 month lease, so technically they still have another 2 months. I wanted to raise rents anyways because of all the money I've put into the home, so I think I'm just going to use this opportunity to not renew the lease and have a 'clean slate' with new, hopefully better, tenants. 

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    5y

    That's the way to do it.  Tell them now so you have time to show the property to new potential tenants

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y

    I typically agree with what Joe states (except for his strong perspective on cash flow being primary qualifier on quality of RE investment), but this time I mostly agree with the tenants in that what matters is what the lease states.  The tenants are not in the wrong expecting the lease terms to be followed.  

    I think you made various mistakes. When you offered the ADU, it should have been clear it was in lieu of any reduction in rent. My lease requires a tenant to have renters insurance and does not offer any discount per lease for these unexpected items. The tenant can choose to use their renter's insurance and stay elsewhere if the impact is more than they desire. In actuality, if the tenants choose to stay in the unit we typically provide them a rent rebate. Because we are not obligated to provide any rebate, the tenants usually appreciate any rebate that we provide.

    The number of times I point to terms in our lease to point out issues with tenants, it would be hypocritical if I took a different stance when it benefits the tenant.  Just a month ago I had tenant at max occupancy (and in Ca max occupancy is high), move in a child for every other weekend.  Tenant claimed visitor.  We pointed out lease defines visitor and this does hot qualify.  They claimed child, we stated they are at max occupancy.  We did not hit them up for full fee that lease indicates because it was such low occupancy, but they are paying $100/month extra (lease indicates $200).

    Tenants do not need to be your friends or vice versa to be good tenants.  They need to follow the lease, take care of the property, pay the full rent on time, every time.

    We end up with good tenants that often stay forever (we had an inherited tenant stay a total of 27 years - only left when he retired and moved to be near their daughter).  

    To me the lease is gospel.  To resent a tenant for expecting what the lease states seems unfair.  

    Good luck

    @Joe Villeneuve

  • Joe VilleneuvePro Member
    Plymouth, MI · Member since 2013 · 13k+ posts · 19k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    I typically agree with what Joe states (except for his strong perspective on cash flow being primary qualifier on quality of RE investment), but this time I mostly agree with the tenants in that what matters is what the lease states.  The tenants are not in the wrong expecting the lease terms to be followed.  

    I think you made various mistakes. When you offered the ADU, it should have been clear it was in lieu of any reduction in rent. My lease requires a tenant to have renters insurance and does not offer any discount per lease for these unexpected items. The tenant can choose to use their renter's insurance and stay elsewhere if the impact is more than they desire. In actuality, if the tenants choose to stay in the unit we typically provide them a rent rebate. Because we are not obligated to provide any rebate, the tenants usually appreciate any rebate that we provide.

    The number of times I point to terms in our lease to point out issues with tenants, it would be hypocritical if I took a different stance when it benefits the tenant.  Just a month ago I had tenant at max occupancy (and in Ca max occupancy is high), move in a child for every other weekend.  Tenant claimed visitor.  We pointed out lease defines visitor and this does hot qualify.  They claimed child, we stated they are at max occupancy.  We did not hit them up for full fee that lease indicates because it was such low occupancy, but they are paying $100/month extra (lease indicates $200).

    Tenants do not need to be your friends or vice versa to be good tenants.  They need to follow the lease, take care of the property, pay the full rent on time, every time.

    We end up with good tenants that often stay forever (we had an inherited tenant stay a total of 27 years - only left when he retired and moved to be near their daughter).  

    To me the lease is gospel.  To resent a tenant for expecting what the lease states seems unfair.  

    Good luck

    @Joe Villeneuve

     I agree 100%.  The lease dictates everything, as long as it is followed by both parties.  If the tenants were living in the property all along, the property was livable.  It may not have been in perfect condition, but I doubt there are any leases that state the definition of "livable" involves perfection.  

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y

    Yes you should offer a rent discount to your tenants for not having full use of their home if it was for a prolonged period of time.

    You are providing a product to a consumer. That product is housing. When there is an issue, as a service provider you need to correct the situation. Discount and fix the product like in any other business.

