Serious rental question about utilities

I think these are two separate questions. 1 - does a landlord need to provide a rent-stabilized tenant with hot water and heat and can he cross out that provision in the lease, and 2 - does the cost for supplying such utilities need to be paid for by the landlord.

The answer to the first question is yes. The landlord needs to provide these services as a matter of law and any attempt to modify these obligations in the lease would, most likely, be void. The answer to the second question is no. Under 2522.10 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the owner may collect surcharges for acting as a provider of a utility service (including, but not limited to electricity, gas, cable or telecommunications), which shall not be part of the legal regulated rent and shall not be subject to the code.

Hope that helps.

Well, forget that I'm rent stabilized. The apartment starts at 100% market rate, and the rent stabilization only protects on increases and to allow me to remain so long as x,y,z normal things. There's no other benefit to the rent stabilization, I don't get a discount. And also, this is a NEW lease, not a renewal of any sorts.
Thanks

Nothing is typical. It depends on the owner and on the building.
Make sure you understand what they provide and what you have to pay for in addition to your rent (ask them how much it was in the past to get an approx. number of cash outflow) and try to negotiate with the owner prior signing the contract.

elena
(broker)

joepa, but I'm assuming the landlord can only collect for things he can directly attribute to the unit in question. How could a rental building possibly delineate who is using the heat and hot water? Anything that can be provided directly to a renter or metered can obviously be passed along, but it seems as though anything else would have to be, at the very least, more specifically described in the lease.

aboutready, you can submeter. This is a building completed in 2007

this is the case in my building - it's all electric, submetered - heating registers at the baseboards and the world's tiniest water tank under the sink. taking more than a 5 minute shower is impossible. my electric bill runs 60-150 a month depending on the season.

i have dealt with it for three years and am THRILLED to be getting out!!

Stay away from baseboard heating, especially when the water heater is in your apartment!!! I live in an apt now with that, it does NOT keep the apt warm. I have two space heaters and one moveable heating unit which i purchased for $650 at home depot.

As I type this my apt's tempt is 63, with the moveable unit turned on high.

Also, the gas bill will be 300 - 400 a month since baseboard heating is not efficient.

My last winter in this apt.

When I deal with "421(a)" it's as a tax-abatement program, not a rent-stabilization code . . .are there attached regs I'm not aware of?

ali r.
{downtown broker}

this is a renters/buyers market -- you can cross things back out and write things in -- its a negotiation... if they are no fair -- go someplace else?

As an aside, these types of issues are one of the reasons I own, rather than rent.

Tina-
I think there are many benefits of owning, and I'm not going to throw out the buying will lose money and it is too many times the annual rent and blah blah blah. But unless you live in a single family home, you do have these issues.

Manhattanfox, I agree with you that the market is more towards the renter now, but the big rental companies have general parameters under which they rent. This isn't an individual unit landlord. And if the whole system in their building is set up for this, then crossing out or adding something that is structurally-oriented wont work. Also, I've negotiated plenty, but at this point, barring Adolph Hitler being the doorman when I show up to turn in the lease, I'm not going to move on to something else, which I wouldn't even be able to find so quickly anyway-a real consideration. AND, I'd prefer a real answer because if I go from BigRentalCo who has this provision in to LargeRentalCo in hopes of not having this provision, I may be disappointed and face the exact same issue.

Frontporch - the developer got the 421A which they are keeping for their benefit as a rental building. But as the concession to the state for accepting it, they have to have their units be stabilized. Again, this provides me with no benefit right now, but perhaps if I stay more than a year and next year market rents increase by 10%, mine will increase by whatever is set by law - this past year 4.5%. And given that rents may still decrease, there'll be no benefit. I'm starting from market rate.

Thanks

tina, there are plenty of apartments where this is not an issue. i also like having the building responsible for fixing problems. I'll never forget the day I closed on an apartment in Chelsea. Tried to take a bath in the jacuzzi. Emergency call to the plumber, over $400 (I'm sure I was ripped off, late at night, no plumber reference, cold call and all that) and a couple of hours later I fell into bed exhausted and still not bathed (no longer had the inclination for the jacuzzi). AND I had a structural done on the unit prior to signing the contract. their are pros and cons to both.

I'm a renter but I guess always since central boilers in the building, I've never had this issue come up.

"if the whole system in their building is set up for this"

- Leave it crossed out in the contract, try to negotiate on the unit rent instead.

barskaya, I had another issue come up on a rental in the contract and it was unfortunately way after we had negotiated on the rent. I was really kind of stuck, you negotiate a rental rate and you assume that the contract is normal in all respects but you don't really know before and you don't know what really can be negotiated after the rent is set

Wow, really no thoughts from all the people on streeteasy, other than to "negotiate" or to tell me to buy?

