3 ms·
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but in this case, the tenant appears to be refusing access to rectify the problems. And if the residence isn't fit fo
by alistairSH 3y ago
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but in this case, the tenant appears to be refusing access to rectify the problems.
And if the residence isn't fit for occupancy, then nobody should be living there, rent or no rent. While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> While apparently legal, the dissonance required to argue "I won't pay rent because the home isn't fit for purpose" while living long-term in that same house makes my eye twitch. Depends a bit on whether it was "not fit for purpose" knowingly before living there, or part-way through. A landlord shouldn't be able to get around rental protections by intentionally neglecting the property, nor should they be able to hide serious problems and go "welp, move out" when discovered.
- alistairSH 3y agoWe agree. The dissonance peaks when the tenant refuses access to fix problems.