Does a landlord have to reveal a roach infestation before renting an apartment?
August 4, 2007 1:45 PM
Subscribe
Is there any chance of getting back first and last month's rent from a landlord who didn't reveal known problems with an apartment?
My roommate rented an apartment for him and his girlfriend to move into. There was no lease, just a deposit of first and last month's rent. He was supposed to take possession of the place on July 15th, but that was pushed back to August 1 since the landlord hadn't finished everything that needed to be done in the apartment.
My roommate checked out the place a few times as repairs and such were being done, and on more than one occasion he saw cockroaches, and not just one or two. On one twenty-minute visit, he saw more than 25 roaches in the living room, kitchen, and bedroom, and this in the middle of the day. He brought this up with the landlord who informed him that the infestation was a known problem, and that the building was sprayed once a month. The last spraying was done a couple days ago, and when my roommate went back to see if the place was in order to move in (it wasn't, and this was August 3rd), there were still dozens of roaches running around despite the apparent extermination attempt.
My roommate has written up notice to give the landlord stating that he does not wish to move into the apartment, given the undisclosed roach problem (besides the gross factor of roaches, his girlfriend has asthma and doesn't need to live in a place which could potentially exacerbate the problem). What he's trying to figure out is if he can get back the deposit he already made. He's obviously not giving 60 days notice, but he also hasn't moved into the place, nor has he been able to move into the place at any of the previously agreed upon times.
The information page for Tenant's Rights hasn't been terrifically helpful, and since it's a long weekend, it's unlikely that the roommate will be able to speak to anyone about this situation until sometime next week. Does anyone know if the law is on his side in this case? Will he be able to get his money back? Who should he best speak to?
This is in Toronto.
posted by Felicity Rilke to law & government (6 comments total)
1 user marked this as a favorite
INL but it would seem a habital apartment was the object of the contract and absent a habital unit no contract can be held valid.
posted by Freedomboy at 2:36 PM on August 4, 2007