Steven812, I'm certainly no expert here, but you seem to be looking for an easy answer that probably doesn't exist. You've been given good advice. I'm in a rent stabilized unit with heat and hot water included in the rent. It's never been a question.

In your situation, if heat and hot water included *was* the standard in the building you're pursuing - as implied by the language's presence in the lease - and your landlord/overlord is trying to *modify* their normal agreement going forward, it seems you can do one of a few things:

1. Demand that heat and hot water be included as a standard charge in your monthly rent (rather than charged separately according to usage), but you should be prepared to pay more up front for that.

2. Walk. It seriously weakens your position if this isn't an option.

3. Accept you'll be paying all of your utility costs and sign the lease as-is.

Does he have other options I'm not noting, folks? I suppose you could talk to some other renters in the building and see what their deal and/or utility costs are. If separate utilities are the standard, then you probably have to accept that and build it into your housing calculation.

Just my anecdotal opinion related to you potentially moving on -- most rentals in NYC I'm aware of (friends' places) build heat and hot water into the rent. That's probably because the majority of buildings CAN'T meter separately for different units. I actually like that landlords end up being on the hook for utilities because it forces them to think about energy usage and make their structural systems as efficient as they can. Renters don't care how much of the rent is going toward utilities vs. just the apartment, they just want a number. If a landlord's lack of investment/upgrades in a building makes it inefficient and uncompetitive, they should be responsible for that.

I agree with JKB that renters generally just want a number. Most people aren't too keen on idea of monthly price fluctuation for utilities. The building I rent in also includes electric in the rent, which makes things even easier.

Yes you could, of course, demand that heat and hot water be factored into your rent, but that virtually guarantees the landlord will over-compensate and you'll likely pay more that way than in an individually metered situation.

Personally, I'd probably walk away from this rental. Why deal with the headache?

Sorry Steven (my brothers name, btw) I'm trying to help but I'm still confused.

I'm no lawyer but the narrative doesn't make sense.

So there's a developer, and they build a building, and they get a 421(a) from the city, and in return they promise to keep the units stabilized, and then they start handing out leases with a provision that starts "as required by law" crossed out?

I would think the rule that "a contract can basically be anything both parties agree to" is trumped here by "the city wants you to stay in line with certain ways we do rentals so you can keep your tax benefits"

In practice, you never want to negotiate "tough" unless you have a good alternative to walk to -- but if you do have an alternative, I would try a pushback on this lease. It doesn't sound like a random condo sublet where one owner is bargaining with you; it sounds like a more corporate entity is trying to take advantage of you in ways that would displease the city.

But this is an odd situation; you might want to take this one to www.tenant.net too.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Ok so here's the update:
The sales agent spoke to the owner/developer and they said it was a glitch from the software that creates the leases. Ok take that for what it is worth, but on the one hand it seems as if even if this provision was left in, I wouldn't have been charged, and on the other hand it simply wasn't supposed to be deleted from the start.
Frontporch - Other than this issue being a mistake supposedly in the lease printing or whatever BS, there was nothing wrong with my narrative. You seem quite knowing, but not on the issue of state developer incentives and the requirements of those incentives, and personally I could have appreciated your specific experiences with renting in places like Verdesian.
JKB - Your response was more than disappointing. Frankly, there's too many people who know just about nothing trying to offer friendly advice. Being friendly is certainly something that our grandparents taught us, but sometimes keeping quiet when you have no clue or saying "I don't know" is better than guiding someone in the wrong direction - fortunately I'm not naive and I work with fact and black and white. You also failed to read the details - for instance, that my building was completed in 2007 and was Stabilized per the 421a - so your experience had little relevance. Also, your anecdotal evidence fell short when confronted with: 1-law of which you have no knowledge, and 2-the specific contract presented to me in black and white.
Lastly, while your advice on walking is certainly correct - and some people can walk and I'm one of them - often when you get to the last stages of a deal and something materials changes, you have costs of changing course, like where might you live for a month, how would you organize the move, etc. etc. Ultimately, you weren't being an asshole and I appreciate the response on a friendly basis, but your preface of not being an expert overrides everything else you said. I truly believe that what streeteasy has amongst its posters is 5% experts and 95% people who just like to talk and be friendly or talk and be a jerk. I'm an expert in my field and am always amazed at the advice given by non-experts and am therefore careful to refer people to real experts in other areas.
Lastly, Squid, I did ask people's other relevant experience in luxury rental buildings and for all those who always seem to know so much about renting (stevejhx is one I see quite often talking about this) no one pulled a copy of an actual rental building lease and quoted me, etc. and you may note a quandary I posed - if the crossed out provision were normal to be crossed out, walking, as per your suggestion, would have just led me to another situation with the identical problem ... that's why I asked for educated answers.
Thanks for reading the ranting reflecting my disappointment.

steven, a clarification--

It wasn't "your" narrative that didn't make sense, it was the "developer's" narrative -- "misprinting" the leases? c'mon.

