fixing a hole where the rain gets in
October 12, 2011 5:08 PM Subscribe
Weird NYC landlord relations issues -- he's not fixing things, we're not paying rent. Lots of questions.
So I have a pretty strange living arrangement. Here are the salient facts:
-Building is in Brooklyn and there are seven units. Since we've lived here, no more than four have been occupied. Currently there are three occupied. We signed a one year lease in November of last year.
-When we moved in, we were told the front of building had a different landlord than the back of the building. We live in the back. In April, our landlord told us he sold to the person in the front of building, and that someone we'd never met was our landlord.
-Our new landlord has never shown us any proof of ownership or anything like that. In some ways he's been very communicative, and quick to fix problems. (fixing the door when it wasn't locking properly, fixing the front buzzer)
-In others, he's been positively neglectful (in may, the lights in the common areas were shut off for a day due to lack of payment. We didn't have heat in the common areas for several months due to lack of payment.)
-We expressed interest in signing a lease with his name on it when he took over from our old landlord, and renewing our lease when it runs out, because we like our apartment. Recently he told us he planned to sell the apartments as condos and he would be happy to offer us first dibs on our apartment, and in the meantime we could stay there without signing a new lease.
-In late July, we started noticing a leak when it rained. We told him about it, and he promised us it would be fixed in short order.
-We paid August rent. Leak wasn't fixed. Hurricane came and went. Leak wasn't fixed. A second leak has developed. Neither leak has been fixed. We are now in the third month since the leak began and still no indication he's going to fix the leak. Not that he's been mean or standoffish -- he asked us why we haven't paid rent and we told him it was because of the leak, and he promises again and again that "It'll happen this week" but it never does.
-We've been in the apartment above us (which is the top floor, and has been unoccupied since we moved in), and it seems to me that at least one of these leaks is pretty serious and is going to require some significant investment from our landlord, who has been loathe to do anything that costs money to fix this place up.
-We have hung on to our money, for September and October rent, and put them in an escrow acct.
Questions:
1.) Nothing, including our lease, has this guy's name on it anywhere. We have never signed a contract with his name on it. Can he sue us?
2.) After the end of next month, we will be living here with no lease, and if history's any indication, the leak will still not be fixed. Can he kick us out for failure to pay rent?
3.) If we live here for another couple of months and decide to move and the leak is never fixed, are we obligated to pay him that unpaid rent before we move?
4.) We like this place in spite of the leaks, and we don't want to leave. If this leak issue hadn't betrayed some more serious structural problems with this building, we might have even thought about buying this apartment, assuming he meant what he said about selling these places. If you were in our situation, how would you handle it?
So I have a pretty strange living arrangement. Here are the salient facts:
-Building is in Brooklyn and there are seven units. Since we've lived here, no more than four have been occupied. Currently there are three occupied. We signed a one year lease in November of last year.
-When we moved in, we were told the front of building had a different landlord than the back of the building. We live in the back. In April, our landlord told us he sold to the person in the front of building, and that someone we'd never met was our landlord.
-Our new landlord has never shown us any proof of ownership or anything like that. In some ways he's been very communicative, and quick to fix problems. (fixing the door when it wasn't locking properly, fixing the front buzzer)
-In others, he's been positively neglectful (in may, the lights in the common areas were shut off for a day due to lack of payment. We didn't have heat in the common areas for several months due to lack of payment.)
-We expressed interest in signing a lease with his name on it when he took over from our old landlord, and renewing our lease when it runs out, because we like our apartment. Recently he told us he planned to sell the apartments as condos and he would be happy to offer us first dibs on our apartment, and in the meantime we could stay there without signing a new lease.
-In late July, we started noticing a leak when it rained. We told him about it, and he promised us it would be fixed in short order.
-We paid August rent. Leak wasn't fixed. Hurricane came and went. Leak wasn't fixed. A second leak has developed. Neither leak has been fixed. We are now in the third month since the leak began and still no indication he's going to fix the leak. Not that he's been mean or standoffish -- he asked us why we haven't paid rent and we told him it was because of the leak, and he promises again and again that "It'll happen this week" but it never does.
