There are three people flatting together in my property. Two of them went away overseas. During the period that they were away, we renovated the bathroom. During the renovation, the toilet was always operational. There was a period when there was no shower and no hand basin. What is a reasonable amount to reduce the rent by (%)? Only one of the three was disadvantaged so we reduced the rent such that he did not have to pay at all ie 33% off. We figured that the others were not affected because they were not there but they think this is not fair so I want another opinion.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Amount of rent reduction during period without shower
Collapse
X
-
How long did it take?
Are you anticipating increasing the rent because of this 'upgrade'?
Is there one tenant or 3 tenancies?
My initial opinion:
I'd side with the tenants on this one. Are you aware how much tenants talk between each other? The fact the other tenants were away is irrelevant. From their point of view - they have been paying rent and should be equally treated. I think you did the right thing giving consideration to the present tenant, but I suggest this calls for a pragmatic and equitable solution.Last edited by PTWhatAGreatForum; 29-11-2014, 05:27 PM.
-
we had a similar thing,we had 4 tenants, 2 tenants went on holiday for 4 weeks, one was working in another city, one stayed behind, i took the opertunity to replace the kitchen and bathroom whilst they were away, i didnt offer any reduction as they returned to a new kitchen and bathroom and their rent didnt go up, i let the one who stayed use my bathroom at home
Comment
-
We replaced an ensuite after we released our moronic, obnoxious tenants (professionals who should have known better) early. It wasn't quite finished by the time the new tenants moved in. We didn't offer a rent reduction.
However we insulated exterior walls and removed old fireplaces before they moved in, not something they thought they were getting when they took the tenancy.
And we supplied an extra standalone wardrobe, new, that they asked for. And replaced a frig when they asked.
Nevertheless we were grateful to the tenants for cutting us slack when the ensuite wasn't completed.
It was outside our control, we had a reputable company do the work. And the tenants were informed there might be stuff to finish after they arrived. But we were grateful. They are nice reasonable people. I think we were due a break after the last lot.
Comment
-
One tenancy or 3 tenancies is the key question here surely ? If all on one tenancy, then they are all 'jointly and severally liable' and you made a rent reduction for the whole group. How they spread it around is their business ?
If 3 tenancies, the 2 missing out would have a hard job proving how they were disadvantaged ?
Comment
-
Did they agree to the renovation?
Or was it an urgent repair?
Either way I think the rent reduction is reasonable under the circumstances.
You timed it well so that only one tenant was inconvenienced and the tenants now have a new bathroom to enjoy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wayneywayne View PostThere are three people flatting together in my property. Two of them went away overseas. During the period that they were away, we renovated the bathroom. During the renovation, the toilet was always operational. There was a period when there was no shower and no hand basin. What is a reasonable amount to reduce the rent by (%)? Only one of the three was disadvantaged so we reduced the rent such that he did not have to pay at all ie 33% off. We figured that the others were not affected because they were not there but they think this is not fair so I want another opinion.Last edited by MamaBear; 01-12-2014, 12:00 PM.
Comment
-
Our reply that we didnt find a leak to fix was not enough proof that the shower was indeed useable ... we found out after tenants left that the son wd leave the shower door open and water dripped onto the tiles ... easiest way to make $350 i ever heard!!
Also because we didnt suggest they use a bathmat to catch drips warranted the ruling be held against us
Sorry. Bit bitter. But definitely a learning experience.Last edited by MamaBear; 01-12-2014, 12:07 PM.
Comment
-
Was there a discussion and agreement re the rent reduction or did you just inform the sitting tenant that you would "compensate" him for the loss of use of shower?
If a discussion then was it with all the tenants or were the other two already away?
If so and there was an agreement re the rent reduction I don't see how they can now withdraw from the arrangement.
If the other two were away and the agreement was with the remaining tenant then I fail to see how the others can prove they were inconvenienced.
Lastly, was this in writing? .....important to dot all i's and cross all t's.
They are probably just trying it on
Comment
-
I also have boarders at my place and one of the most important rule I apply is offering the SAME deal to ALL of them (same rent, same discount when on holidays, etc.) You should always assume they talk about everything and any source of jealousy must be avoided. I would recommend you to sit down with all of them at the same time and don't try to negotiate with each of them at a time.
Your best arguments would be:
- you made the effort to arrange the work as less inconvenient as possible to most of them.
- offer them to choose between discounted rent during the work period vs rent increase for having a better house now (point out no rent increase right now is valid for the next 6 months and rent will be reviewed after that)
Now I would agree with the flatmates that being home or not is irrelevant. They pay for the FULL enjoyment of the house, regardless if they use it or not. Saying that, you could offer to reduce the rent of each of them by something like 50% but encourage the 2 which didn't really get affected to offer the discount to the 3rd one. Put the ball in their hand. It's up to them to make it fair. If they're friends, this could work well.
Good luck.
Comment
-
So if they had all been away on holiday you would still give them a discount for lack of shower that they weren't there to use because they paid for it?
I think common sense would say that the right thing was done here - a reduction offered for impact sustained.
The others are trying it on.
Next time just do it when they are all there rather than work around them.
Comment
-
The other two tenants shouldn't get any rent reduction. The tenants are jointly and severally liable. Therefore, when the tenant who was here agreed to the work being done in return for a 33% reduction in rent, s/he made that agreement on behalf of the other tenants as well. If they don't like that, their beef is with the tenant who was here, not with you.
Comment
-
If it were me as the tenant in that situation, I'd cut my losses with some of the ideas being suggested which are not the least bit pragmatic. I suggest to the OP - especially if he has a working multi tenant situation - to do whatever is required to sort it out and keep everyone happy.
I've left 3 flatting situations which were all working fine until someone else came along and rocked the boat. In all 3 cases I kept on good terms (and welcome back) with people and the other person disappeared. But by then I'd found somewhere else and continued on my own path.
What I'm trying to say is if things are working keep them that way.Last edited by PTWhatAGreatForum; 03-12-2014, 11:37 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wayne View PostSo if they had all been away on holiday you would still give them a discount for lack of shower that they weren't there to use because they paid for it?
I think common sense would say that the right thing was done here - a reduction offered for impact sustained.
The others are trying it on.
Here is an example. Your new washing machine breaks down and the manufacturer guaranty to fix it in 5 working days or give you $100pw until fixed. You tell them to pick it up within 24h because you're going overseas for a week and nobody will be home. After you return, you have to wait an extra 4 days for it to fixed. I'm sure you will ask for the $100. How would you feel if the manufacturer tells you that you did actually get affected by the lack of washing machine for only 4 days so he's not going to give you the $100 on that basis. He may even ask you to be reasonable and tell you that the inconvenience to you was even less that the inconvenience to someone who had his machine fixed in 5 days but were home with kids, etc...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blackbill View PostHere is an example. Your new washing machine breaks down and the manufacturer guaranty to fix it in 5 working days or give you $100pw until fixed. You tell them to pick it up within 24h because you're going overseas for a week and nobody will be home. After you return, you have to wait an extra 4 days for it to fixed. I'm sure you will ask for the $100. How would you feel if the manufacturer tells you that you did actually get affected by the lack of washing machine for only 4 days so he's not going to give you the $100 on that basis. He may even ask you to be reasonable and tell you that the inconvenience to you was even less that the inconvenience to someone who had his machine fixed in 5 days but were home with kids, etc...
In your example I would be upset as I couldn't use my machine when I should be able to.
I can see your point though.
There are many views on this and none are right - or wrong!
Comment
Comment