Pay for rent and hotel? : ezLandlordForms

R

Rose R

started a topic almost 7 years ago

We have a tenant who claims her son became sick when they started living in the rental this past April. She did not notify us until end of October. She claims it may be mold causing the issues. Although we have never seen mold on the property and never had anyone else get sick in the home due to mold, we wanted to address it immediately. We went ahead and had a mold remediation company test. There were findings of mold spores in the air and on surface under the kitchen sink, but no leaks. We had the company fix it yesterday and we are pending the clearance certification. Since the tenant did no have a place to stay, (family or friends) locally, I agreed to pay for a hotel for them to stay at during the 7 days it took the company to complete the project. Now they are asking for us to also give them reimbursement for the days they paid for rent in November but could not stay in the rental. Is the tenant entitled to both reimbursement of rent for the days the house was inhabitable and entitled to paid hotel?

G

Gary S

said over 6 years ago

I did agree. Putting them up in a hotel was not required. I had a similar situation when I had to change the fuse panel out. It too longer than expected and I put the tenants in a hotel for the weekend. Since I paid for the hotel, they paid the full month of rent. Put tenants in a hotel is not required for any situation, but if you don't put them in a hotel, they should not pay for the days they could not live there. But to give them both is a no in my book.

J

Jacqueline O

said almost 7 years ago

If the property was uninhabitable for a time period, then the tenants could theoretically withhold rent for that time period - or expect a refund. Mold is everywhere, so was the percentage of mold present causing the property to be legally uninhabitable? If was not "uninhabitable," but merely inconvenient to live there while the company did repairs, then I would say they are not entitled to both. Bottom line: was the property still habitable? If yes, not entitled. If no, then they are entitled to both.