-We've been in the apartment above us (which is the top floor, and has been unoccupied since we moved in), and it seems to me that at least one of these leaks is pretty serious and is going to require some significant investment from our landlord, who has been loathe to do anything that costs money to fix this place up.
-We have hung on to our money, for September and October rent, and put them in an escrow acct.
Questions:
1.) Nothing, including our lease, has this guy's name on it anywhere. We have never signed a contract with his name on it. Can he sue us?
2.) After the end of next month, we will be living here with no lease, and if history's any indication, the leak will still not be fixed. Can he kick us out for failure to pay rent?
3.) If we live here for another couple of months and decide to move and the leak is never fixed, are we obligated to pay him that unpaid rent before we move?
4.) We like this place in spite of the leaks, and we don't want to leave. If this leak issue hadn't betrayed some more serious structural problems with this building, we might have even thought about buying this apartment, assuming he meant what he said about selling these places. If you were in our situation, how would you handle it?
If you were in our situation, how would you handle it?
• You have no contract with this person, and no legal protections that a contract provides.
• You're not paying rent.
• He won't fix serious problems like light and heat outages and water leaks.
• The leaks suggest structural problems with the unit and probably the larger building. If there's no heat, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that pipes have burst elsewhere. I'm sure you understand why no lighting is a bad thing.
If I was in your situation, I'd get ready to move as soon as I was able.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:24 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
• You have no contract with this person, and no legal protections that a contract provides.
• You're not paying rent.
• He won't fix serious problems like light and heat outages and water leaks.
• The leaks suggest structural problems with the unit and probably the larger building. If there's no heat, it wouldn't be a surprise to learn that pipes have burst elsewhere. I'm sure you understand why no lighting is a bad thing.
If I was in your situation, I'd get ready to move as soon as I was able.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:24 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
I would get something if writing from your previous landlord, or at least write up a document that says something like "we asked our previous landlord for documentation of sale or a new lease and received neither" and ask him to sign it.
Also, due to the structural problems and the lack of attention the "landlord" is paying to the property, I'd try to find somewhere else to live. It might be a nice place, but it sounds like you're setting yourself up for major problems if you stay there.
posted by DoubleLune at 5:25 PM on October 12, 2011
Also, due to the structural problems and the lack of attention the "landlord" is paying to the property, I'd try to find somewhere else to live. It might be a nice place, but it sounds like you're setting yourself up for major problems if you stay there.
posted by DoubleLune at 5:25 PM on October 12, 2011
IANYL. New York City landlord-tenant law is a beast of its own.
When we moved in, we were told the front of building had a different landlord than the back of the building. We live in the back. In April, our landlord told us he sold to the person in the front of building, and that someone we'd never met was our landlord.
This smells like someone clumsily trying to avoid NYC's rent stabilization law.
Don't buy the apartment. Look for another place to leave. If any disputes arise, contact a lawyer with experience in NYC landlord-tenant law.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:34 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
When we moved in, we were told the front of building had a different landlord than the back of the building. We live in the back. In April, our landlord told us he sold to the person in the front of building, and that someone we'd never met was our landlord.
This smells like someone clumsily trying to avoid NYC's rent stabilization law.
Don't buy the apartment. Look for another place to leave. If any disputes arise, contact a lawyer with experience in NYC landlord-tenant law.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 5:34 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
IAAL, IANYL, TINLA, I'm just gonna make some general statements that may not apply to your situation. You can check ACRIS for sale information, including copies of the deed, mortgage, etc. (Sorry no links, am on phone; also I don't know what the lag is between documents getting filed and put online.) It's pretty common when a building is sold in NYC for provisions to be included that state that the new owner takes over any leases (among other things). So, a lease with a prior owner may be binding on both the tenant and the new owner.
Buildings with more than six units that are a certain age are usually rent-stabilized. You're in a weird situation with the separation of the building into front and back with different owners. I haven't seen that before.
If a tenant rent-stabilized, then her lease automatically renews, unless the landlord notifies the tenant in writing that he's terminating the lease for one of a very limited list of reasons allowed by law. If a tenant is not rent-stabilized, then she becomes a month-to-month tent when the lease expires. This means the landlord can 1) give the tenant 30 days notice before he can start a case in housing court to evict her, but he can evict her for no reason at all; or 2) start a non-payment case, in which the tenant could keep the apartment if she pays the rent or some lower amount agreed upon to compensate for the leaks.