    Joes advice here is frankly kind of slumlordy in my opinion. Having major water damage, extensive demo and mold problems and saying too bad you can find another tenant if they dont want to put up with these kinds of problems in a space I'm sure they are paying lots of money for. This is quite clearly not an acceptable situation for the tenants to be living in, and frankly you should be greatful they haven't threatened you with legal consequences. Yeah, it sucks you have costs incurred here, but your running a business that has unforseen costs....thats part of the business.

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    I typically agree with what Joe states (except for his strong perspective on cash flow being primary qualifier on quality of RE investment), but this time I mostly agree with the tenants in that what matters is what the lease states.  The tenants are not in the wrong expecting the lease terms to be followed.  

    I think you made various mistakes. When you offered the ADU, it should have been clear it was in lieu of any reduction in rent. My lease requires a tenant to have renters insurance and does not offer any discount per lease for these unexpected items. The tenant can choose to use their renter's insurance and stay elsewhere if the impact is more than they desire. In actuality, if the tenants choose to stay in the unit we typically provide them a rent rebate. Because we are not obligated to provide any rebate, the tenants usually appreciate any rebate that we provide.

    The number of times I point to terms in our lease to point out issues with tenants, it would be hypocritical if I took a different stance when it benefits the tenant.  Just a month ago I had tenant at max occupancy (and in Ca max occupancy is high), move in a child for every other weekend.  Tenant claimed visitor.  We pointed out lease defines visitor and this does hot qualify.  They claimed child, we stated they are at max occupancy.  We did not hit them up for full fee that lease indicates because it was such low occupancy, but they are paying $100/month extra (lease indicates $200).

    Tenants do not need to be your friends or vice versa to be good tenants.  They need to follow the lease, take care of the property, pay the full rent on time, every time.

    We end up with good tenants that often stay forever (we had an inherited tenant stay a total of 27 years - only left when he retired and moved to be near their daughter).  

    To me the lease is gospel.  To resent a tenant for expecting what the lease states seems unfair.  

    Good luck

    Thanks for the feedback Dan. I've certainly learned my lesson and will apply some of the wisdom you provided in the future. 

    What would you do if you were in my shoes? My thinking is to issue them a written statement that says that them staying in the ADU is an accommodation in lieu of rent abatement. If they insist the accommodations are inadequate, they will have to provide a written request for rent abatement and vacate the unit immediately. Basically drawing a line in the sand and say they can have one or the other, but not both.

    Do they have grounds for terminating the lease? Or would this only apply subsequently if I refused to provide rent abatement and didn't otherwise accommodate their living situation?

    Thanks again for the feedback. 

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Yes you should offer a rent discount to your tenants for not having full use of their home if it was for a prolonged period of time.

    You are providing a product to a consumer. That product is housing. When there is an issue, as a service provider you need to correct the situation. Discount and fix the product like in any other business.

    Joes advice here is frankly kind of slumlordy in my opinion. Having major water damage, extensive demo and mold problems and saying too bad you can find another tenant if they dont want to put up with these kinds of problems in a space I'm sure they are paying lots of money for. This is quite clearly not an acceptable situation for the tenants to be living in, and frankly you should be greatful they haven't threatened you with legal consequences. Yeah, it sucks you have costs incurred here, but your running a business that has unforseen costs....thats part of the business.

     Russell, 

    Thanks for your feedback but you didn't address a key component of my story which was that I'm providing an ADU that is larger than the effected square footage of the main home. Would you still provide rent reduction in addition to that?

    The project has been going on for 3 weeks now, and I've done my due diligence to make sure it gets done ASAP. If they only had the main home to live in, I of course would offer rent reduction or outright abatement for the major inconvenience. The dilemma is whether they're justified in insisting on accommodations AND rent reduction. 

    Here's their stance (and I quote) "The reality of the situation is you would have been in a way worse spot if you were living in the studio (ADU) and this happened because then you would have been obligated to pay for our place to stay on top of missing out on rent" 

    How would you remedy the situation?

  • Theresa HarrisPro Member
    Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    5y

    They were renting a house and the bathroom and one of the two bedrooms was not usable, but they had access to a small unit on the lot.  Is that right or was the bathroom usable?  I might give them a small discount at the end of their lease.  The fact that they remained in the house suggests that it was livable.  Yes using a bathroom in another building is not ideal.

    As you are having problems with them now, I'd also look at not renewing their lease.

