Being Forced to Pay Utilities for Months Before Start of Lease

[RustySparky]

My question involves landlord-tenant law in the State of: Pennsylvania

Our landlord is making us pay utilities before the start of our lease (late August), and for the months following the end of the current tenant's lease (mid- May, I believe), so we'll have a few summer months to be paying utilities for an apartment that we won't be living in. I wasn't told directly by the landlord about this, but through another tenant signed onto my lease who said the landlord's reasoning was because the apartment is being "reserved for us".

I don't understand that, and I think it's because it doesn't make any sense. Reserved? Bah.
But I guess my question is, is there any law forbidding paying utilities for months dating before the start of a lease?

[jk]

why would you sign a lease where you were required to pay the utilities prior to moving in? Who is using the utilities that you are expected to pay for?

What is the actual period of the lease? Why are you not moving in until August?

[RustySparky]

why would you sign a lease where you were required to pay the utilities prior to moving in? Who is using the utilities that you are expected to pay for?

What is the actual period of the lease? Why are you not moving in until August?

We weren't made aware of paying the utilities until days after signing the lease. It's important to note that nowhere in the lease does it say we had to do this.

No one will be in the apartment to use the utilities, except the landlord should she decide to use the apartment for something. I'm concerned with why our landlord is requiring us to pay utilities- is she planning to use the apartment often? If so, for what? And why at our expense? It doesn't add up.

Aug. 26th, 2012 - May 7th, 2013. It's during my college year.

[jk]

Just to be clear, is it your understanding that she could rent the apartment to another up until your stated date of occupancy?

If so, then I do not see how you could be held liable for the utilities as you do not have possession of the premises in any way, either constructive or actual.

[LawResearcherMissy]

We weren't made aware of paying the utilities until days after signing the lease. It's important to note that nowhere in the lease does it say we had to do this.

You are not responsible for the utilities. If it were a clause in your lease, she might have grounds for complaint if you didn't comply - though I'm fairly certain such a clause is unenforceable and illegal - but as it stands, no, you do not have to pay the utilities until you take possession of the unit, and then only for as long as you are in possession of the unit.

Tell her no.

[SChinFChin]

Just want to add my 2 cents in as a landlord.

I don't rent out apartments in college towns, which this appears to be, but it is common for units to be rented out during the school term, ending in May, and then not rented out again till school starts, in September.

And I do understand about the concept and objections of paying for someone else's utilities, and if I was a college town landlord, I would figure out how much it would cost to have the electric and water meters kept on during the summer, and impose a holding fee for the summer. I would only rent to people agreeing to pay me the holding fee, or you'll have to take your chances in September.

As LL, I sometimes have units vacant, taken off the market for a brief period of a few months, and I have looked into how charges are billed during those periods. Here in NY, there is a charge for having the account, keeping the meters on, even if no water, electric or gas is used at all, and this is all explained on the utility websites. The reason they give is they have to maintain water mains, electric cables, sewer pipes to vacant units. I don't recall exactly what the charges are, but I recall an empty unit would cost me about $12.00 to $15.00 a month just for electric. I recall this because I have a separate electric meter for my basement unit which I use as a rec room for the kids, and for some reason, we didn't use it at all for 2 months, and the bills came out to be around that for NO ELECTRIC or GAS use. Kilowatt and therm unit charges are added on top.

While I have an option to charge a "holding fee" (for those who feel paying utilities for an empty apartment is illegal) in lieu of having to have the next tenant paying the utilities, then I have to close out the accounts on the prior tenant, open up an account temporarily for several months, maybe even pay deposits and then having it refunded, then have the new tenants come by and open up their new accounts. I would definitely give preference to tenants paying the utilities, rather than pay a holding fee, because it would save me a ton of work.

Having said that, when I have to open up accounts temporarily for the vacant units, the utility had been very helpful, and I have not been asked to pay deposits for brief periods, but I have to take meter readings when the last tenant moved, and the new one arrives, so it's a bit of running around for me. So I would give preference, or even a break to someone who would save me all that work. However, I have tenants that insists that everything has to be just so, and for those, I don't give any breaks.

[jk]

The problem with a holding fee:

If you have a lease in place where occupancy starts some time in the future, a holding fee is not allowed. There is no purpose for such a fee since there is a lease in place. A holding fee is intended to hold a property while the tenant takes care of some other business or has not decided whether to actually lease the unit. It is not for a time of vacancy prior to the date of occupancy of a lease that is already in effect.

[SChinFChin]

The problem with a holding fee:

If you have a lease in place where occupancy starts some time in the future, a holding fee is not allowed. There is no purpose for such a fee since there is a lease in place. A holding fee is intended to hold a property while the tenant takes care of some other business or has not decided whether to actually lease the unit. It is not for a time of vacancy prior to the date of occupancy of a lease that is already in effect.

It's the issue of the name, "holding fee", pretty much like the the "individual mandate" issue in Obamacare.

Usually, in these college towns, there is not much going on in the summer, so these units are generally empty, and for the life of me, I can't understand why these LL's can't do a lease starting in June, charge nominal rent for June, Jul, Aug, say for $50.00 to $75.00/month covering utilities, and then full rent for the rest of the year. I worked with a guy whose dad owns rentals in college towns, and students rent them out early for the following year, and if I was the LL, if someone tells me he had problems covering the utilities because it is not fair and illegal, I would say NEXT.