Anyone who has conditions like this should call 311 to request an inspection from HPD and get violations placed.
Also, Google tenant blacklist to find out what's in store for you if you get sued. You should know a suit is coming because your landlord is required in all types of cases to serve you with some kind of predicate notice. If your landlord is sketchy, he can claim he served you with a notice, even if he didn't.
I am legal sevices, so I only represent tenants who are very poor. I am, however, familiar with the private tenant bar and can memail you a list of firms that ONLY represent tenants.
posted by Mavri at 5:42 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Buildings with more than six units that are a certain age are usually rent-stabilized. You're in a weird situation with the separation of the building into front and back with different owners. I haven't seen that before.
If a tenant rent-stabilized, then her lease automatically renews, unless the landlord notifies the tenant in writing that he's terminating the lease for one of a very limited list of reasons allowed by law. If a tenant is not rent-stabilized, then she becomes a month-to-month tent when the lease expires. This means the landlord can 1) give the tenant 30 days notice before he can start a case in housing court to evict her, but he can evict her for no reason at all; or 2) start a non-payment case, in which the tenant could keep the apartment if she pays the rent or some lower amount agreed upon to compensate for the leaks.
Anyone who has conditions like this should call 311 to request an inspection from HPD and get violations placed.
Also, Google tenant blacklist to find out what's in store for you if you get sued. You should know a suit is coming because your landlord is required in all types of cases to serve you with some kind of predicate notice. If your landlord is sketchy, he can claim he served you with a notice, even if he didn't.
I am legal sevices, so I only represent tenants who are very poor. I am, however, familiar with the private tenant bar and can memail you a list of firms that ONLY represent tenants.
posted by Mavri at 5:42 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh also, in a situation like yours, it may not be clear if you're rent-stabilized absent litigation, so I don't want to imply that you should know if you are. You can request a copy of your apartment's registration history from DHCR to see how/if it's been registered in the past. The form is online and it's called a FOIL request.
You can also check the HPD website to see if other tenants have had violations placed.
HPD, ACRIS, and DOB could also have information to illuminate if the building is considered one or two. The HPD and DOB websites should have the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O), which shows how many apartments the city thinks the building has (or if it's two buildings).
Finally, please don't take legal advice from anyone here who isn't a NYC landlord/tenant attorney or advocate. This shit is complicated.
posted by Mavri at 5:54 PM on October 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
You can also check the HPD website to see if other tenants have had violations placed.
HPD, ACRIS, and DOB could also have information to illuminate if the building is considered one or two. The HPD and DOB websites should have the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O), which shows how many apartments the city thinks the building has (or if it's two buildings).
Finally, please don't take legal advice from anyone here who isn't a NYC landlord/tenant attorney or advocate. This shit is complicated.
posted by Mavri at 5:54 PM on October 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
You should be documenting all these maintenance issues with 311 if you haven't already been doing so. There is also a violation and complaint tracker on the nyc.gov site where you can look up your building's history. The database is called BIS.
posted by sideofwry at 6:18 PM on October 12, 2011
posted by sideofwry at 6:18 PM on October 12, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks for the answers. Mavri, what I neglected to mention in the question is that this building was completed in 2009 and was originally to be sold as condos, but ended up being rented. I assume because of the housing crash. That may effect the status as a rent-stabilized property.
We called 311 about the lights when they went out and they were promptly turned back on. All units have their own boilers, so common area having no heat wasn't that big a deal, except it rendered the dryer in the basement useless. Both of those problems are resolved. All that really remains are the leaks.
I have checked ACRIS in the past so I know he's the real owner and I'm not just paying someone who has nothing to do with anything, and I've checked BIS and HPD. Landlord had some hazardous workplace violations during construction, but beyond that all I see is the heat and electricity complaints from when the common areas didn't have heat and light.
It's a shame because I love this apartment and will hate to move, but it seems like the smartest option. Will consult a lawyer, I guess. Thanks for your help, everyone.