  • Investor · Renton, WA · Member since 2017 · 56 posts · 31 votes
    5y

    In the RE business, having a good heart does not serve well.  Play by the rules dictated in the laws.  I'd say allow remaining few months of contract to expire and let them exit your property.  In this demanding market, I'm confident you'll be able to find replacements once you do your part in fixing what is needed to be fixed.

  • Rental Property Investor · Greenville, NC · Member since 2020 · 9 posts · 6 votes
    5y

    @Hector Hernandez

    You’re not a bad guy

    Human beings do human things and unfortunately we try to rationalize things to make it easier for ourselves and sometimes those things are at the cost of others. In their eyes you’re big bad landlord man all you can do is keep it strictly business related don’t let tenants get too close to you relationship wise because some people WILL try to finesse you

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Theresa Harris:

    They were renting a house and the bathroom and one of the two bedrooms was not usable, but they had access to a small unit on the lot.  Is that right or was the bathroom usable?  I might give them a small discount at the end of their lease.  The fact that they remained in the house suggests that it was livable.  Yes using a bathroom in another building is not ideal.

    As you are having problems with them now, I'd also look at not renewing their lease.

    Theresa, that's correct. The bathroom in the main house is mostly not usable because the shower area was demolished. The toilet and faucet still work, but most of the bathroom and adjacent bedroom's drywall and insulation had to be stripped out due to the water damage. As a result they requested and I made available to them the ADU. They decided after the fact that this was not enough and are now requesting a rent reduction on top of the accommodations.

    Thanks for your feedback, I do not plan on renewing their lease and will be glad to move on  from this ordeal. 

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Hector Hernandez:
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Yes you should offer a rent discount to your tenants for not having full use of their home if it was for a prolonged period of time.

    You are providing a product to a consumer. That product is housing. When there is an issue, as a service provider you need to correct the situation. Discount and fix the product like in any other business.

    Joes advice here is frankly kind of slumlordy in my opinion. Having major water damage, extensive demo and mold problems and saying too bad you can find another tenant if they dont want to put up with these kinds of problems in a space I'm sure they are paying lots of money for. This is quite clearly not an acceptable situation for the tenants to be living in, and frankly you should be greatful they haven't threatened you with legal consequences. Yeah, it sucks you have costs incurred here, but your running a business that has unforseen costs....thats part of the business.

     Russell, 

    Thanks for your feedback but you didn't address a key component of my story which was that I'm providing an ADU that is larger than the effected square footage of the main home. Would you still provide rent reduction in addition to that?

    The project has been going on for 3 weeks now, and I've done my due diligence to make sure it gets done ASAP. If they only had the main home to live in, I of course would offer rent reduction or outright abatement for the major inconvenience. The dilemma is whether they're justified in insisting on accommodations AND rent reduction. 

    Here's their stance (and I quote) "The reality of the situation is you would have been in a way worse spot if you were living in the studio (ADU) and this happened because then you would have been obligated to pay for our place to stay on top of missing out on rent" 

    How would you remedy the situation?

    The ADU has absolutely zero to do with the persons home. The place they are renting from you is their home, and youve disrupted their home.

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:
    Originally posted by @Hector Hernandez:
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Yes you should offer a rent discount to your tenants for not having full use of their home if it was for a prolonged period of time.

    You are providing a product to a consumer. That product is housing. When there is an issue, as a service provider you need to correct the situation. Discount and fix the product like in any other business.

    Joes advice here is frankly kind of slumlordy in my opinion. Having major water damage, extensive demo and mold problems and saying too bad you can find another tenant if they dont want to put up with these kinds of problems in a space I'm sure they are paying lots of money for. This is quite clearly not an acceptable situation for the tenants to be living in, and frankly you should be greatful they haven't threatened you with legal consequences. Yeah, it sucks you have costs incurred here, but your running a business that has unforseen costs....thats part of the business.

     Russell, 

    Thanks for your feedback but you didn't address a key component of my story which was that I'm providing an ADU that is larger than the effected square footage of the main home. Would you still provide rent reduction in addition to that?

    The project has been going on for 3 weeks now, and I've done my due diligence to make sure it gets done ASAP. If they only had the main home to live in, I of course would offer rent reduction or outright abatement for the major inconvenience. The dilemma is whether they're justified in insisting on accommodations AND rent reduction. 

