
Quoting
douglasssmith
I have a small six-unit commercial building in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Inglewood. There is a building alarm, but not for individual suites. To enter the building any of the six tenants must deactivate the alarm, and any of the tenants can activate it when they leave. The alarm system is monitored for which I pay a fee and a telephone line is needed to connect with the monitoring company for which I also pay a fee. This is a yearly expense of about $2,000.
The following text is part of each lease: "Security. Tenant understands that Landlord does does not provide a security alarm systems or other security for Tenant or the Premises. In the event any alarm system is provided, Tenant understands that such alarm system is not warranted to be complete in all respects or to be sufficient to protect Tenant or the Premises. Tenant releases Landlord from any loss, damage, claim or injury resulting from the failure of any alarm system, security or from the lack of any alarm system or security." The "does" box is checked.
It has come to my attention that none of the tenants are using the alarm and haven't been for over a year. My first thought was to acknowledge to all the tenants that the alarm isn't being used, say that I'm committed keeping the alarm working if the tenants want it, but since they don't want it, I'm no longer going to pay the two monthly fees. But on reflection I have several questions:
1. I assume that I'm required to keep the alarm in good order and pay the monthly fees even if none of the tenants choose to use it. Right?
2. Am I at any liability risk if one of the tenants suffers a loss complaining that the building "didn't have a working alarm" even if the hardware is all in good order but it didn't work because none of the tenants turned it on?
3. Suppose five tenants feel that operating the alarm is a bother they'd rather not deal with, but one tenant wants it -- and this is very likely. What's a reasonable landlord supposed to do?