I disagree - Landlord Forum thread 334289

I disagree by CCRider (CA) on April 30, 2015 @12:56

I disagree with you two. The previous problem was years ago, and taken care of at great expense, from what I read. If this tenant did not let the landlord know that damage was occurring, the tenant is most definitely in breach of the lease, and responsible for damage caused by neglecting to inform the landlord.

If you had a unit where flooding was occurring, which the tenant did not let you know about, and this flooding caused extensive damage, would you really say - oh shucks, that's on me. All my responsibility. No need for any tenant to let me know that extensive damage is happening?

How often do you inspect? How long does it take for extensive damage to happen in the meantime?

To say the tenant had no responsibility to inform the landlord of a flooding problem, is .... unreasonable.

Do your contracts not have a clause about a tenant being responsible for such things?

I'd definitely take the offense on this one - IF - the tenant did not let the landlord know what was happening. And then threatened to sue me.

In fact, IF that's the case, they are probably taking the offense, after reading their lease (or talking to a lawyer) and discovering that they can be held liable for not reporting the damage.

The letter above is exactly what I would send. Sometimes calling a bluff is exactly what's in order. IF I had no idea a problem was going on.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]

Re: I disagree by Daniel (CA) on April 30, 2015 @13:48	[ Reply ]

I agree that your letter is reasonable and logical. However, it does need some lawyer editing to improve it and make it not as evidence against the LL. Sometimes the most benign words can hurt you as a LL.

Re: I disagree by Mute Point on April 30, 2015 @14:21	[ Reply ]

The tenant did inform the landlord and in writing. The landlord is responsible for a water tight basement by building codes. The landlord had prior knowledge even if years before. The landlord stated he needed to install french drains. The landlord should have checked the property, knowing that flooding might occur in the basement. No letter or lease clause may shift the landlords responsibilities to the tenant for habitable conditions. The landlord stated prior flooding had caused mold and had to remove drywall. The landlord has put off needed drain repairs for years. Threatening the tenant will just cause the tenant to retaliate by involving local government agency's. They might find other violations to site landlord for. The landlord should respond and do any repairs needed to make the rental habitable as that's what the law requires. "make repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition".

Re: Maybe, maybe not by CCRider (CA) on May 1, 2015 @02:04	[ Reply ]

Have you ever had to snake out a drain? Does that mean you knew it would back up again 5 years later? So, you repair a roof and it hasn't leaked for 5 years, does that mean you should have known the repair would start leaking 5 years later, even if the tenant failed to tell you so, which leaked constantly onto your new hardwood floors? And since you knew that roof would need to be replaces one day - that the damage to the hardwood floors for failing to tell you about the leak, is not on the tenant? Because, after all, you knew you'd have to put a new roof on your house again eventually? Was the french drain an immediate problem, or like the roof that will need to be replaced in 5 years? None of this gets a tenant off the hook for failure to tell the landlord that there's a problem, that's been going on long enough to cause mold to start growing. When did he inform the landlord of the issue? We don't know if the OP had been notified by this tenant all along, and that's why the tenant blew up and started talking about lawsuits. But, as I've said over and over again - IF the tenant did not tell the landlord that the place has been leaking, from the moment they noticed the leaking, and because of this lack of notifying the landlord, it caused extensive damage - then the tenant is on the hook for that. A landlord can't fix a problem he doesn't know about. Whether it's a "new" habitability problem or not. Sure, the landlord must get the place habitable again. But, that doesn't mean the tenant doesn't have to pay for damage caused by his negligence to inform a landlord of a leak that caused extensive damage. And regarding a tenant who threatens retaliation with calling building inspectors and such. Tell them, fine, good idea. Just be aware that when they come, and if they determine the place is not habitable, they will tell you you have to move out immediately. Is that what you want? Been there. Sometimes you have to come back just as hard on the tenant as they are coming on to you. Say, fine! Let's call everyone. Maybe they'll require a bunch of work I can't afford and I'll just have to sell the place. And you'll have to move. I can't stand bullies. My experience is you need to push back just as hard. Again, this is only if the landlord wasn't ignoring requests by the tenant to fix the problem all along. And landlords don't have to write perfect letters drafted by attorneys, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with saying you are ready to countersue to someone who is threatening to sue you. In my opinion, this is taking a stance with someone who is behaving like a bully. Okay, you'll sue me, well I'll countersue. So, let's get real here, or we'll both end up in court. But, let's be clear that I'm not going to let you bully me around. But, hey, you do things your way, and I'll do them my way.

Re: Maybe, maybe not by Susan on May 1, 2015 @10:44	[ Reply ]

still immaterial to the fact that the tenant notified the landlord and the landlord knew of the potential for mold from prior flooding, lack of inspections by landlord, and failure to properly repair, no matter if it was ten years ago. The landlord had constructive knowledge of any mold condition before and after. If a tenant does report a habitable condition to the authorities and the landlord evicts, that is retaliation which will be more expensive than the original repair would cost. There are so many things wrong with the letter, that a judge would have no reason than to believe that it was a poor attempt to prevent the tenant from exercising their rights to a habitable rental, and give cause for tenant to receive damages. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?