    Here's their stance (and I quote) "The reality of the situation is you would have been in a way worse spot if you were living in the studio (ADU) and this happened because then you would have been obligated to pay for our place to stay on top of missing out on rent" 

    How would you remedy the situation?

    The ADU has absolutely zero to do with the persons home. The place they are renting from you is their home, and youve disrupted their home.

    I understand that much, but you didn't say what you would do. You're saying I've disrupted their home and the ADU has zero to do with it, but they're the ones that requested I make those accommodations in the first place. Should revoke that access then, have them vacate the unit and adhere strictly to the lease thereby offering rent reduction but no further accommodation that isn't in the lease? This is the only logical conclusion I can draw from your line of reasoning, but if I'm misunderstanding you please clarify.

  • Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y

    Legally they need a fully functional bathroom.  So IMO you owe them rent for the days they dont have that.   Just give them a credit...  it is not going to go well if you get cranky about it.  Email them and say - I will happily credit you for the days you were without a working bathroom.   

    End of story. 

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Hector Hernandez:
    Originally posted by @Dan H.:

    I typically agree with what Joe states (except for his strong perspective on cash flow being primary qualifier on quality of RE investment), but this time I mostly agree with the tenants in that what matters is what the lease states.  The tenants are not in the wrong expecting the lease terms to be followed.  

    I think you made various mistakes. When you offered the ADU, it should have been clear it was in lieu of any reduction in rent. My lease requires a tenant to have renters insurance and does not offer any discount per lease for these unexpected items. The tenant can choose to use their renter's insurance and stay elsewhere if the impact is more than they desire. In actuality, if the tenants choose to stay in the unit we typically provide them a rent rebate. Because we are not obligated to provide any rebate, the tenants usually appreciate any rebate that we provide.

    The number of times I point to terms in our lease to point out issues with tenants, it would be hypocritical if I took a different stance when it benefits the tenant.  Just a month ago I had tenant at max occupancy (and in Ca max occupancy is high), move in a child for every other weekend.  Tenant claimed visitor.  We pointed out lease defines visitor and this does hot qualify.  They claimed child, we stated they are at max occupancy.  We did not hit them up for full fee that lease indicates because it was such low occupancy, but they are paying $100/month extra (lease indicates $200).

    Tenants do not need to be your friends or vice versa to be good tenants.  They need to follow the lease, take care of the property, pay the full rent on time, every time.

    We end up with good tenants that often stay forever (we had an inherited tenant stay a total of 27 years - only left when he retired and moved to be near their daughter).  

    To me the lease is gospel.  To resent a tenant for expecting what the lease states seems unfair.  

    Good luck

    Thanks for the feedback Dan. I've certainly learned my lesson and will apply some of the wisdom you provided in the future. 

    What would you do if you were in my shoes? My thinking is to issue them a written statement that says that them staying in the ADU is an accommodation in lieu of rent abatement. If they insist the accommodations are inadequate, they will have to provide a written request for rent abatement and vacate the unit immediately. Basically drawing a line in the sand and say they can have one or the other, but not both.

    Do they have grounds for terminating the lease? Or would this only apply subsequently if I refused to provide rent abatement and didn't otherwise accommodate their living situation?

    Thanks again for the feedback. 

    > My thinking is to issue them a written statement that says that them staying in the ADU is an accommodation in lieu of rent abatement. If they insist the accommodations are inadequate, they will have to provide a written request for rent abatement and vacate the unit immediately.

    I seem to be in the minority that seeing your lease calls for a rent rebate that the tenant is not in the wrong expecting one. A bathroom including bathing capability is required. You are not obligated to provide the access to the ADU, but you must provide a bathing option. I see nothing wrong with giving the tenant the option of no rent rebate and access to the ADU or rent rebate but no access to the ADU. The tenant should not be obligated to pay rent without a means to bathe.

    I would not resent any action related to the tenant expecting the lease to be followed.   You are resenting the tenant for expecting you to abide by the lease.   There should be no resentment of the tenant for expecting the terms of the lease to be followed.   Improve your lease.  Require tenant to have rent insurance. Indicate that tenant can choose to vacate for these maintenance items that are impactful.  Do not offer any discount in your lease, but if they choose not to vacate then provide a fair discount (they will be happy because lease does not obligate any discount).  Time to beef up the lease.   

