Rental heater improperly installed. Now I&#39;m expected to repair. What are my options? I've moved a rental in the spring. In the rental contract I am responsible for regular maintenance as the oil heater needs yearly servicing. As the weather is cooling off I scheduled servicing. The repair person noticed large amounts of ash consistent with an improper setup. I paid for the servicing which he completed the best he was able. Configuring the heater properly requires more tools and a specialist. As explained by the repairman the heater is minimally functional but really shouldn't be operated for extended periods (the whole winter) in it's current condition. I've contacted the rental agency about the issue. They said that since regular heater maintenance is part of the contract this is my responsibility. I explained what the repairman informed me about the improper installation, which occurred prior to moving in, and their response was that was one persons opinion and did not change my responsibility. What are my options? The repairman mentioned this could be a health inspector may be a place to turn. Should I lawyer up now? What kind of lawyer should I seek out? I'm in the U.S. in the state of Pennsylvania. P.S. I'm asking for my sister's benefit as she is the one actually in this situation. I'll answer any questions as I'm able. I've urged her to get a paper trail started now and flesh out as many details as possible. I'm under the impression the configuration will not be cheap, but do not know exact details. P.P.S. I made a follow up call to the rental agency to ask for a message to be passed to the property owner requesting information about the people who installed the heater. This was an attempt to get them to warranty their own work and also nail down someone who should be qualified to do the work. The agency said "that is none of your business" and ended the call. They immediately called back on my phone asking for the property owner by name. Once they realized their mistake they denied attempting to contact the property owner and hung up. Strange.
Regular maintenance does not include repairs for being broken – I have a contract with a company that (for a monthly payment) provides regular maintenance on the furnace, which does not cover the situation where the motor wears out, or whatever. In the worst case scenario of an oil line breech, the tenant would not be liable for the tens of thousands of dollars of cleanup that would be required. Under Pennsylvania law, there is an implied warranty of habilitability, for example the landlord warrants that it doesn't rain inside the house, there is hot and cold running water, and so on. Safe heat is an example of something that is included in a place being habitable. This warranty is not waivable by lease provision (Fair v. Negley, 390 A.2d 240). However, the subjective recommendation of a repair guy has little legal cash value: what is needed is an arms-length evaluation of the safety and functionality of the system. If the recommendation is based on inefficient fuel use and long-term likelihood of eventual system failure, that is probably not sufficient to compel a repair. Excess CO on the other hand is a clear danger. The repairman should be able to at least explain the specifics of the improper setup and the consequences of doing nothing. Documentation of actions taken is a good idea.
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.
Of course she is living with you. Clothes, toothbrush, cooking and eating, sleeping, I suppose breakfast as well, that's living with you. And it's not illegal, but it is apparently in breach of your leasing contract. I'd study your contract carefully to see what the consequences are if she is living for you for more than 14 days.
Unless your lease clearly denies the possibility of prorating, the emails are binding (and yes, emails count as in writing). The landlord ought to honor the conditions outlined in the emails, and it is not your fault that the manager was ignorant about his or her employer's/landlord's policies at the time the manager computed the prorated amount. Additionally, if the lease only speaks in terms of 20-day notice, then it implies that prorating may apply. It is possible that the lease contains language in the sense of when the notice becomes "effective". If so, that would require a more detailed review of the language therein, since even in that scenario you might prevail on the basis of the doctrine of contra proferentem. Here the difficult part seems to be that you are not in the US. Because the amount at issue is not high enough, the grievance/complaint would have to be filed in Small Claims court. And, as far as I know, the parties cannot be represented by a lawyer in Small Claims court. You might have to file your grievance once you are back in the US.
Clauses (a) and (c) are potentially relevant. You have to look in the Rules &amp; Regulations to see what exceptions are permitted. Although firearms and especially shotgun shells are of a "dangerous, flammable or explosive character", it is reasonable to believe that when stored properly, they do not unreasonably increase the danger of fire or explosion, and would not be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. On the latter point, you could ask any responsible insurance company if they would consider such shells to be hazardous. While in ordinary language simple possession of a firearm is not a threat of violence, the wording of clause (c) is open to a wider interpretation, since acts considered to be a threat of violence include displaying or possessing a firearm, knife, or other weapon that may threaten, alarm or intimidate others. The fact is that many people are alarmed by the simple existence of a weapon, so simply possessing a weapon could be interpreted as a "threat" in this special sense. Since you are not in the position of having signed the lease and now need to deal with the consequences of this clause, the simplest solution is to explain your interest, and ask them if having your gear in your apartment would be a violation of the lease. Be really clear about this and get it in writing in some form, if they say "no problem". Then either pick a different place, pick a different hobby, or find a separate storage facility.
