Drinking water is contaminated; what can a tenant do? I'm renting an apartment in a rural part of California where I've lived for about three years, on a month-to-month rental agreement. The landlord is responsible for providing / paying for the water, according to the rental agreement. The water was tested and it turned out to be contaminated with E. coli. All the tenants were notified of this with a "Boil Water" notice on our front doors. After about five weeks, the water stopped entirely. As far as I can tell, the water here is provided via a "state small water system" owned by the landlord. Is there anything I can do as a tenant?
The relevant law regarding a landlord's obligation to provide a habitable premise is California Civil Code section 1941.1, which says a) A dwelling shall be deemed untenantable for purposes of Section 1941 if it substantially lacks any of the following affirmative standard characteristics or is a residential unit described in Section 17920.3 or 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code:... (3) A water supply approved under applicable law that is under the control of the tenant, capable of producing hot and cold running water, or a system that is under the control of the landlord, that produces hot and cold running water, furnished to appropriate fixtures, and connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable law. This does not say that water must be drinkable fresh from the tap (what has to be approved is the water system, not the water coming through the system). These legal professionals imply that a landlord is obligated to take care of the problem, but that could be advertising. Although there isn't a clear requirement to provide bacteria-free water, you might prevail in a lawsuit. However, it still isn't possible under §1941 to compel the landlord to fix the problem, according to the Cal. Consumer Affairs blurb. In case it turns out that the condition of the water does put the landlord in violation of the habitability standards, a standard remedy is to give written notice of the "dilapidation" of the premise which renders it untenantable and which the landlord should repair, and after a reasonable time the landlord neglects to repair the dilapidation, they you can fix it yourself and deduct the cost up to one month's rent. Or, you can terminate the lease (not much use with a month-to-month). This is under §1942.
Of course not. If the owner/tenant needed to be home I could rent a house in my name, and then never occupy it (my associates live there) the cops could never enter. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) - Cops executing a warrant need to knock. If no one answers they must wait a reasonable time for an occupant to let them in. It's the knock and announce rule. By implication it might lend authority to what is an obvious answer.
Your sewage provider is a “Public service company” under Maryland law: (x) (1) “Public service company” means a common carrier company, electric company, gas company, sewage disposal company, telegraph company, telephone company, water company, or any combination of public service companies. (ee) “Sewage disposal company” means a privately owned public service company that owns or maintains facilities for the disposal of sewage. The Public Services Commission sets the rates: The Commission shall have the power to set a just and reasonable rate of a public service company, as a maximum rate, minimum rate, or both. The utilities code paraphrases this in other provisions: In accordance with the provisions of this article, a public service company shall charge just and reasonable rates for the regulated services that it renders. There is no legal process involved in your situation, since it is a political matter what constitutes a just and reasonable rate. You can write letters of protest, but the commission has the power to set the rates. You can, however, investigate whether the charges were actually approved. You do, however, have to contact the utility before filing a complaint with the commission. The landlord has zero control over rates set by the government, so they cannot reasonably be expected to contractually commit to any particular rates. However, if they overtly lied to you about the terms of the lease, you might sue to get out of the lease, but the chances that you would prevail in such a suit are negligible.
Let's analyse the landlord's claims: You have an assured shorthold tenancy agreement. The fact that there isn't a written contract doesn't change this as a verbal agreement is legally binding. That's true. A tenancy exists even if this was never written down, and it's an AST by default if the requirements for being one are met. Payment of rent constitutes acceptance of these terms. Payment of rent by the tenant, and its acceptance by the landlord, is sufficient for a tenancy to be regarded as existing. The tenancy can only be terminated early from the permission of the landlord. That's rubbish. A tenant can always end a tenancy, but there may be restrictions. In particular, a tenant cannot end a tenancy before the end of a fixed term without the agreement of the landlord, but the landlord has an obligation to find new tenants if this happens. However, I've been unable to find any information as to whether a fixed term exists if there's no written agreement. Assuming there is no fixed term, then for a month-to-month tenancy, the tenant must provide one month's notice to end the tenancy, with that month ending at the end of a rental period (i.e. the day before the next payment would be due). If you leave early this is legally abandonment and you are still responsible for paying rent for the duration of the tenancy That's true. ... if you do leave next month I'll consider you in rent arrears and pursue payment through legal means That is possible - but if you give notice as described above, then the tenancy will end, and (assuming you're up to date with the rent) you'll no longer be liable.
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.
What does &quot;PROVIDED FURTHER&quot; here mean? The term keeps two provisions separate, and hence independent of each other (unconditional). The former provision addresses landlord's initiative [to terminate the lease] whereas the latter addresses tenant's initiative. The latter pertains to early termination of lease and is not to be confused with tenant's default/non-payment. If rent is to be paid on the 1st of each month and the landlord wants the tenant to move out by August 13, the landlord needs to give a written notice at least thirty days prior to August 1 because the 1st of August is &quot;the next rent payment date&quot;. This is regardless of tenant's timely payment of rent. Tenant's initiative to prematurely terminate the lease forfeits his security deposit regardless of having hitherto/always paid rent on time.
