Tenant's Rights - Inhabitable Rent Reduction

v.e.r.b.a.l

We had an incident in our apartment block just before Christmas where our whole apartment block lost power for a full week and we weren't allowed (for safety reasons) to stay in our apartment for this entire week.

Our block is managed by a property management company and we have a private landlord. Obviously, we were massively put out (had to throw out an entire fridge and freezer worth of food, had to stay with parents and get taxis to work etc.).

We've seen other tenants get a reduction in their rent (usually whatever equates to a week's worth of rent and a bit more for inconvenience) the month afterwards. But when we've asked our landlord for a reduction, he keeps saying how his mortgage is so expensive and he can't afford a reduction. We're actually about to leave and are about to pay our last month's rent and he still refuses to give us a reduction for this.

Are we entitled to this reduction by law? The apartment was not habitable during the whole week. I can;t find any legislation to quote to him anywhere.

Mr. Incognito

Theres only legislation if its uninhabitable.

Chalk it down to a life hiccup and move on.

Lux23

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Theres only legislation if its uninhabitable.

Chalk it down to a life hiccup and move on.

It was uninhabitable.

v.e.r.b.a.l

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Theres only legislation if its uninhabitable.

Chalk it down to a life hiccup and move on.

Not very helpful.

We couldn't live there for a full week. We physically weren't even allowed to stay there. I think we're in our rights to look for a rent reduction (like our neighbours did), but I was trying to find the legislation to back it up (unsucessfully). Any help appreciated.

athtrasna

Why didn't you get it straight away? A refund for the week or a reduction in February's rent? It's almost April now.

ABajaninCork

I'd be speaking to Threshold now. I know what I'd do, but that will likely get me a ban...

v.e.r.b.a.l

athtrasna wrote: »

Why didn't you get it straight away? A refund for the week or a reduction in February's rent? It's almost April now.

He kept saying how big his mortgage is and how he can't afford to give us a reduction. Now, we're leaving so we need to get the reduction or we'll never see it!

athtrasna

v.e.r.b.a.l wrote: »

He kept saying how big his mortgage is and how he can't afford to give us a reduction. Now, we're leaving so we need to get the reduction or we'll never see it!

It's your deposit I'd be more worried about!

The_Morrigan

v.e.r.b.a.l wrote: »

He kept saying how big his mortgage is and how he can't afford to give us a reduction. Now, we're leaving so we need to get the reduction or we'll never see it!

You're not entitled to any reduction. If you owned the place would you be expecting the bank to let you off some of your mortgage repayment?

jlm29

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You're not entitled to any reduction. If you owned the place would you be expecting the bank to let you off some of your mortgage repayment?

But they don't own the place. Surely they shouldn't be expected to pay for a service they didn't receive.

athtrasna

It strikes me that this should be covered by landlords' insurance?

womandriver

The_Morrigan wrote: »

You're not entitled to any reduction. If you owned the place would you be expecting the bank to let you off some of your mortgage repayment?

That's a load of biased nonsense. Spoken like a landlord. Feel free to ban me.

The_Morrigan

womandriver wrote: »

That's a load of biased nonsense. Spoken like a landlord. Feel free to ban me.

I'm not a landlord.

Mod Bit - if you speak to another person on this forum like that again I will ban you. You attack the post, not the poster in here.

The_Morrigan

jlm29 wrote: »

But they don't own the place. Surely they shouldn't be expected to pay for a service they didn't receive.

But it's not like the landlord locked them out for the week. The property was still rented, their belonging I'm guessing were still there and a third party was dictating the accessibility.

I've been in properties where items under the minimum standards have been out of action for at least a week while waiting for workmen to arrive, or parts or appliances to be replaced - I can't be asking the landlord for a reduction because the washing machine was broken. Nor can I hold the landlord responsible if something is out of their hands.

ComfortKid

Why didn't you just short the landlord a weeks rent on that month? He can't argue. He wouldn't let you live there so you shouldn't of paid!

