The renter’s alternatives to fixing discrepancy and defect
The law treats the manner of correcting the discrepancy and defect in the same way.
The law requires that the tenant first contact the landlord and inform him of the discovery of the defects, and ask the landlord to correct them.
He will then give the landlord a proper ability to repair the defects, and will even cooperate and allow the landlord access to the place of discovery of the defects.
And to the extent that these have been carried out and yet the discrepancy or defect has not been repaired, only then do we move on to the next step regarding self-repair or reduction of the rent as will be seen below.
Not before the tenant has informed the landlord a reasonable time in advance that he intends to do so. The law states: “(b) If the tenant wishes to repair the defect or non-conformity, he must notify the landlord a reasonable time in advance.”
The tenant is free to choose between the alternative of ‘self-repair’ and a reduction in rent.
The first alternative is to repair the defect and require the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of the repair.
The second alternative is to reduce the rent until the landlord corrects the defect.
The following is the wording of the section regarding the alternatives of the tenant:
(1) to rectify the defect or non-conformity and require the landlord to reimburse his reasonable expenses;
(2) To reduce the rent, as long as the defect or non-conformity has not been repaired, according to the ratio in which the value of the rent has decreased due to the defect or the non-conformity compared to its value according to the contract. ”
Sometimes the first alternative of self-repair will end up costing less money to the landlord.
And sometimes the tenant’s choice of the second alternative of a reduction in rent will be preferable to the landlord.
It is not possible to determine in advance which alternative is better for the landlord and which alternative is better for the tenant.
Case by case. Moreover, an alternative that is not preferable to a landlord is not necessarily an alternative that is not preferable to a tenant.
There may be cases where the first alternative is preferable to both the landlord and the tenant.
For example, a malfunction in the air conditioner in one of the rooms on a hot summer day.
The tenant may prefer not to ‘deal’ with such a matter that may be complicated, especially since he does not need the room in question at all.
On the other hand, it is possible that the landlord will also prefer to repair the fault at his leisure, when the air conditioner technician is available for it and the prices are reasonable.
And in order to gain time he would prefer to pay the tenant for the period he could not use the room.
Another example is rainwater penetrating a storehouse that is not used at all by the tenant.
Here the landlord will definitely prefer that the tenant repair the defect urgently, so as not to cause the damage to increase.
While the tenant is indifferent and may prefer to receive a ‘discount’ from the rent until the defect is repaired. Because he does not use the warehouse anyway.
In these last two cases, it is difficult to see a situation in which the tenant’s obligation to act in an acceptable manner and in good faith will force the tenant to spend money and make repairs in a positive manner.
Perhaps only in the case of the ‘cry to heaven’.
In both cases, these are not situations in which the law comes to punish the landlord.
But rather than the tenant has the right to choose between 2 alternatives, and it is this that may cause you to choose the least appropriate option for the landlord.