Out of curiosity -- what happens to tenants when a building is foreclosed upon?
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:39 PM on October 12, 2011
We called 311 about the lights when they went out and they were promptly turned back on. All units have their own boilers, so common area having no heat wasn't that big a deal, except it rendered the dryer in the basement useless. Both of those problems are resolved. All that really remains are the leaks.
I have checked ACRIS in the past so I know he's the real owner and I'm not just paying someone who has nothing to do with anything, and I've checked BIS and HPD. Landlord had some hazardous workplace violations during construction, but beyond that all I see is the heat and electricity complaints from when the common areas didn't have heat and light.
It's a shame because I love this apartment and will hate to move, but it seems like the smartest option. Will consult a lawyer, I guess. Thanks for your help, everyone.
Out of curiosity -- what happens to tenants when a building is foreclosed upon?
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:39 PM on October 12, 2011
I've had a lot of dealings with NYC landlords, rent stabilization, being on rent strike (successfully!) winning in housing court, and I had my real estate license in NY State back in the day.
This is not legal advice. It may not even be good advice.
If This were Manhattan, I would tell you batten down the hatches, document the hell out of everything, send certified letters, keep putting rent in escrow, get a lawyer, and stay planted.
But you know what? You're in Brooklyn. In a building that's ownership is dubious. Brooklyn is big. You can still find great deals there.
You have no idea when or if this building will ever get serviced. If someone buys this building that is either already in foreclosure, or about to be, they WILL come after you for the back rent. You might be able to make a deal with them on the court house steps so you only pay a fraction of what you owe as compensation for the breaches in habitability, but you'll likely need a lawyer and lots of effort to document your case and force a settlement favorable to you.
If I were you, I'd hold on to my money and start looking for a great new place. When I found it, I would move. Without notice or anything. I would keep the money in the escrow account. I am assuming your landlord does not have the resources to go after you for the back rent. In about a year, I'd buy myself something special with all that dough!
This current owner would likely be happy to have your unit back, so I don't really think he cares about your rent strike. Do you know what compensation he might owe you shouldhe successfully turn the building into condos? At least here in LA, the landlord must pay out all renters generous sums to get them to move out. I've not dealt with this in NYC, but you likely have protections as a renter he is trying to avoid dealing with. And/or he's just super super broke and can't deal with either the leak or your lack of payment.
If you want to get into a protracted fight with this guy, you can surely win something, but I doubt it would be worth it.
I think maybe you should walk with the few months rent you've saved and call it a Win.
YMMV. This is not legal advice. All that.
posted by jbenben at 8:27 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is not legal advice. It may not even be good advice.
If This were Manhattan, I would tell you batten down the hatches, document the hell out of everything, send certified letters, keep putting rent in escrow, get a lawyer, and stay planted.
But you know what? You're in Brooklyn. In a building that's ownership is dubious. Brooklyn is big. You can still find great deals there.
You have no idea when or if this building will ever get serviced. If someone buys this building that is either already in foreclosure, or about to be, they WILL come after you for the back rent. You might be able to make a deal with them on the court house steps so you only pay a fraction of what you owe as compensation for the breaches in habitability, but you'll likely need a lawyer and lots of effort to document your case and force a settlement favorable to you.
If I were you, I'd hold on to my money and start looking for a great new place. When I found it, I would move. Without notice or anything. I would keep the money in the escrow account. I am assuming your landlord does not have the resources to go after you for the back rent. In about a year, I'd buy myself something special with all that dough!
This current owner would likely be happy to have your unit back, so I don't really think he cares about your rent strike. Do you know what compensation he might owe you shouldhe successfully turn the building into condos? At least here in LA, the landlord must pay out all renters generous sums to get them to move out. I've not dealt with this in NYC, but you likely have protections as a renter he is trying to avoid dealing with. And/or he's just super super broke and can't deal with either the leak or your lack of payment.
If you want to get into a protracted fight with this guy, you can surely win something, but I doubt it would be worth it.
I think maybe you should walk with the few months rent you've saved and call it a Win.
