If I have a lease, do I have to live there? This is stupid but I am debating with my mom. I have a lease in an NYC apartment. In the building there are security cameras in the hallways. For some reason she thinks that you have to go home and sleep there for at least half the year, otherwise the landlord can kick you out. She thinks that someone is checking the cameras to track if people are walking in and out of my apartment. On the other hand, I think that is total BS. I suspect no one is staring at the cameras, and even if there is, it's a 3rd party security company that only watches it if a crime happens. I believe that as long as I don't claim another residence as my primary residence, I can travel abroad for a year and come back and nothing would be at risk. Who is correct?
Two factors are relevant. First, the language of the lease sometimes contains an abandonment clause that makes vacancy a default under the lease. This is common in a commercial lease, as vacancies can undermine the apparent viability of a strip mall or mall, but these provisions are less common in residential leases where the rent is current. Second, since this in New York City, there is an issue of rent-control. Rent-control benefits are available only for residential leases, and if you do not live there for long enough, it could be reclassified as a pied-a-terre and cease to qualify as a rent-controlled apartment. If your apartment is not a rent-controlled apartment, this isn't a concern, but if it is, further research related to continued qualification as a rent-controlled apartment in New York City is necessary.
Sure, you can sue; but who are you going to sue? You have to prove someone knew about the fact that one condo resident was going to be paying for the other condo's hot water. Mixed up plumbing and electrical systems are fairly common in apartment and condo complexes, especially ones that have been converted. Chances are high it's a mistake and was not done on purpose. If you can find the original general contractor, he's going to say it wasn't him, talk to the plumbing contractor. Who will say I didn't do it, and my work is only guaranteed for five years, so talk to the plumbing inspector. He'll say he didn't see it, and besides, all those inspection records were thrown out ten years ago. The condo association may or may not have had oversight of the construction. Can you prove the neighbor knew about it and didn't tell the condo association? Can you prove the realtor who your dad bought through knew about it? Was there a home/condo inspection done - paid for by your dad or the seller - before the sale that might have spotted it? The police aren't going to care; technically, it is a crime, in a way, but it's not like someone tapped into someone's cable TV or electrical power meter last week. This is a problem from years ago, more than likely from the original construction; so who is really responsible? The police aren't going to run that down. And, what are the damages? A few months of part of a power bill? Is it really worth a lawsuit and a lawyer? Against who? I can't see a lawyer jumping into it. If you want to do something for whatever comes next, yes, collect evidence. Tell the neighbor he/she's on your hot water. Take photos and get a licensed plumber to take a look at it and give you an estimate for separating the water systems. That will document that the two systems are not separate. (Either call your own plumber or ask the condo association for the name of someone). Then, start with the condo association. They may be responsible for the inspections before the sale. At very least, the condo association may have to check off on the repairs. And, they may know more about it (oh, yes, we've heard about that in a few other condos...) You could bring it to everyone's attention at a meeting; it may be a common issue in the complex, and other residents may not know about it. If, in fact, the neighbor doesn't have their own water heater, they may be more on the hook for expensive repairs than your dad. They may have more of a case against the condo association than your dad.