We have no way of knowing when this happened, but it is probably a fact, recorded some time in the past. Utility companies very frequently obtain a right-of-way (easement) which gives them certain rights to your property. Typically, this happened a long time ago when a previous owner agreed. As for gas pipelines, that typically includes "don't plant trees" restrictions. The easement is usually recorded in the county office where deeds are filed. The legal basis is generally "because you agreed, or some previous owner agreed". You can get a copy of the easement to see if "no trees" is actually part of the agreement. If yes, no point in arguing, if not, you could hire a lawyer if they are demanding that they are threatening you. They are allowed to be concerned and to ask you to cut trees regardless, but if it's not required by the terms of the easement, you can say "No, I'd rather keep my tree".
The landlord may be confused about what is legal. Growing pot without a license (they do not have one: it cannot be grown at home, and certainly not if there is a minor present) is not legal, not even in Seattle (medical marijuana now requires a general marijuana license, and home-grown is not legal – some Dept. of Health pages don't reflect the new law). Under RCW 59.18.065, the landlord must provide a copy of the executed agreement to each tenant, and a replacement copy on request. Under RCW 59.18.150, the landlord may enter the unit in case of an emergency, and otherwise shall give the tenant at least two days' written notice of his or her intent to enter and shall enter only at reasonable times. The notice must state the exact time and date or dates of entry or specify a period of time during that date or dates in which the entry will occur, in which case the notice must specify the earliest and latest possible times of entry. The notice must also specify the telephone number to which the tenant may communicate any objection or request to reschedule the entry. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter the dwelling unit at a specified time where the landlord has given at least one day's notice of intent to enter to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers or tenants A lease cannot be terminated without cause and a legal process (eviction hearing), rather, it runs out at a specific time (the end of July). The situation with dog-washing is unclear, since normally a landlord can't decide to use a person's apartment for a dog-washing operation (the common law right to quiet enjoyment). If there is such a clause in the lease then that would be allowed, but they can't now decide that they have this right (the terms of a lease can't be changed in the middle). They can restrict the cats from areas outside your unit. You may however have some (legal) misunderstanding about what exactly "your unit" is, specifically, is the dog wash part of a "common area" that isn't actually part of what you have an exclusive right to.
There are various ways in which you could be &quot;responsible&quot;. For example, if you own the house, have no insurance, the house burns to the ground and the electrician has no resources that you can seize, then you will have to suffer the consequence of having no home. If a guest is harmed in the fire, you might be found liable because of your negligence (plaintiff's lawyer has to put convincing spin on your actions in showing that you neglected your duty of care). Since you are hiring the electrician, under the doctrine respondeat superior you can become liable for the worker's acts carried out on the job. What matters in that case is how the act came to be, for example did it happen as a result of bad wiring that he was hired to do, or was he a crazy arsonist who look advantage of an opportunity to torch your house (you are not liable, torching the house is not an act reasonably related to what you hired him for). You could end up responsible for the loss if you are insured, the &quot;electrician&quot; was uninsured (and other kinds of &quot;un&quot; like &quot;unlicensed&quot;), and the insurance contract allows the claim to be denied because you wrongly hired an unqualified, unlicensed guy off the street who did not secure the required permits. That doesn't mean that you can't sue him, but if you cannot collect on the judgment, then you end up having to take responsibility for your action. &quot;Responsibility&quot; is a legally vague concept, instead I assume you are interested in whether the courts might force you to pay for the damage done to someone, or even might punish you for a criminal act. In the former case, the relevant legal concept is &quot;liability&quot;, meaning that you can be required to compensate another for the damage that you caused. In the latter case, the criteria are much stricter, that you have to deliberately do a thing that was explicitly forbidden.