Can a landlord keep a security deposit if my apartment rental application is approved, but I back out of signing the lease? That can't be legal, right? No. That is a violation of California CIV 1950.5. Although 1950.5(b) reflects that one of the permissible purposes of a security deposit is &quot;to reimburse the landlord for costs associated with processing a new tenant&quot;, item (e) limits that amount &quot;as [is] reasonably necessary for the purposes specified in subdivision(b)&quot;. A deposit of 1.5 times the monthly rent clearly is excessive for &quot;processing a new tenant&quot;, let alone processing an applicant who never became a tenant because no lease agreement was entered. All other permissible uses of security deposit are inapplicable in your matter. Furthermore, if the landlord required a separate payment for the application, then your application fee satisfies the provision in 1950.5(b). This means that the landlord has the obligation to reimburse you 100% of the security deposit.
Certified applicator here. Needless to say, every exception has a reason, and was lobbied for by applicators, manufacturers, or common sense. Let's run through them. (1) applying a pesticide at any dosage, concentration, or frequency less than that specified on the labeling unless the labeling specifically prohibits deviation from the specified dosage, concentration, or frequency, This is mainly about rinsate. When you're done spraying, you have a bunch of flushing out to do. The empty jugs or barrels need to be triple rinsed with agitation (fill-shake-dump 3x). The dregs of the premix tank have to go, and the tank rinsed out with clean water. The spray equipment needs to be purged (not least so the acidic or basic pesticide doesn't corrode it). This yields a lot of "contaminated" water which is simply water + the pesticide at a lower-than-normal concentration. This is called rinsate. You also sometimes end up with "leftover mix" or "mistake mix"; like 200 gallons of pre-mixed {Roundup? 2,4-D?) that a non-certified predecessor left behind. I don't know what that is, so I'll dilute it enough that it's definitely below maximums. So you have all this chemical that is highly diluted, of ??? dilution but well below maxima. Can't dump it on the ground. Can't dump it down the drain. My friend says "How do you dispose of old paint? Paint something you don't want, then throw it away." And that's exactly what you do: identify locations that are legal to spray the stuff, and spray it there. It's much weaker, of course. This exception (1) is specifically to allow for this case. Of course you know you need to run a full antibiotic treatment, or you'll just breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Some cases are like that, and the product labeling will tell you "don't under-use". That's what the "unless" is for. Presumably in that case they'll tell you what to do with the rinsate. (2) applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling if the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling, unless the Administrator has required that the labeling specifically state that the pesticide may be used only for the pests specified on the labeling after the Administrator has determined that the use of the pesticide against other pests would cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, The first part of this is for accidental or collateral damage: think about how civilians figure into the rules of war. You can't go "12 civilians, shoot them", but you can go "11 soldiers, 1 civilian, shoot them". Suppose you're spraying 2,4-D on your yard, at a 1.5 lb/acre rate (max 3.0) to suppress broadleaf (dandelions). "Lawns" are a crop specified on the labeling. Controlling broadleaf there is a labeled use, and therefore legal. Your yard also has butterflies. This is where the exception (2) comes into play. Since "the application is to the crop, animal, or site specified on the labeling" (2,4-D on lawns to control broadleaf), then, when the local butterfly admirer accuses you of applying a pesticide against any target pest not specified on the labeling (2,4-D is definitely not labeled for butterflies), you have a defense. The butterfly is the civilian you can't aim at, but it is not a war crime if you shoot at a soldier and hit a civilian by mistake. If the collateral damage becomes serious, e.g. there are big issues with pollinators (e.g. honeybees) being injured by pesticide use in factory farming, then the "Unless" clause allows the EPA to intervene and cancel exception (2) on a case-by-case basis. A consumer product might be pulled, or a commercial product will mention this in the (lengthy, fold-out) labeling. (3) employing any method of application not prohibited by the labeling unless the labeling specifically states that the product may be applied only by the methods specified on the labeling, That is to give you the versatility to apply as needed. Imagine you are a farmer. Most farm pesticides are sprayed from a land vehicle, and you use the highest concentration that is workable because water is heavy. But suppose you're far enough west that your cornfield is a circle and you use a rotary irrigator. You might mix the pesticide in with the irrigation water (at a dramatically lower concentration). This exception relieves the manufacturer of the obligation to cover every possible application method. But the factory is able to override this. (4) mixing a pesticide or pesticides with a fertilizer when such mixture is not prohibited by the labeling, Simply a labor-saver: to allow you to apply pesticide and fertilizer in one pass, which most gardeners appreciate. It also empowers products like weed-and-feed. (5) any use of a pesticide in conformance with section 136c, 136p, or 136v of this title, or (6) any use of a pesticide in a manner that the Administrator determines to be consistent with the purposes of this subchapter. These are statutory phrasing to enable other legislation or rulemaking. After March 31, 1979, the term shall not include the use of a pesticide for agricultural or forestry purposes at a dilution less than label dosage unless before or after that date the Administrator issues a regulation or advisory opinion consistent with the study provided for in section 27(b) of the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, which regulation or advisory opinion specifically requires the use of definite amounts of dilution. This locks in the "right to over-dilute" (exception 1) for ag and forestry applications.