Am I at fault? Can I get my security deposit back from Landlord? The landlord is wrong, and he should reimburse you the totality of the security deposit. Clauses #1 and #16 would entitle the landlord to deduct from your security deposit only the portion of the 7-day period that is not already covered in the payment you made for 1st week's rent, which according to clause #1 starts on Sunday July 29. If I understand correctly, you signed the contract (and paid) on July 27, and then gave your 7-day notice on July 28. Since you paid an additional amount for Saturday July 28, then your 1st week's rent payment actually covers the entire 7-day period of your notice. Therefore, the landlord should reimburse you the entire security deposit. The contract nowhere indicates that the count of [post-notice] 7 days starts after the current rent-week elapses. But even if it did contain language in that sense, the dates you mention render that hypothetical clause void. Lastly, clause #16 refers to giving a written notice, which is what you did by sending him the text he obviously read and understood. Therefore, his statement that "you did not provide proper notice of moving out" clearly is false. What should I do? If the landlord insists to retain the security deposit, your option is to file a complaint in Small Claims court (I don't know whether this has a different name in PA). Depending on PA procedural law, you and the landlord might be cited for mediation prior to being assigned a court date. A process in small claims court is pretty straight-forward, but only you can determine whether the hassle of attending mediation and court hearing is worth. If anything, it (1) certainly gives you some [minimal] exposure to litigation, and (2) teaches the landlord to abide by the very rules he drafted in the contract. 8/30/2018: Edited to address OP's follow-up question of whether section 250.512 of the Landlord and Tenant Act precludes recovery of security deposit (see comments) After analyzing the statute you found, Pennsylvania courts have still held that a tenant's failure to provide a new address does not preclude recovery of the security deposit. See Adamsky v. Picknick, 412 Pa.Super.Ct. 544, 549 (1992): we find the lack of notice argument is tenuous at best since appellant's reason for withholding the deposit was not because he did not have appellees' new address, rather, he withheld it because he maintained there were damages for which he should be compensated. That conclusion is squarely applicable to your situation. The landlord's only pretext for withholding your deposit is his inaccurate statement that "you did not provide proper notice of moving out", and for that matter he refers to nothing else than the rental agreement. The rental agreement nowhere requires you to provide your new address. One decision that does not constitute legal precedent but still might help persuading Small Claims court in your situation is Back v. Taylor, 19 D. &amp; C. 3d 606, 609 (1980). After citing section 250.512(e) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the court states: That section sets forth certain guidelines as to when tenants can obtain double recovery. Defendants have only sought recovery of the deposit and therefore, the above cited section does not apply. (emphasis in original) Unless you were pursuing double recovery (see item (c) of the statute), it would be very questionable --to say the least-- why a [Small Claims] court should decide your dispute any differently than in Back. Another non-precedential decision analyzing the same statute is Shoemaker v. Henry, 35 D. &amp; C. 206, 209 (1984). Also in the context of double damages, the court stated: We cannot believe the only purpose [to require a tenant to provide his new address] was a negative one, that is, to cancel a right to double damages for failure to comply. A more rational explanation is that its purpose was to provide a landlord with an address to which the damage list could be sent. (brackets added) The statute apparently was enacted well before the prevalence of electronic communications. If your landlord has any way to send you a "damage list" (as it seems to be the case insofar as he replied to your text), then the rationale in Shoemaker should apply in your situation. If you are not even pursuing double recovery, then it would be unavailing for the landlord to cling to the language in item (e) of that statute. Therefore, you are definitely entitled to your deposit even if you did not provide to the landlord a new address. It is up to you whether you want to go for double damages, in which case the decision in Shoemaker might or might not be persuasive in Small Claims court. Beyond that, the Adamsky opinion constitutes legal precedent which favors your position.
Being Evicted Is Not A Crime It is not a crime to be evicted. So, you will not get a criminal record if you fail to pay your rent and are evicted. Failing to pay rent is merely a breach of contract, and eviction is a remedy for this breach of contract. Damage To Your Credit Rating Being evicted will absolutely hurt your credit rating, however. In the U.S., a bad credit rating can be considered by prospective employers and for many other purposes (e.g. as grounds to charge you higher insurance premiums, or to refuse to rent property to you, or to refuse to extend you credit). I am not familiar with all of the purposes for which a credit rating may be legally used in the U.K. and that would probably need to be the subject of a separate question in any case. At a minimum, a bad credit rating makes it harder to get loans in the future. For example, an eviction could result in your application for a mortgage when you want to buy a house being denied, or could cause you to pay a much higher interest rate on a car loan. Other Negative Consequences Of An Eviction There are other negative consequences of being evicted in addition to harm to your credit rating, which may seem obvious but also bear mentioning. These consequences