The_Morrigan

Womandriver don't post in this thread again - your post was deleted because you were arguing with a mod on thread, which is against the charter and the site rules.

magentis

In fairness op its not not like it was the landlords fault.Did you move out immediately for the entire week and take all your belongings with you?

magentis

I think your own contents insurance should cover you for the spoiled food.

foggy_lad

This sounds to me like repairs were needed and the occupants of the building had no choice but vacate for the duration. In such cases the landlord is responsible for putting the tenants up in suitable accommodation for the duration in the same way as if the landlord wanted to decorate or had to repair flood or fire damage they are responsible for housing their tenants while the place is uninhabitable. Bed and breakfast would have been suitable for a week.

ComfortKid

The_Morrigan wrote:

I've been in properties where items under the minimum standards have been out of action for at least a week while waiting for workmen to arrive, or parts or appliances to be replaced - I can't be asking the landlord for a reduction because the washing machine was broken. Nor can I hold the landlord responsible if something is out of their hands.

You wouldn't have to move out for a week and get taxis to work if your wash machine was broken would you. The tennant was told to move out for the week!

The_Morrigan

ComfortKid wrote: »

You wouldn't have to move out for a week and get taxis to work if your wash machine was broken would you. The tennant was told to move out for the week!

When i was renting I was in a house for two weeks with no heating during winter and I had a few days of electrical outage while ESB networks worked to get us back on the grid after storm damage. As for getting taxis to work....that has nothing to do with access to a property. How is the landlord responsible for his tenants commute to work?

Graham

The PRTB have been known to order a reduction in rent for periods where standards are not met, it's worth giving them a call.

Wouldn't most landlords have insurance to cover periods where a property is made uninhabitable.

TheChizler

The_Morrigan wrote: »

When i was renting I was in a house for two weeks with no heating during winter and I had a few days of electrical outage while ESB networks worked to get us back on the grid after storm damage. As for getting taxis to work....that has nothing to do with access to a property. How is the landlord responsible for his tenants commute to work?

The difference here is that the OP was told to vacate for the week, presumably by the landlord. OP is that correct? How did the conversation go? Where did you stay, were extra costs incurred, and was there any talk of the landlord finding alternative accommodation?

blacklilly

Block insurance should have a loss of rent clause, perhaps mention this to your landlord. I would be certain that this is how other residents in your development are receiving a reduction . However insurers usually ask to see evidence from the landlord that rent was withheld - this can be argued, as withholding of rent is breaking the lease agreement between tenant and landlord.

ComfortKid

The_Morrigan wrote:

When i was renting I was in a house for two weeks with no heating during winter and I had a few days of electrical outage while ESB networks worked to get us back on the grid after storm damage. As for getting taxis to work....that has nothing to do with access to a property. How is the landlord responsible for his tenants commute to work?

OP pays rent to live in area which os presumably close to his work place. If landlord tells him he can't live in the house for the week then yes it's the landlords responsibility! He should give OP a weeks rent off. I've often lived without electricity and water during storms, thats not the landlords responsibility but if the tennant is told to vacate then LL is responsible

Marcusm

The_Morrigan wrote: »

When i was renting I was in a house for two weeks with no heating during winter and I had a few days of electrical outage while ESB networks worked to get us back on the grid after storm damage. As for getting taxis to work....that has nothing to do with access to a property. How is the landlord responsible for his tenants commute to work?

There's a world of difference between being entitled to the possession, under a lease, of a property with inadequate services which are outside the control of either the landlord or the tenant or not being able to obtain the possession of the property which is the essence of the lease.

Irrespective that it is not within his control, the landlord was unable to deliver possession of the property during the relevant period and, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, was in breach of his "quiet enjoyment" covenant under the lease in that possession was taken away from the tenants. Damages would be the remedy appropriate to the breach. The quantification thereof would require legal advice.

An owner/occupier takes risk on the property as a whole, the renter must be provided with the property or there is a breach. Comparing the situation with or justifying it by reference to an absence of a mortgage reduction is beyond naive.

Triceratops Ballet

Op get on to the prtb or threshold and ask their advice on how to proceed.
I would Imagine that you are entitled to a reduction for the time the property was uninhabitable.

