This part would make more sense, and I’d be likely to agree with it, had the OP not declined that deal proposed many months ago, and declined it again this month.
Look, the landlord is legally required to perform certain basic functions as well as is the tenant.
Then they have to move and he has to find another tenant.
It fellates for everyone. First try, “Hey, we need the furnace.” If he is still a dick, move out. It will be a pain in the ass for him to find another tenant.
Are you reading the thread?
They acted like they were cool with it for months, and still have not directly told him they want the heater fixed.
So what?
Maybe this lack of aversion to moving is just me. I’ve moved frequently since the day I was born, and I see no reason to put up with shit from a landlord. I can always move again.
The power is, the OP presumably likes where she is now (or they would have moved already), and the landlord can retaliate in all sorts of ways to pushy legal threats and the renters don’t have any leverage except the legal option. So soft-pedaling on the initial skirmish seems like the right move; she can pull out the heavier artillery if the landlord continues to drag his feet on fixing the situation.
I’m not making excuses for the landlord, just suggesting that it might be worth trying to catch a fly with honey before bringing out the big fly-swatter. Just because someone is a landlord (or landlady) doesn’t mean they are rich bastards able to up and pay for a possibly expensive repair at the drop of a hat.
Are you? They told him they wanted the heater fixed, he offered to subsidize space heaters, which they declined as they had already borrowed some.
They still need, as required by the law in Los Angeles, heat provided by the landlord. Period.
I’m supposed to feel sorry for some slumlord that won’t keep his place up to code? I think not.
Where do you get “they told him” from “I don’t believe he out and out said that the space heater solution isn’t OK”.
How sure are we that space heaters don’t qualify as heating?
And, btw, I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with asking for the heater to be fixed. The dick move is sitting on it for months, and then demanding urgent repairs without even a curtsey phone call.
But the next tenant will be just as bothersome, when they find out there’s no damn heat.
No, I know that, and I understand it. But a landlord (or landlady) should be fully aware of what they are obligated to supply to their tenant. I see no reason why, if the heat stopped working, the landlord (or landlady) should not be required to replace the heat. Neither do the legislatures of most states and cities.
Sometimes people in business lose money, through no fault of their own. It happens.
Well, I dunno.
I see no evidence that you’ve read even the OP in this thread.
The dick move is not fixing the fucking heat while you had all summer to do it.
And if anybody in this thread should feel that there is some reason that I should feel obligated to go through a winter without heat so that my landlord does not have to spend money, feel free to explain that reason to me.
Maybe they will, and maybe they won’t.
The OP is in Southern California. I lived in Northern California for 5 years without heat, it was not a big deal because it really never got below freezing. We wore sweaters and bundled up at night. I am in Michigan now; obviously having a functioning furnace is mandatory. Without heat here, pipes freeze and burst and people die of cold exposure in their homes.
That said, yes absolutely, landlords ought to abide by the law and do right by people who are paying them for housing. My only thought was that trying the “soft” approach first before pulling out the big guns might be more productive.
Yeah, I guess reading comprehension isn’t working to well for you. But when someone says we haven’t out and said something, that means they haven’t said it.
I saw no evidence of OP’s expertise in housing law.
And it clearly says “heating facilities”. It doesn’t say anything about there needing to be central heat. The “installed” doesn’t imply central heat. All that clause says, is that whatever heating facilities are installed need to comply with applicable law. I’ve not found any law forbidding space heaters.
As far as the landlord is concerned, the space heater solution has been agreed to by all involved parties for months.
It’s like posting here; you don’t assume right off the bat that someone is being a dick; you get clarification and try to communicate first. That’s where maggie is, in my opinion. Yes, the landlord had all summer to fix the heating unit, but since the AC was still working, there was no urgency. The landlord still appears to think that space heaters are an acceptable solution, so I support the idea of telling them where you stand first before starting threats. For all we know, the landlord has no idea that space heaters aren’t acceptable, and will immediately get the heating unit fixed.
:rolleyes:
Of course not. It could as easily imply radiator heat, or baseboard heat. It does not imply a space heater. Do you even know what a space heater is?
Good heavens. Good riddance.
A space heater is to central heat as a window unit is to central A/C.
Is there maybe a difference in the meaning of “space heater” in different places?
Those space heaters will make your PG&E bill crazy high.
Yes, he has to fix the heating. Space heaters do not count. I work with Code Inspection all the time.
But yes, you need to call and ask nicely before firing off that letter. You need to make it clear you need the heater fixed. Not space heaters.
LA County has Code enforcement also, they will come out there and make him fix it. This will be seen as a dick move, however.
And now that it’s almost winter, people are defending the landlord’s ability to continue sitting on his ass? I’m sure that Canadian landlords never consider having the heat fixed during the off-season.
What crawled up your ass and died? Dial the snark back a few notches.
And yes, I am well aware of what a space heater is. Given the definition of facility is:
I’d say a space heater counts as a piece of equipment that facilitates heating.
So unless there is something I am missing here, space heaters count as heating facilities. I’ve been unable to find anything in California code that forbids space heaters in apartments. So, assuming the wiring is to code, they would count as properly installed heating facilities.
I’m just trying to help the OP here. It’s not very good to be a dick when you are right, but it’s a hell of a thing to be a dick when you are wrong. (You should take that to heart, as well).
Installed.
I need to dial back the snark? All I’ve done is demonstrate your total ignorance.