are all very good reasons to voluntarily leave the premises from which your landlord is trying to evict you and to move to a new residence of some kind before a court order evicting you is carried out if it is at all possible to do so. Homelessness First, if you don't have a place to live immediately, when you are evicted, you become homeless and being homeless is not a good thing. The U.K. has a decent safety net, so eventually you may be able to find public housing if you are evicted, but that often doesn't happen immediately, and in the meantime, you are literally on the street. Even if you can't find any place else that you can afford to rent, you can try to find friends and family that can take you in temporarily, attempt to locate places you can legally camp for a while, and can save up enough money to pay for a motel for a few days at least while you are looking for alternative places to live. Your Stuff Is Tossed On The Street Second, if your stuff is in the property you are being evicted from, then when you are evicted, your stuff will be tossed out on the street and in all likelihood it will be damaged or stolen or otherwise lost. Among the things that can be lost or damaged in an eviction are documents that you need which are hard to replace like birth certificates, passports, professional licenses, college applications, report cards for children, health records, financial records, family photos, immigration documents, etc. Even if you can't afford to rent a new place, you can avoid this harm to your property by putting as much of it as you can in a storage unit. At a minimum, try to find some place (maybe friends or family or work) where you can store your most valuable property before you are evicted. Lost Security Deposits And Money Damages Third, if you are evicted, you will almost certainly lose your security deposit and will probably also have a money judgment entered against you by the landlord for any amounts owed to the landlord for damage to the property, back rent, late fees, interest, lost rent while the property is rerented, attorneys' fees, court costs, etc. to the extent that it exceeds the security deposit which it usually will. This money judgment will further hurt your credit rating and could cause your wages and bank accounts to be garnished and your cars and/or other personal property to be seized to collect this debt. Usually people are evicted because they can't afford to pay rent, so there are limits to what you can do to prevent this, but at a minimum, try not to damage the premises which can result in additional amounts owed. Disruption Of Postal Service Fourth, until you can get change of address arrangements made, you will not receive any postal service, including bills you owe on loans and credit cards (or even worse, demands to respond to small claims court lawsuits up to 100,000 pounds). Failing to pay these bills or to respond to notices can lead to more damage to your credit, late payment penalties, default judgments in court cases, and other problems like disrupted efforts to apply to universities or to meet requirements to obtain scholarships. You can avoid this by obtaining a post office box and redirecting your mail there before you vacate the premises.
You can always politely ask a person to leave, which could solve your problem. If that doesn't work, you will have to take legal action: you cannot change the locks or force him out (without the risk of a costly lawsuit). In Washington this would probably be the slower ejectment process, since you are not in a landlord-tenant relation. The actual process depends on the laws of your jurisdiction, though it is doable in any US jurisdiction. You probably have to hire an attorney to navigate the process, since an unlawful detainer action would likely be dismissed (that is, you have to file the correct action, not just some action that's in the ballpark).
user662852 has a good point -- whoever own the property has the right to make the rules. Is the property, land+construction in fact your's or does it belong to the HOA who just grant you access as a lease holder? Different states has different rules, but in my state it is illegal to maroon a property and there must be a access to public streets even when this necessitate passing over somebody else land. However that is irrelevant if the HOA owns the land your house is build on. I think you will have to look at your HOA agreement and see what it says.
It is the terms of the lease that govern what you may and may not do, so if pets are not disallowed, they are allowed. You are not a party to the contract between the landlord and the agent, so whatever the landlord may have told the agent is technically irrelevant to you. However, this may be an indication that the landlord plans to change policy; it might also mean that the agent misunderstood something. That is where you stand legally.
In any legal dealing, there is always some risk. The signature constitutes definitive proof that you have a contract, but you still have a contract, because you have mutual acceptance. A far-fetched scenario is that the lessor could allege that they did not agree to the terms of he contract with you (perhaps claiming that you obtained a blank contract form from them and filled in details, but they didn't agree to those details). However, if they allow you to move in, that is sufficient constructive evidence of a contract, so they could not argue &quot;We didn't agree to this&quot;. The main risk would be your lack of proof that they ever agreed to lease the place to you (no emails, no texts, no witnesses, no legally-recorded conversations). There may be specific state laws about providing a copy of the rental agreement, such as this California law, where they must provide a copy to the tenant within 15 days of execution by the tenant. This provides a collection of relevant state laws, though you may have to dig a bit because this is a hook into all of the laws about leases and not just about providing copies.