The landlords mortgage and financial difficulties are nothing to do with you. He has a contract with you to provide a service, which was unavailable for a period so there is no reason you should be paying for it.
That would be akin to hiring a car for two weeks and on day two discovering a mechanical fault, returning the car for repair and them expecting you to pay the two week fee because their budget didnt cover this unexpected event and they had planned their monthly financial forecast including your 2 week hire.

It happened to me where beam supporting the water tank in the attic in our rented house broke and water came pouring through the ceiling. We had to move out for 8 days and on agreement with the ll our following months rent was reduced by 8 days as we couldnt have availed of the contracted service even if we had wanted to.

Edit: on posting some random quote has appeared on my post which i didnt select to quote. But I cant see it in the edit screen to remove. Apologies!

The_Morrigan

Marcusm wrote: »

There's a world of difference between being entitled to the possession, under a lease, of a property with inadequate services which are outside the control of either the landlord or the tenant or not being able to obtain the possession of the property which is the essence of the lease.

Irrespective that it is not within his control, the landlord was unable to deliver possession of the property during the relevant period and, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, was in breach of his "quiet enjoyment" covenant under the lease in that possession was taken away from the tenants. Damages would be the remedy appropriate to the breach. The quantification thereof would require legal advice.

An owner/occupier takes risk on the property as a whole, the renter must be provided with the property or there is a breach. Comparing the situation with or justifying it by reference to an absence of a mortgage reduction is beyond naive.

But the key here is that the OP asked what entitlement they have for a reduction and where it is located under legislation - there is none.

They may receive a reduction under goodwill, but there is nothing written in the RTA that says you are entitled to a reduction in rent if the power is out for a week. We also don't know if it was the landlord or the property management who decided that every resident must vacate for the week.

If there is a breach they have recourse via the PRTB, but that is determined on the facts of the case not an entitlement set out in law.
As for my comparison with paying rent vs a mortgage it is the same principle whether it be rent or a mortgage or your monthly bill for UPC. If there is a problem that was not caused maliciously then sometimes you just have to suck it up and get on with it. If they still feel aggrieved then they have the option of the PRTB or the smalls claims court.

Triceratops Ballet

The_Morrigan wrote:

They may receive a reduction under goodwill, but there is nothing written in the RTA that says you are entitled to a reduction in rent if the power is out for a week. We also don't know if it was the landlord or the property management who decided that every resident must vacate for the week.

In a situation like this then would the ll's issue not be with the management co? They issued an instruction (possibly without informing him) and this instruction potentially compromises a contract he has entered into through no fault of his own?

Marcusm

The_Morrigan wrote: »

But the key here is that the OP asked what entitlement they have for a reduction and where it is located under legislation - there is none.

They may receive a reduction under goodwill, but there is nothing written in the RTA that says you are entitled to a reduction in rent if the power is out for a week. We also don't know if it was the landlord or the property management who decided that every resident must vacate for the week.

If there is a breach they have recourse via the PRTB, but that is determined on the facts of the case not an entitlement set out in law.
As for my comparison with paying rent vs a mortgage it is the same principle whether it be rent or a mortgage or your monthly bill for UPC. If there is a problem that was not caused maliciously then sometimes you just have to suck it up and get on with it. If they still feel aggrieved then they have the option of the PRTB or the smalls claims court.

I can't believe your post; the Residential Tenancies Act doesn't contain the entire body of law dealing with the rights of tenants nor remedies for breach of contract. The property has not been provided for occupation, it was not capable of inhabitation. If you look at standard leases, you will find clauses requiring the landlord to repay a pro rate share of the rent for periods for which the property is uninhabitable. These will most often be invoked in cases dealing with fire or flood. This situation is analogous. In the absence of such clauses or in the absence of a written lease, I would be shocked if a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction did not provide for a rent rebate. The real question is whether the landlord is responsible for the consequential losses arising to the tenant. In any event, a competent landlord would maintain adequate landlord specific insurance.

Most importantly, THIS IS NOT A CASE OF GOODWILL.