YMMV. This is not legal advice. All that.
posted by jbenben at 8:27 PM on October 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nothing happens when the building is foreclosed upon. This happened to me twice.
The court appoints a receiver, someone to collect rents and administer repairs, etc. Eventually someone buys the new building through the court.
If the building falls into foreclosure and a receiver is appointed, you will get a notice from the court about where to send the rent and direct requests for repairs.
The receiver mayalsogo after you for the back rent. If you wished to negotiate a settlement, you would surely need documentation regarding all defects and your reasonable attempts to get the former landlord to address the defects.
They might make you sign a new lease.
It's common for paperwork and stuff to be missing if the building goes into receivership. You are still legal tenants as long as you live there.
posted by jbenben at 8:34 PM on October 12, 2011
The court appoints a receiver, someone to collect rents and administer repairs, etc. Eventually someone buys the new building through the court.
If the building falls into foreclosure and a receiver is appointed, you will get a notice from the court about where to send the rent and direct requests for repairs.
The receiver mayalsogo after you for the back rent. If you wished to negotiate a settlement, you would surely need documentation regarding all defects and your reasonable attempts to get the former landlord to address the defects.
They might make you sign a new lease.
It's common for paperwork and stuff to be missing if the building goes into receivership. You are still legal tenants as long as you live there.
posted by jbenben at 8:34 PM on October 12, 2011
Just a few small notes before bed from a former housing advocate (similar to Mavri, but no JD).
Call 311 on the leaks too. 311 triggers a real fine from even one call. This is why your previous 311 complaints were fixed (IME).
You are not stabilized. 2009 construction too recent.
If you do wish to go the escrow route, make sure you do it in consultation with a housing agency. See lawhelp for agencies in your area. Do note that such an agency is 99.9% certainly not going to represent you unless there is an extenuating circumstance not covered here (say, a severely disabled family member). But they can set up the escrow and give advice. (Their advice may be not to bother with the escrow and move.)
Just my 3 a.m. personal opinion: all the trouble would maybe, even probably, be worth it for a rent-stabilized unit, but for market rate, I wouldn't put myself through this. That said, if you're the mellow sort, let it ride, etc., you could keep paying into the escrow and see what happens.
Best of luck!
posted by skbw at 12:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Call 311 on the leaks too. 311 triggers a real fine from even one call. This is why your previous 311 complaints were fixed (IME).
You are not stabilized. 2009 construction too recent.
If you do wish to go the escrow route, make sure you do it in consultation with a housing agency. See lawhelp for agencies in your area. Do note that such an agency is 99.9% certainly not going to represent you unless there is an extenuating circumstance not covered here (say, a severely disabled family member). But they can set up the escrow and give advice. (Their advice may be not to bother with the escrow and move.)
Just my 3 a.m. personal opinion: all the trouble would maybe, even probably, be worth it for a rent-stabilized unit, but for market rate, I wouldn't put myself through this. That said, if you're the mellow sort, let it ride, etc., you could keep paying into the escrow and see what happens.
Best of luck!
posted by skbw at 12:09 AM on October 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
It never occurred to me until now, but one can file an "HPD action" (colloquial name for suit about repairs--I don't know the real name) in a non-stabilized unit.
In my housing work, I did not personally deal with HPD actions, but I know they are onerous even by the standards of housing cases.
posted by skbw at 12:14 AM on October 13, 2011
In my housing work, I did not personally deal with HPD actions, but I know they are onerous even by the standards of housing cases.
posted by skbw at 12:14 AM on October 13, 2011
Response by poster: Just to let everyone know the score on this -- I consulted a lawyer. He told me to pay my rent into a separate account until such time that the landlord agrees to fix the leaks, and then to negotiate how much of the back rent we would pay him. In the end, the landlord fixed the roof in January, and we agreed that I would get 30% off my back rent.
Landlord is paid up, roof is fixed. so far, so good.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:30 AM on February 27, 2012
Landlord is paid up, roof is fixed. so far, so good.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:30 AM on February 27, 2012
« Older The Mystery of the vanished Costco organic peanut... | Life-hack my emotions to make me more productive. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fshgrl at 5:23 PM on October 12, 2011 [4 favorites]