    Use this as a learning experience.  

    good luck

  • Realtor · Seattle, WA · Member since 2016 · 9 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Mary M.:

    Legally they need a fully functional bathroom.  So IMO you owe them rent for the days they dont have that.   Just give them a credit...  it is not going to go well if you get cranky about it.  Email them and say - I will happily credit you for the days you were without a working bathroom.   

    End of story. 

    Mary, they've had access to a functional bathroom the entire time. The bathroom in the ADU is actually larger and nicer since everything in the unit is brand new. Would you still credit them? Thanks for the feedback.

  • Property Manager · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2014 · 728 posts · 596 votes
    5y

    @Hector Hernandez

    So your lease states if Sq ft is not available to them, they get a rent reduction. As an aside, I would remove that clause in all future leases.

    But, you have allowed them to use additional space so you feel that the lease is not pertinent. I think you would lose in court as your lease specifically says they get reduction (but I am not attorney so who knows). I would tell them I will adjust the rent, but they do not get access to additional space. If they resist, then they can use space but no rent reduction. Either way, get it in writing what will happen.

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Curtis Mears:

    @Hector Hernandez

    So your lease states if Sq ft is not available to them, they get a rent reduction. As an aside, I would remove that clause in all future leases.

    But, you have allowed them to use additional space so you feel that the lease is not pertinent. I think you would lose in court as your lease specifically says they get reduction (but I am not attorney so who knows). I would tell them I will adjust the rent, but they do not get access to additional space. If they resist, then they can use space but no rent reduction. Either way, get it in writing what will happen.

     The lease is kind of beside the point. Even if the lease said something entirely different it wouldn't matter. No bathroom in the place they are renting means the property is not habitable. Non habitable rental for 3 weeks and ongoing. Plus, the poster is a licensed agent. He has a lot more liability here than he is aware of.  

  • Handyman · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    5y

    Where is the ADU and how far do they have to walk to get to its bathroom from their bedroom? The way these things usually work, the bedrooms are on the second floor of the building and in order to access the ADU your tenants would have to go down a staircase, out the front door, into the front door of the ADU, into the bedroom of the ADU, and then the bathroom. Hardly the ideal midnight micturation. Is that what the tenants are upset about?

  • Real Estate Agent · New York City · Member since 2020 · 819 posts · 641 votes
    5y

    Before any repairs are made - tenants should ask for permission. Otherwise, anything done on their own volition is their doing and the costs should be burdened by them. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y

    @Hector Hernandez yes.  they are out a critical part of their home. Give them a rent credit of the days the bathroom was unusable.   Bathrooms are needed to make a home habitable. 

  • Daniel SmythPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2019 · 471 posts · 342 votes
    5y

    @Hector Hernandez

    Reading so many replies, I can't say much more that what is offered.

    11

    A short term solution of allowing the tenants to use another apartment as a restroom for a weekend at best. That weekend works, and makes you look good, when repair is happening and results show that tenants will gain from you adding value above just getting the shower to stop flooding the floor.

    One should never expect guests to give more, but the landlord is always better when they above and beyond. A tenant should never be expected to allow certain conditions. When a tree fell on a roof, I set my tenants up in a motel with a nice kitchen for the week my repairs took. I set aside money just for things like this, and insurance did help.

    Without looking at your issue, and without knowing your financial situation, I suggest you work on a plan to move your tenants to a temporary unit until repairs are made.

    On one hand, I would be tempted to not reduce rent. It's that pay or leave mentality. It's the very worse thing, unless I had no desire to have them as tenants again.

    I have to think differently than I did as a young Marine willing to sleep in the wet mud and like it! It's is rough changing.

    As it is, your rental agreement died when your buildings fell short of code requirements.

    I would forgive rents until repairs are done.

    Since I am the guy doing the work usually, I need the house empty if repairs will be longer than 2 days. Time is money, and if I need to clean up and prep the job every day because of work in a property, my time more than triples!

    I am lazy! I do the job once and right, because I never want to fix my own work!

    So, get an advance on your military salary. See your Commanding Officer and petition for the funds to repair the property.

    What you don't want, is for health inspectors to close you down. Then you lost renters, and have to fix ALL of your code violations including improvements from the last time codes were changed in your area!

    Message me directly if you want more of my opinions on this.

    Due diligence! It's time son!

    Semper Fidelis!

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.