The_Morrigan

Marcusm wrote: »

I can't believe your post; the Residential Tenancies Act doesn't contain the entire body of law dealing with the rights of tenants nor remedies for breach of contract. The property has not been provided for occupation, it was not capable of inhabitation. If you look at standard leases, you will find clauses requiring the landlord to repay a pro rate share of the rent for periods for which the property is uninhabitable. These will most often be invoked in cases dealing with fire or flood. This situation is analogous. In the absence of such clauses or in the absence of a written lease, I would be shocked if a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction did not provide for a rent rebate. The real question is whether the landlord is responsible for the consequential losses arising to the tenant. In any event, a competent landlord would maintain adequate landlord specific insurance.

Most importantly, THIS IS NOT A CASE OF GOODWILL.

Marcusm take a step back for a minute and remember that the charter forbids legal advise bar pointing someone to the RTA, to the PRTB or a solr.


Also, mod bit - there is no need to shout in here. So please leave the capslock button alone.

Shadylou

The landlord here is being unreasonable, the tenants were unable to avail of a service for a week therefore they should not have to pay for it simple as!! Even if it's not in law it shouldn't even be a case of the tenant having to ask if the landlord was anyway professional he should've known to offer it straight away

Icepick

Landlord compensates you and then seeks compensation from the management co or his insurance

Ask the management co if they compensated unit owners.

ABajaninCork

I doubt the LL had insurance. If he had, then he should have got his insurance company to talk to the management company insurers...

The_Chap

And the landlord should equally apply to the bank for a weeks reduction in his mortgage as this was also out of his control? Would you then say the banks would be unreasonable to refuse this also?

Contents are insured by tenants, structural by landlords, so any food spoilage should be covered by tenants insurance

Amazes me that general issues that happen in life most people just get on and deal with while others look for someone else to either blame or foot an unexpected bill

TheChizler

The_Chap wrote: »

And the landlord should equally apply to the bank for a weeks reduction in his mortgage as this was also out of his control? Would you then say the banks would be unreasonable to refuse this also?

Except the mortgage agreement is to do with providing funding to purchase a property, the lease agreement is to do with occupation of a property. The landlord still owned apartment for the week that the tenants were unable to live there. What the ll does with the property has nothing to do with the bank.

OP if you could please clarify who told you to vacate for the week?

Graham

The_Chap wrote: »

And the landlord should equally apply to the bank for a weeks reduction in his mortgage as this was also out of his control? Would you then say the banks would be unreasonable to refuse this also?

You are not comparing like with like.

If I buy a car and it breaks down, that's just my tough luck. The fact that the purchase may have been financed by a bank it not relevant.

If I rent a car and it breaks down, I expect the car hire company to provide a replacement.

TwoShedsJackson

If he knows you're leaving why would you expect him to give you anything off now? He'll never see you again, he doesn't care if you're upset or inconvenienced, if indeed he ever did.

The_Chap

Graham wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like.

If I buy a car and it breaks down, that's just my tough luck. The fact that the purchase may have been financed by a bank it not relevant.

If I rent a car and it breaks down, I expect the car hire company to provide a replacement.

I'm aware it's not a like for like, the point I'm making is that unless it is specified in either the tenancy agreement or the RTA, then they need the landlords agreement to withhold any rent - and if they do, the landlord has right to withhold the same amount from the deposit - then they can take it to Prtb if they please

For 1 weeks worth of rent? Personally I'd move on and chalk it up

Graham

The_Chap wrote: »

I'm aware it's not a like for like, the point I'm making is that unless it is specified in either the tenancy agreement or the RTA, then they need the landlords agreement to withhold any rent - and if they do, the landlord has right to withold the same amount from the deposit - then they can take it to Prtb if they please

For 1 weeks worth of rent? Personally I'd move on and chalk it up

If you're aware it's not like for like, why would you make the comparison?

I didn't ever suggest they withhold rent, in fact I would advise against it in case is prejudiced any future action taken via the PRTB.

For the sake of 5 minutes effort, I'd phone the PRTB. It may only be 1 weeks worth of rent but that could equate to hundreds of euro out of a tenants pocket. For all we know the landlord amy well have insurance to cover this and just hasn't claimed against his policy.

