Obligated to reduce rent for renter?

[nononsense]

I live in Los Angeles county. I rented a home out. I had some problem with the kitchen drain to which we addressed it to the tenant before signing the contract. We extended a make-shift pipe protruding to the outside wall for ventilation. We lived there for 3 years without any issue with that ventilation pipe. Told them to stay from the area. Since it was covered by a bush, it'd be no problem.

Less than 3 weeks into the contract, their kids were playing in said bush. Dislodged the ventilation pipe and the would-be water that should be going down the drain ended up on the INSIDE of the house, destroying 400 sqft of laminate. They said nothing to us for at least 10 days. As soon as we found out, we filed a claim with the insurance company to which they took care of.It took 2 weeks to dry and replace the flooring.

Problem is, they decided to stay in the house while reconstruction was going on. They didn't want to stay in a hotel. This leads to them thinking they should still be reimbursed for the days there was construction going on. By California law and/or L.A. county law, am I obligated to deduct the rent because they decided to stay?

 

[adjusterjack]

am I obligated to deduct the rent because they decided to stay?

No.

The tenants caused the problem.

 

[LdiJ]

No.

The tenants caused the problem.

I do not think that I agree. Based on the description it sounds like something was jury-rigged to resolve a problem rather than properly done.

 

[adjusterjack]

I do not think that I agree. Based on the description it sounds like something was jury-rigged to resolve a problem rather than properly done.

True, but the landlord wouldn't be obligated to reduce rent because of the tenant's inconvenience since the house was not uninhabitable.

As a former landlord myself, I would resist the idea and not set a precedent with any tenant. You'd have to be a landlord or have been one to understand that philosophy.

 

[Zigner]

I agree that there is no reduction of rent required. The tenants stayed there without a problem. Now, I would recommend that the OP offer a reduction in order to head off future problems, such as the tenants calling city inspections of any little thing that crops up.

 

[adjusterjack]

Now, I would recommend that the OP offer a reduction in order to head off future problems, such as the tenants calling city inspections of any little thing that crops up.

Oy.

That's the worst thing any landlord can do. It teaches the tenant that all the tenant has to do for any kind of concession is call the city or threaten to call the city. Sets a very bad precedent.

A landlord has to have a heart of stone when it comes to tenants. Otherwise they walk all over him.

When I had my rentals I learned that very quickly --- the hard way.

 

[LdiJ]

True, but the landlord wouldn't be obligated to reduce rent because of the tenant's inconvenience since the house was not uninhabitable.

As a former landlord myself, I would resist the idea and not set a precedent with any tenant. You'd have to be a landlord or have been one to understand that philosophy.

If they couldn't use their kitchen for two weeks that means that they incurred costs eating out or for takeout for those two weeks. I have been a landlord and I would have given them a reduction because of that.

 

[cbg]

I have never been a landlord. Just in the interests of full disclosure.

We can debate the pros and cons of giving the reduction until the cows come home, but I believe the OP is asking if s/he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to give the reduction.

Any of you gents/lady wish to address that?

 

[LdiJ]

I have never been a landlord. Just in the interests of full disclosure.

We can debate the pros and cons of giving the reduction until the cows come home, but I believe the OP is asking if s/he is LEGALLY REQUIRED to give the reduction.

Any of you gents/lady wish to address that?

I doubt that the law addresses their specific set of circumstances. After all, it was only the kitchen that wasn't usable. However, that doesn't mean that they couldn't sue for damages and have the possibility of winning. They WERE damaged. In my opinion they certainly were not at fault for a failed jury-rig.

 

[Zigner]

Oy.

That's the worst thing any landlord can do. It teaches the tenant that all the tenant has to do for any kind of concession is call the city or threaten to call the city. Sets a very bad precedent.

A landlord has to have a heart of stone when it comes to tenants. Otherwise they walk all over him.

When I had my rentals I learned that very quickly --- the hard way.

You're not in LA, CA, are you? The tenant already knows that.

 

[Zigner]

Any of you gents/lady wish to address that?

