Damage to rental property after abandonment/final checkout with landlord We recently moved from one rental to another. Due to finding our new place rapidly, we submitted our 30 days notice on July 15 which was also our starting day at the new place. We had nearly moved everything out on July 23 with some minor cleaning left to do after that. On July 29 we had the final walk-through with the landlord and handed over the keys with him saying that we would be receiving the full security deposit back but we still paid rent till Aug 14 since that was 30 days. At this point it seems that we had officially abandoned the property according to the lease: Tenant has abandoned the Property if: 1. Tenant has physically vacated the premises, removed substantially all personal property, OR ... We no longer had any access to the place and the landlord began performing upgrades to the place, entering and using the premises at will with no communication with us. Now comes the sticky part. We cancelled the utilities to the place on July 30 since we could no longer make use of the property in any way and had fully abandoned the property. However, the landlord apparently did not start the utilities in his name so they were shutoff (even though we know he and his contractors were entering the place and using it). Since the electricity was off, sometime around Aug 7 the sump pump stopped working during a storm and the basement was flooded with ~1 ft of water causing significant damage to the premises. Who is responsible for the damage? We think that since we had completely abandoned it, no longer had access to it, he was using it for his own purposes, and even said that if he could get someone to move in he would (he had been showing it during the July 23-28 period when we had all but moved out), we were right to terminate the utilities in our name. He says that since it was within the final 30 days we were still responsible. This is in Pennsylvania, US. Any terms in the lease needed can be provided.
I assume the lease does not clarify what the effective date for cancellation of utilities should be: when you "officially abandon" the property, or when the 30-day notice elapses. Who is responsible for the damage? At least under a principle of equity, the landlord is responsible for the damages. That is because, once you have returned the keys and officially abandoned the property, you have no control on how or whether utilities are consumed or (ab-)used thereafter. For instance, if sometime after the 30th of July a person breaks in that rental unit and extracts tremendous quantities of power or gas, that would lead to the inequitable outcome that the utilities company would charge you if your name is still in the utilities company's records. Similarly, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to expect you to essentially insure the landlord (by keeping your name on the utilities) despite his full awareness that you no longer are there.
The thing I was trying to zero in on was the work/refresh/renovation that needs to be done between tenants, and if they landlord can expect to do it while Tenant A is still paying (up to the date of the 'lease change'), but expecting that Tenant A has vacated before that date, or allows the work to be done while they are still occupying? The first tenant is not required to relinquish possession of the premises while the first lease is in force. The landlord's right of access to the apartment remains unchanged from those specified in the lease and in state landlord-tenant law. So basically the landlord has to wait until the first tenant leaves before doing most of the work. If the first tenant relinquishes possession of the premises before the end of the lease period, the landlord can keep charging rent until the premises has been re-let to a new tenant. But if the landlord has agreed to stop charging rent when the first tenant moves out, the landlord may be bound by that agreement. If the landlord has signed a second lease with a new tenant beginning immediately after the first tenant's mutually agreed early move-out date, then the landlord basically has no time available to fix up the apartment except with the consent of one tenant or the other.
Your rights and responsibilities in this realm are a matter of local law, sometimes down to the level of the city, plus whatever is stipulated in the lease. In San Francisco, for example, No Person shall have upon any premises or real property owned, occupied or controlled by him, or her, or it any public nuisance [which includes] Any visible or otherwise demonstrable mold or mildew in the interiors of any buildings or facilities This does not say whether the owner or the occupant is liable for remediating the situation. Shower mold is gross but not a health hazard (the SF ordinance just lumps all mold into one category). Since you have no written lease, there is no automatic clean-up requirement. There might be a law requiring a tenant to clean the premise to its original condition, for instance in Washington, tenant must Upon termination and vacation, restore the premises to their initial condition except for reasonable wear and tear or conditions caused by failure of the landlord to comply with his or her obligations under this chapter. Landlord duties are here: there is no duty to provide ventilation. However, the bathtub appears to be in a common area and not your particular unit. The landlord duties also require the landlord to Keep any shared or common areas reasonably clean, sanitary, and safe from defects increasing the hazards of fire or accident so in Washington, it's his problem and not yours. In general, even if a tenant is responsible for some form of cleanup, that does not constitute legal license for a facility upgrade. It might cost a couple hundred dollars to hire a person to wash ordinary mold accumulation, and does not justify getting a $5,000 new tub. Since this is in a common area, you would not be solely liable for whatever the damage was. The part where you say "crack in a common bath tub" is a large red flag: it suggests to me that somebody negligently broke the bathtub, and then caused behind-the-wall damage by letting water infiltrate without notifying the landlord. If you broke the tub and let it rot, you could be liable. If the tub was broken already and the landlord didn't bother to do anything about it, that is his negligence. The three questions that you should try to answer are: (1) what are the duties of landlord and tenant in my jurisdiction, (2) what was the actual harm done, and who did it, (3) what is the ordinary cost of whatever repair was done.