The_Chap

Graham wrote: »

If you're aware it's not like for like, why would you make the comparison?

I didn't ever suggest they withhold rent, in fact I would advise against it in case is prejudiced any future action taken via the PRTB.

For the sake of 5 minutes effort, I'd phone the PRTB. It may only be 1 weeks worth of rent but that could equate to hundreds of euro out of a tenants pocket. For all we know the landlord amy well have insurance to cover this and just hasn't claimed against his policy.

I didn't realise you were policing what can and can't be posted here, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say you had suggested anything so there is no need for defensive mode!

Mrs OBumble

Shadylou wrote: »

The landlord here is being unreasonable, the tenants were unable to avail of a service for a week therefore they should not have to pay for it simple as!! Even if it's not in law it shouldn't even be a case of the tenant having to ask if the landlord was anyway professional he should've known to offer it straight away

I agree totally, and I'm a LL. Totally out of line to charge for a weeks service that wasn't provided.

Icepick

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I doubt the LL had insurance. If he had, then he should have got his insurance company to talk to the management company insurers...

For all we know he was compensated and didn't pass it on

ABajaninCork

Icepick wrote: »

For all we know he was compensated and didn't pass it on

That too.

v.e.r.b.a.l

Wow. Thanks for all the replies.

Lots of opinions here. To clear it up, it was the property management company who kicked everyone out, but they got in contact with the landlord to sort it out with tenants.

We've just paid the reduced rate for now and are going to speak with PTRB on Monday and if they say to pay the full amount, we will.

But really, he should give us the reduction. His insurance covers this, it;s his responsibility and it adds up to €200, which mightn't be the biggest deal to a lot of people, but it is when you need it for rent in your next place. Plus, he's completely out of line and unprofessional in telling us about how he's struggling with his mortgage. I'm struggling with my rent!!

Pity we couldn't find any legislation, (and pity the PTRB don;t open weekends!) but hopefully the PTRB will clear it up on Monday and I;ll post what they say for anyone else in a similar situation.

athtrasna

Be prepared for the landlord to deduct that from your deposit if no agreement was in place. Witholding rent is never the way to solve a problem, you haven't been granted a reduction in rent and taking it unilaterally is only asking for trouble.

TheChizler

athtrasna wrote: »

Be prepared for the landlord to deduct that from your deposit if no agreement was in place. Witholding rent is never the way to solve a problem, you haven't been granted a reduction in rent and taking it unilaterally is only asking for trouble.

Agreed. You want to be as squeaky clean as possible if you're taking a case to the prtb. They aren't necessarily breaking any law or agreement by not reducing rent but you definitely are breaking plenty by withholding. Madness when you're more or less assured that things will go in your favour.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Agreed. You want to be as squeaky clean as possible if you're taking a case to the prtb. They aren't necessarily breaking any law or agreement by not reducing rent but you definitely are breaking plenty by withholding. Madness when you're more or less assured that things will go in your favour.

Also, from personal experience the PRTB won't necessarily give advice over the phone, you either take a case or not. Threshold are the ones for that.

hdowney

v.e.r.b.a.l wrote:

But really, he should give us the reduction. His insurance covers this, it;s his responsibility and it adds up to €200, which mightn't be the biggest deal to a lot of people, but it is when you need it for rent in your next place. Plus, he's completely out of line and unprofessional in telling us about how he's struggling with his mortgage. I'm struggling with my rent!!

The bit about needing it for your next place. If you hadn't been out of the place a week you have paid full, so wouldn't have had it for the next place. Sounds like you have bigger problems

TheChizler

Where did you stay for the week OP? Ideally what should have happened is that the landlord would have organized alternative accommodation for the week and you would have paid rent as normal.

seventeen sheep

hdowney wrote: »

The bit about needing it for your next place. If you hadn't been out of the place a week you have paid full, so wouldn't have had it for the next place. Sounds like you have bigger problems

But maybe that money was used on the taxis to work, or the rent paid to their folks?