Yet another ? for Master Plumber

I'm not MP, but I do have two questions about your question:

1. Isn't it illegal to get tenants to pay for their own heat?

2. Even if it is legal in your situation that the tenants are paying heat, is it right to make efficiency a "distant third"? I mean, there's more to think about than who's paying for it. Everyone, including you, pays for the carbon footprint of your rental property, right?

(not trying to be arch--I am genuinely interested)

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:36 PM

Mr Hancock
I'm not a plumber but I have 4 Burham boilers in my 4 family house.. Tenants pay their own heating bill. One of the boiler just went and I need a new boiler on one of the boilers. Make sure you get someone who install them right and my 4th floor apartment always seem to have a problem with the heat circulating to that floor they get air bound and all kind of other problems.. Make sure they have their own water feeder and the right size circulating pumb.... (boilers are only 3yrs old)
Good luck... I plan to keep my home for a good while also so I'm willing to make the corrections.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:39 PM

No its not illegal for tenants to pay for their own heat.

Posted by: guest at January 9, 2008 1:41 PM

You can be an asshole about it Mr. H, but like I said, I was just asking a quetstion. These links:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/tenants/heat-and-hot-water.shtml

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr15.html

make it sound like it's the landlord's legal responsibility to pay for heat and hot water because they use the word "maintain" and talk about levels of hot water and heat that are "to be provided," and they are written in a straightforward way that does not exclude residential buildngs.

So I am genuinely curious--is it that you have a non-commercial building that makes you so sure you're exempt from this law? Is there some other piece of information I don't know? I am asking as a landlord myself. It would be great to make my tenants responsible for heat and hot water, but from where I am standing it looks like it's my legal responsibility to provide it.

(but I still think that it's lame to pass inefficiency on to a tenant, for what that's worth...)

Posted by: guest at January 10, 2008 7:48 AM

To the guest who called MrHancock "lame," you are absolutely right. He is totally lame, which is why the government has learned that you can't rely on people to do the right thing and it is unfortunately up to the government to create standards for the energy efficiency of various products. So if you want to look on the bright side, the Burnham Boiler that master plumber recommended is actually fairly efficient. And the fact that he will be making his tenants pay for the heat is also very efficient since it ensures that they will be careful with how high the turn the heat up and that they will be sure to turn it down when they leave.

Posted by: guest at January 10, 2008 10:55 AM

I am also a lawyer and agree with MrHancock's reading of the law on providing (but not paying for) heat to tenants. Guest at 7:48 -- The law also says that an owner must provide electricity to tenants. Do you pay for your tenants' electricity use as well? Most owners, to my knowledge, have separate meters for each apartment and the tenant pays the electric bill.

Posted by: guest at January 10, 2008 12:28 PM

I don't doubt your ivy-league self, Mr. Han*cock*. I was asking you a freaking question, and I actually had pretty honorable intentions. I am in a similar situation as yours. I am making choices about my mechanicals. Unlike you, I am thinking about how to maximize efficiency, and actually was wondering if it is legal to set things up separate for exactly the reason 10:55 stated... tenants have incentive to be efficient when they pay for their utilities.

And, um, I don't have a law degree, and can't afford to run off to my lawyer with every question. So I try to do research myself first, and actually didn't know that there is a world of difference between the words "provide" and "pay for." I was thinking about the ways in which these words are similar, not the ways in which they are different. I appreciate 12:28 for just explaining the difference. That was really clear, 12:28, and I really appreciate it. That's all I was after.

Posted by: guest at January 10, 2008 6:04 PM

"Too many lawyer responses on this post and not one of them knows how to put the toilet seat down."

Posted by: Ysabelle at January 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Why does Ysabelle assume that none of those snippy lawyers were women?

So far the only person I like here is the poor poster who got roughed up just for asking a question. Brownsone 89 is on to something-everyone should be nice- or go stick their head in a boiler. For this, I recommend a Burnham.

Posted by: guest at June 8, 2008 2:20 PM