Normally, the person who uses the electricity and pays for it is the &quot;customer&quot;, that's you, not your landlord nor the maintenance company. Check out section 6.3.3 (A) of the MOCOPA agreement: the Distribution Business shall agree with the Customer or developer the position and space for the Metering Equipment, and shall, in so much as it is within its reasonable control, ensure it remains reserved. The location must be accessible to the Customer so they can read their meter and to the MOCOPA Operator (via the Customer). Consideration shall be given to the accessibility of the location to all users. The Distribution Businesses’ service termination equipment and the Metering Equipment should be located between 0.5 and 1.8m above finished floor level subject to unavoidable constraints such as vandalism or fire risk mitigation Essentially, after the locks have been changed the last time, the building is no longer compliant with MOCOPA agreement requirements: I don't see any provisions that would allow to substitute the customer access to the metering equipment with an access via a proxy such as cleaning personnel. Start by sending a letter by registered mail to the maintenance company, requesting them to provide you the access to the meter. Mention the agreement you have found as grounds for your request. You might want o clarify upfront with your electricity provider who exactly you are supposed to contact, the maintenance company would be my first guess. Chances are, you'll be given the access code. If they still refuse, they should state the reasons for doing so. Check their answer carefully, and if you are not convinced, you could take legal action (you may want to bring the response letter to a lawyer first). Having a copy of the letter you'd have sent will be a requirement for the legal action to be effective.
The key here is the provision "through no fault of his own". A landlord who relies on this provision would need to be able to demonstrate what the cause of the delay was, and that s/he had not been reasonably able to avoid it. Nor could a landlord simply fail to take steps to repair the problem, whatever it might be. If the problem will clearly take more than 30 days to fix (Isay the building burned down), the prospective tenant would have the right to cancel the lease at once. True, in such a case the tenant would be put to the trouble and expense of finding another place at short notice, but then the landlord would have lost his income from the property. The provision allocates the losses between the parties in such a case. If the property is not available at the specified time for the lease to start, but could be available a few days later, the quoted provision would not allow the landlord to just ignore the situation and end the lease. The landlord is allowed only a "reasonable time" to fix the problem, and taking significantly longer than is needed would not be "reasonable".
If the tenant were alive, you couldn't stop them from taking away their personal property, could you? No matter how overdue the rent was. Nor could you deny them access to the property, except through formal eviction. AFAIK the estate generally has the same rights that the decedent did. So if the tenant would have had the right to remove their property, then their estate should have that same right. I'd be concerned about legal risks to you if you try to withhold it - I wouldn't want to do so without having advice from my lawyer that it was okay. (Answers on this site are not legal advice and most of the users are not even lawyers.) The decendent's personal property should now be part of their estate, so if it has any value, the representative should have to sell it if necessary to settle their debts. Thus even if you release the property, some of its value may still come back to you. Of course, if the decedent had other debts, and their assets don't cover them all, you may not be able to recover everything you're owed - that's one of the risks you run when you decide to become a landlord. In particular, the personal representative is not obligated to pay off the overdue rent out of her own pocket.
In general, a German landlord needs to give at least 24 hours notice before he can enter a home, and allowance from the renter. The renter also has the &quot;Hausrecht&quot;, not the landlord. There are exceptions, most of them to prevent damage from an ongoing danger threatening the house. A clear example would be a broken water pipe. 1 week notice also appears to violate tenant laws - I hope you have a written contract about the subletting.
Nothing in the description strikes me as illegal or unlawful, so I am unsure of the grounds your friend would have for legal action. The questions a lawyer would ask (in addition to that) would be likely to include : How does your friend quantify the damage? The law is great for pursuing financial compensation, but does not handle abstract concepts. Has your friend used psychological counselling services, and what was the cost? What additional financial costs has your friend borne? If your friend has written to the University and has expected a response, what is the evidence of diminished trust? (The letter suggests otherwise.) Would a reasonable person (the proverbial "man in the street") be psychologically damaged by the events experienced by your friend? Is there evidence of a pre-existing condition? You've also mentioned yourself as a witness. Did you witness the eviction, or would you be attesting to your friend's state of mind? If the latter, what are your psychological qualifications? In the main Western jurisdictions, the answer to the question "can my friend sue?" is usually "yes", but whether they stood a chance of winning the suit would probably be a better question to ask. Your friend would only be likely to win a case against the University or the Security company if they could demonstrate unlawful or counter-contractual activity by staff, and were able to demonstrate financial damages that had been caused by that activity.