Help please (problem with Apt managers)

bil4ltool

bil4ltool

CAGiversary!
Feedback
17 (100%)
So...we moved into these apartments back in April, and my room mates had their DSL ported over to this complex. We didn't have internet for a week and it turns out our apartment wasn't wired properly for DSL so our managers called a local contracter to come and fix it (basically turn it on). Our apartment manager expected us to pay $45 for this, which of course we did not pay...especially since we never signed anything about this.

The internet has been running especially slow, even for DSL, so I called Qwest, they sent out a tech and he basically said the complex is at fault because their lines are utter trash, and its not sending the full signal (roughly we were running at less than 1/4 of the 3 m/bits.

I call the front office and they said they're having that contracter come out to "speed up our line" and expect us to now pay an ADDITIONAL $45...for a total of $90, when we should have been wired properly to begin with, considering they have Qwest DSL pamphlets in the office.

So I was basically looking for advice as to what to do. I assume since I never signed anything for this, they don't have any legal leverage. Also what would be my best action at this point? Thanks in advance!
 
Your pretty much at the mercy of the Apt Manager. Rewiring the building will cost thousands of dollars and it's not worth it to him.
 
It states in our lease that they keep "systems etc up and running" something along those lines. We're on a Qwest lease, AND they have Qwest pamphlets in the in the office, I don't truly think we're at the mercy of the office, since as far I can tell this is a breach of contract.
 
I think it means keep the essentials up and running like

A/C
Heat
Water
Electricity
Telephone
Security

Internet is not a priority for essential building operations. The others are.
 
Internet is just as much of an essential as telephone these days, especially with most households being cellular phone only. I'm pretty sure internet now falls in the realm of necessity, especially considering there are three college students living in this apartment. Also, the DSL is through a phone line...
 
[quote name='bil4ltool']Internet is just as much of an essential as telephone these days, especially with most households being cellular phone only. I'm pretty sure internet now falls in the realm of necessity, especially considering there are three college students living in this apartment. Also, the DSL is through a phone line...[/quote]

NO IT'S NOT!

Unless you have a job that REQUIRES you to have good internet in your apartment, then it's not an operational essential for the building or the management. I am actually going to side with management here because you should be thankful everything is working in your place right now instead of being f'ed over by having no running water, no heat and so on. If you need the internet, go to the library or an internet cafe. Don't worry about getting your 360/ps3 online.

Suck it up mang.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']NO IT'S NOT!

Unless you have a job that REQUIRES you to have good internet in your apartment, then it's not an operational essential for the building or the management. I am actually going to side with management here because you should be thankful everything is working in your place right now instead of being f'ed over by having no running water, no heat and so on. If you need the internet, go to the library or an internet cafe. Don't worry about getting your 360/ps3 online.

Suck it up mang.[/QUOTE]

I......completely agree.
 
1. Whether or not you have to pay the $45/$90 depends on the wording of the convos you had with them, we won't be able to answer that.

2. You don't have to sign anything: verbal contracts are every bit as solid as written contracts, the only difference is written is easier to prove. They're equally binding.

3. Although we can't be 100% certain without knowing the exact terms of the lease, it sounds like you're SOL.
 
What they say - it's true.

Believe me, most cities don't even check into slum lords, noone is going to care a fig that your internet isn't as fast as it could be.

I'm not saying it's fair, just that it's the truth.

Since I doubt that a contractor can fix the lines for $45 (that's too cheap - it sounds fishy to me) I would hand over a letter in writing to your landlord telling him you're not going to pay any extra money for internet wiring repairs he decides to do, and keep a copy of the letter for yourself.
 
you signed a lease to stay there for x amount of time so you can't just pack up your shit and leave. As far as oral and written contracts being equally binding, no way. However, until the wiring poses a health issue, I don't see why the landlord would have to replace it. You are still getting internet so i guess your choice is stick with the slow internet and move out after your lease is up or pay the guy his $90 and move on. Between three people, it wouldn't be so bad. I'm still kind of confused why you have to pay another $45 on top of what you were already supposed to pay. I would talk face to face with the landlord and see if you can both come to a reasonable conclusion. Letting it go without saying anything or worse yet sending a letter sends the wrong message. People are more likely to work with you if you approach them in a mature manner.