We did

 

[quincy]

I live in Los Angeles county. I rented a home out. I had some problem with the kitchen drain to which we addressed it to the tenant before signing the contract. We extended a make-shift pipe protruding to the outside wall for ventilation. We lived there for 3 years without any issue with that ventilation pipe. Told them to stay from the area. Since it was covered by a bush, it'd be no problem.

Less than 3 weeks into the contract, their kids were playing in said bush. Dislodged the ventilation pipe and the would-be water that should be going down the drain ended up on the INSIDE of the house, destroying 400 sqft of laminate. They said nothing to us for at least 10 days. As soon as we found out, we filed a claim with the insurance company to which they took care of.It took 2 weeks to dry and replace the flooring.

Problem is, they decided to stay in the house while reconstruction was going on. They didn't want to stay in a hotel. This leads to them thinking they should still be reimbursed for the days there was construction going on. By California law and/or L.A. county law, am I obligated to deduct the rent because they decided to stay?

Here is a link to the California Department of Consumers Affairs, on the Landlord Tenant laws that address repairs on rentals:
https://www.dca.ca.gov/dca/publications/landlordbook/repairs.shtml

I agree with LdiJ that the tenants should be compensated for the period of time they were unable to use the kitchen.

The landlord also appears to have installed a ventilation pipe that was not up to code - so the dislodging of the improperly installed pipe would not be the fault of the tenants.

 

[Zigner]

Here is a link to the California Department of Consumers Affairs, on the Landlord Tenant laws that address repairs on rentals:
https://www.dca.ca.gov/dca/publications/landlordbook/repairs.shtml

I agree with LdiJ that the tenants should be compensated for the period of time they were unable to use the kitchen.

The landlord also appears to have installed a ventilation pipe that was not up to code - so the dislodging of the improperly installed pipe would not be the fault of the tenants.

From that link, what do you think applies in this situation? Not repair and deduct, because the problem has been repaired by the LL. Not abandonment, because the tenants didn't need to abandon the unit during repairs due to the conditions. One might think that "rent withholding" would apply, but it does not. By law, a tenant is allowed to withhold (stop paying) some or all of the rent if the landlord does not fix serious defects that violate the implied warranty of habitability (emphasis added.) In this case, the defects were repaired.

I do agree that this is not the tenants fault, but I don't think there is a legal requirement for any concession to be made. A moral/ethical one, yes, but not a legal one.

 

[LdiJ]

From that link, what do you think applies in this situation? Not repair and deduct, because the problem has been repaired by the LL. Not abandonment, because the tenants didn't need to abandon the unit during repairs due to the conditions. One might think that "rent withholding" would apply, but it does not. By law, a tenant is allowed to withhold (stop paying) some or all of the rent if the landlord does not fix serious defects that violate the implied warranty of habitability (emphasis added.) In this case, the defects were repaired.

I do agree that this is not the tenants fault, but I don't think there is a legal requirement for any concession to be made. A moral/ethical one, yes, but not a legal one.

Where you and I disagree on this one is whether or not the tenant can make a claim that they have been "damaged". Clearly they have been damaged for the period of time that they could not use the kitchen. That has nothing to do with landlord/tenant law. If they sue in small claims court it won't be decided based on landlord/tenant laws, it will be based on damage.

 

[TigerD]

This isn't an issue that should ever rise to the question of whether the landlord is obligated to reduce the tenants rent.

The right thing to do is to reduce it or waive it for that month. I had a tenant that moved into a property of mine. My formerly dry basement flooded. The carpet was soaked. We attempted to dry it and cure the problem by sealing the exterior better and adjusting the drainage. It didn't work. The next storm - the basement was soaked again.

I brought in a foundation company. We gutted the basement - removing the drywall and framing and carpet and pad. The foundation guys cut and jackhammered around the entire perimeter and we installed drain pipe and a sump pump. Then I reframed and re-drywalled the walls, painted and installed new carpet. No insurance coverage.

The process took a week and they were limited to 1/2 of the unit until it was done. I waived their rent for the month and on completion gave them a card with a $100 gift card to a local restaurant for bearing with me during the problem.

It is just the right thing to do. You should never get to asking what you are obligated to do. You should never get to the tenants having to ask for some consideration.

TD