I'm sorry that I didn't point out that the Verdesian pays for heat for its renters, but I'm glad you got it resolved. Many happy days in the apartment.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Wow, Steven812, some of our grandparents taught us to be nice. Apparently, yours didn't.

You post a comment on a public blog and demand that only 'experts' respond to you (for free). Joepa does respond with just the legally-oriented information you seek, and you dismiss it because it doesn't give you the answer you want to hear.

Then, your problem solves itself while you sit on your hands, and you anoint yourself Lord of the Blogs, empowered to deem whose posts are worthy and whose are not. I wasn't actually trying to give you advice, just attempting to clear up your thinking (which, apparently, was clearer than your inaccurate and piecemeal postings suggested). Given the outcome, the initial fault in this whole thing was yours - you freaked out about your lease agreement without getting all the facts.

The way your landlord has played this, it sounds like you'll be getting the situation you deserve. Hopefully, you're not an expert in anything that involves people skills!

ElaineBarts,
Each lease has separate paragraph regarding utilities. In a standard REBNY co-op or condo apartment lease it's under paragraph 13. In Rental buildings it is somwhere else (those leases filled with riders), but it's there too.

I recently run into situation when private owner wanted to charge extra for hot water and heat (it can be metered in his building), but he never disclosed it in his advertising. Present tenant is paying additional $300/month (no wonder she is moving out). We walked.

Just today I was in a new condo conversion in midtown, where in addition to common charges and real estate taxes, owners will have to pay individual heat/cooling charges (metered separetely).

This issue with extra for utilities will come to play more and more often.

elena

JKB, my grandparents did teach me to be nice and they were nice. But my parents taught me not to waste time with people who don't know what they are talking about and also not to bullshit people lest I become one of those same people who waste's other people's time. At some point, a sunny demeanor on a saint will turn cloudy after repeately being given bad, clostly advice.

joepa's input was helpful from what can be done, what can't be done, but didn't answer the actual question posed, "Is that normal that a tenant now pays for heat and hot water?" His answer told me that it was possible that a tenant could pay for heat and hot water, but that the landlord needed to make it accessible.

Then you continue, "Then, your problem solves itself while you sit on your hands, and you anoint yourself Lord of the Blogs, empowered to deem whose posts are worthy and whose are not."
1 - The problem didn't solve itself - I made inquiry, didn't sign the lease, etc. while more facts were gathered on the landlord's side and then I received a response from them. In absence of that, I could have signed the leases as it was originally presented itself and that wouldn't have been a solution to the problem. So, incorrect.
2 - Anointing myself Lord of the Blogs. I truly wish you a full lifetime of contradictory and often incorrect advice, which no-doubt will leave you no better off than a hamster in a cage - fully occupied but going nowhere.

"I wasn't actually trying to give you advice, just attempting to clear up your thinking"
Well, ok, thanks for that.

"Given the outcome, the initial fault in this whole thing was yours - you freaked out about your lease agreement without getting all the facts."
Perhaps you missed the efforts to get the facts??? Part of that effort was seeking _knowledgeable_ advice here.
Perhaps also you missed how this was "accidental" cross-out on the landlord's part. How on earth could that have been my fault?

"The way your landlord has played this, it sounds like you'll be getting the situation you deserve."
That's an interesting point of view, considering the landlord is one of the largest property develpers in the city.

And let me throw in that at least Frontporch's and barskaya's posts had some relevant fact to the situation, in addition to joepa's statement about the law.

You still sound like a grumpy old man ;p

agreed, you sound like a total crabbypants :p

BTW I don't think a building can be considered stabilized, only individual units. In any case it sounds as if you are renting into a predatory equity-bought tenement purchased in the last few years, in buildings where units used to be 100% stabilized (PredEq managed to destabilize up to 40% of units in the parcel of buildings I have direct knowledge of).

This opinion may not be sufficiently expert for you, but people are just trying to say that it seems you are dealing with kind of shady people, if not outright assholes, and therefore the feedback is, "look dude you are dealing with assholes, what do you expect." There's really no advanced degree in common sense and gut instinct. JKB was only trying to help (and his/her posts were civil).

But I feel for you if you ARE renting into one of the buildings in our parcel, because our overlords screw with market-rate people just as much as they screw with RS people.

So good luck -- sounds as if this is temporary for you anyway, so even if it's a bum deal just remember it's not forever.