05-17-2022, 08:07 PM
(05-17-2022, 01:56 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: "Rules on rent control are well designed"...I'd argue that they aren't. Rent control is good in theory. In practice, it doesn't apply to a large number of rentals, and more, it is pretty easy for landlords to get around. This happened to my grandma. Her building hiked the rent of all the tenants 5-20%. IANAL but I felt that the justifications were invalid. They claimed "improvements" had been made, but these improvements were just regular maintenance (e.g., repairing leaking plumbing).
[…]
And before you suggest that I should have helped them...my mom did try. Some of them wanted to withhold rent payments for things not being fixed in the building, which would have only gotten them evicted. (There's a flip side right...in most transactions, I can withhold payment for non-performance of services...but not for rent).
I would argue that a better rent control scheme would be full rent stabilization for all units, and ZERO exceptions to increasing rent at inflation. A landlord is responsible for properly saving for and funding maintenance, and they can only raise rent in order to make improvements with the express written consent of the tenants affected by the improvements and subsequent increases.
I wouldn’t suggest you should have helped her. The system should be set up so that people in basic commercial transactions don’t as a matter of course need to hire representatives to help them, and their family shouldn’t need to feel obligated either. It certainly sounds like the landlord abused the above-guideline process. I think the tenants probably should have applied for a rent abatement to deal with the poor maintenance, and should have (separately) argued that the above-guideline increase was not justified by the work done.
But this is what I mean by saying the rules are well (not perfectly) designed. Based on your description, I suspect the landlord violated the rules. The tribunal process didn’t work well for the tenants however. Similarly, in the cases I’ve been discussing, freeloaders can get months of free accommodation by just not paying.
Quote:Realistically, it's not a policy area I've studied extensively, I just know I have experienced it as a tenant both first and second hand, and have always felt cheated by my landlord. (I chose to buy a house and leave our apartment rather than take the landlord to tribunal after they illegally raised MY rent...but that was a privilege I had--that I wouldn't necessarily even have today).
I’m not sure why you think you would need to take the landlord to the Tribunal to deal with an illegal rent increase. All you need to do is calculate the maximum legal rent increase and pay that. Most likely they won’t take you to the Tribunal, because they know the rules perfectly well; if they do, make sure you have your math right and get a ruling in your favour. Even if you mess up and pay too little, the worst possible result from the Tribunal is a ruling that you have to pay $X in rent arrears; at least the first time there is no penalty for not paying rent other than a requirement to pay the landlord’s filing fee, not even a requirement to pay interest on the arrears (being eventually required to pay is not a penalty).
Similarly, I have repeatedly heard of people not getting their rent deposit (“last month’s rent”) back. I cannot understand why any tenant would pay rent at the beginning of their last month; they are entitled to apply the deposit against the rent payment, which typically just means they don’t owe anything for their last month.
(not legal advice; but I have some experience with this and have read a lot, and I’m confident in the above)