Don't tell me charging nominal rent is illegal now.

If someone such as yourself tells me that I don't like to pay $50.00/month holding fee, then pay me rent instead, and I'm doing this as a matter of courtesy. But if someone don't want to pay utilities, or holding fees, or nominal rent, then I would most likely cancel the lease, and go with someone else. In my 30 years, I done this only once, the lease was agreed to, the tenant came by, bought his first, last, and one month's security with him, had an objection to a clause, he wouldn't budge, and I wouldn't budge. I told him in that case, I cannot rent to him, told him to take his money and leave, and I would then have to rent it to the next guy on my waiting list, where I already had 6 to 8 names. I made the call to the next guy the same night when I got home, and it was rented out that same night right then and there.

The guy I called that night was surprised I called, as I told him the unit was taken, asked me what the problem was. I told him the other guy is giving me problems even before moving in, he laughed, and said he had no problems with my terms at all, and even offered another month's security on top, because I told him I picked the other guy because his income is good, but in construction, not that stable year round. But because he jumped to agree with my terms right away, offered more security, I told him I don't need any more money from him, one month is good enough, I just want a tenant I can work with, and I believe I just found him.

And this is only April, and I'm sure the LL can find enough renters around for September who'll cover the utilities while the unit is empty, without making a Federal case out of it, and if I was the LL, with 5 months to go, it's simply finding another guy who can meet my terms, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

ONE MORE NOTE. Around here, tenants have to show leases that they are the valid legal lessees before utilities would even open an account, so it is possible the lease term may have to cover the summer months by way of nominal rent.

[jk]

SChinFChin;607094]

Don't tell me charging nominal rent is illegal now.

so, do you allow occupancy with that nominal rent?

If someone such as yourself tells me that I don't like to pay $50.00/month holding fee, then pay me rent instead, and I'm doing this as a matter of courtesy

.No, you are doing it as a matter of convenience and poor business sense. Either rent the place out the entire year or the school year but confusing the two is a recipe for problems. If you rent it out for the school year only, then that is all the tenant should be liable for. You can do whatever you want with it until their school year lease allows occupancy.

But if someone don't want to pay utilities, or holding fees, or nominal rent, then I would most likely cancel the lease, and go with someone else.

you might refuse to enter into a lease but once you have entered into the lease, you are bound by it just as the tenant.

And this is only April, and I'm sure the LL can find enough renters around for September who'll cover the utilities while the unit is empty, without making a Federal case out of it, and if I was the LL, with 5 months to go, it's simply finding another guy who can meet my terms, and I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

Sorry, the lease is apparently already signed so the LL is bound by the lease. If LL unilaterally cancels the lease, I suspect it will cost him much more in the end than if he just paid for his own utilities.

[SChinFChin]

Sorry, the lease is apparently already signed so the LL is bound by the lease. If LL unilaterally cancels the lease, I suspect it will cost him much more in the end than if he just paid for his own utilities.

First, if it's a college rental, and it'll be empty for the summer anyway, so YES, if something rents it up for the full year, I'll go for nominal rental for the summer to cover utilities. In my book, nominal rent is MORE than zero rent. With months to go till September, the LL would be far ahead of the game if he rented to someone else.

Not only that, I found in the rental business, I'm better giving up short term gains if that, for the long term, i.e. getting tenants agreeing to my terms, rather than the other way around.

Apparently, the tenant signed a lease that already has the "pay the utility clause", and says he's not bound by it. But the LL is?? So now they have an objection to something they already signed, then if I was the LL, I just tell them, as a matter of courtesy, let's amend the lease, and if you want to rent here, then pay me nominal rent for these months, so the utilities are covered, or go rent another place. If they tell me we're not paying any of this, then I'll just refund any security and say GOODBYE.

Since it's a signed lease is all the more reason it bothers me.

I don't recall all the details, the one guy I didn't go through with the lease also had some objection, so I told him not all LL's have this rquirement, so go rent another place that's more to your satisfaction, and take the money back with you. In fact, the guy I rented in his place turned out to be such a good tenant that I thought to myself through the years why I even picked the first guy.

For me, these issues has nothing to do with money, it's an issue of how tenants interact with me, and how I run my rentals. As an example, inside NYC, driveways are coveted, LL's charge a premium for it, over $100/month now, but for one rental I include it free of charge, all that I require is when it snows, the tenant shovels out his own driveway, and the sidewalk in front of the driveway, a path 10 feet wide. I owned a number of small properties at the time, and after a major snowstorm, I cannot get to all the sidewalks and driveways. It doesn't snow every winter here, and this winter we had no snow, so he's got the driveway free of charge.

At this one rental, the rental agent got back to me and told me that the tenant she found, and I agreed to rent to, had objections to doing work for the LL, such as shoveling snow. He is a young professor at a local college, not disabled which I would understand, liked my rental and the school district it's in. I told the rental agent that I could probably look for a kid on snow days, but my experience had been once someone objects to something, it's the start of a long string of NO's, while other tenants would be the "anything is no problem" type, if I need anything done. So the issue to me has nothing to do with money at all, it's just I'm not looking for a "Dr. NO" type of tenant.

In the case here, OP don't want to pay something. In my driveway case, the tenant don't even want something free of charge, I am basically paying him to shovel out his own car, so it's not even the money.