Gas shut off - am I entitled to withhold a portion of rent?

[abcde]

My building's gas has been shut off for two weeks. As you'd expect, the management company keeps insisting that the issue will be resolved "within a day or two". That's obviously been going on for a while.

My question: am I legally entitled to withhold a portion of rent for the added expenses I've been forced to accumulate (eating out every night instead of cooking and sending laundry out instead of doing it at home, mostly)?

Or should I just suck it up, pay my rent, and deal with the crappy but livable situation?

Thanks!

[TenantNet]

Have you been in contact with Con Ed? What do they say is the reason for the shutoff?

If the LL has failed to make needed repairs, then you can withhold rent. But the LL is likely to take you to court. So get all the documentation you need.

Strangely Con Ed will bill you for the base amount of gas even though you aren't getting it. For that go to the Public Service Commission.

[abcde]

ConEd suspected a gas leak at the building and so shut off our gas. Our landlord has to go through the process of identifying the possible leak (or confirming that no such leak exists). So I believe the fault lies with the landlord, not ConEd.

We're talking about maybe $200 in added expenses here. Realistically, I'm sure that's not worth the expense and hassle of court. I think I'll probably just pay the full amount.

Thanks for the tip re: ConEd still charging for gas.

For what it's worth, I've already called 311 to lodge a complaint. Is there anybody else I should contact?

Oh, and thanks very much for your response.

[TenantNet]

Depending on the situation, the LL might have to perform a "peppermint test" where they check all the gas pipes for leaks. They need access to tenant's apartments for that.

[abcde]

Yup, that's already been happening (they've been in my apartment probably five or six times). Fun times.

[Landlord's Boy]

ConEd suspected a gas leak at the building and so shut off our gas.

Yes, that's the standard procedure. One of my buildings experienced this a few years ago. New piping and manifolds were required. It was expensive, and tenants had no gas for three weeks.

I believe the fault lies with the landlord, not ConEd.

Gas is a utility like cable tv and telephone service. Tenants are usually billed directly by the utility, not by the landlord. In this building's leases gas service is something arranged between the tenant and the utility; I just own the pipes. It was the utility that turned off the service, not the landlord. I have nothing to do with the billing.

I'll add that in addition to ConEd's standards NYC and other NY localities have their own, additional, regulations.

While I did not cover tenant's costs or compensate them for lost service (since these things were none of my business) replacement stoves with electronic ignition were required for safety reasons, and these I did pay for.

[TenantNet]

I think LLB misses the point somewhat. Yes he owns the pipes and yes Con Ed is the transmission agent (they are no longer the provider of the gas or electricity).

But it's up to the LL to maintain the pipes. If he doesn't then the gas gets turned off, so the tenant has no services for a period of time. In that context the LL can be responsible. And with any service, if the LL is making progress restoring the pipes, that's one thing. If they are doing nothing, they should he held responsible for a violation of the warranty of habitability. It's not just cooking gas, it's also heat and hot water.

[Landlord's Boy]

- if the LL is making progress restoring the pipes, that's one thing. If they are doing nothing, they should he held responsible for a violation of the warranty of habitability. It's not just cooking gas, it's also heat and hot water.

Three weeks was the fastest possible: permits needed to be filed, inspections made, and the manifolds were custom jobs. Plus the stove replacements required their own inspections. Everyone involved - utility, contractor, manufacturer, regulator - performed magnificently.

Furthermore, in this case it was summer so heat wasn't an issue, and hot water service was uninterrupted as hot water was provided from the building's electric boiler. There was no "habitability" violation.

[TenantNet]

You still miss the point. I'm not talking about your situation. I don't know the facts in your building. I'm speaking in general. LLs can and should be responsible if they sit around and do nothing.