Also, why would your apartment be the only one responsible for this $90? Shouldn't other people in the building have to share the cost?
 
High speed internet access is not covered under any law for what you're describing. The only things than an apt manager are required to maintain are:
- Water including Hot Water (toilet, shower, sink)
- Refrigerator and stove
- Heat
- Entrance security (aka locks on the door) and windows (that lock and work).
- General cleanliness (such that the building isn't attracting rodents/insects) and extermentation.

AC isn't even covered in most states.
 
[quote name='Michael Scott']As far as oral and written contracts being equally binding, no way.[/QUOTE]

That's blatantly wrong. A contract's a contract. Certain agreements cannot be oral (like when you buy land), but whether his agreements with his landlord are oral or in writing they're equally binding.
 
yea but in court, it's a lot easier to prove in writing than just by word.

Anyways OP, I wish you the best of luck.
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's blatantly wrong. A contract's a contract. Certain agreements cannot be oral (like when you buy land), but whether his agreements with his landlord are oral or in writing they're equally binding.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the state.
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's blatantly wrong. A contract's a contract. Certain agreements cannot be oral (like when you buy land), but whether his agreements with his landlord are oral or in writing they're equally binding.[/quote]

Joke account?
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's blatantly wrong. A contract's a contract. Certain agreements cannot be oral (like when you buy land), but whether his agreements with his landlord are oral or in writing they're equally binding.[/QUOTE]

Why on god's green earth would the landlord not include this specific term in the written K if he has already included everything else under the sun (in other words any additional oral agreements will not be binding). More over the OP lacks grounds, internet is not a necessity, and unless it is specified in the K that high speed internet is included, he's shit out of luck. The pamphlets were in the apt. because the managment/condo association gets paid to advertise a certain brand such as Fios (exclusivity Ks).

If you want the upgrade go ahead and pay the $90 or you can always threaten the landlord that you'll move unless he fixes this issue. Good Luck!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='kill3r7'] you can always threaten the landlord that you'll move unless he fixes this issue. Good Luck![/quote]


:rofl:

That's just like telling Best Buy or Gamestop "I WILL NEVER SHOP HERE AGAIN!".
 
[quote name='Koggit']That's blatantly wrong. A contract's a contract. Certain agreements cannot be oral (like when you buy land), but whether his agreements with his landlord are oral or in writing they're equally binding.[/QUOTE]
Okay, go to court and try to sue someone saying that they gave you their word or promised you something but did not deliver on that oral promise. Maybe an oral commitment is as strong as a written one in grade school, but in the adult world they are not equal. That is why we have written and signed contracts and not just a handshake and spoken words.
 
[quote name='Michael Scott']Okay, go to court and try to sue someone saying that they gave you their word or promised you something but did not deliver on that oral promise. Maybe an oral commitment is as strong as a written one in grade school, but in the adult world they are not equal. That is why we have written and signed contracts and not just a handshake and spoken words.[/QUOTE]

Going to court is exactly what I'd do, if the situation were serious enough.

You're still not supporting your argument, in any way.

From a legal dictionary:

oral contract
n. an agreement made with spoken words and either no writing or only partially written. An oral contract is just as valid as a written agreement. The main problem with an oral contract is proving its existence or the terms. As one wag observed: "An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on." An oral contract is often provable by action taken by one or both parties which is obviously in reliance on the existence of a contract. The other significant difference between oral and written contracts is that the time to sue for breach of an oral contract (the statute of limitations) is sometimes shorter. For example, California's limitation is two years for oral compared to four for written, Connecticut and Washington three for oral rather than six for written, and Georgia four for oral instead of 20 for written.
See also: agreement contract
- http://dictionary.law.com/definition.asp?selected=1407
Click to expand...

Note the only difference they focus on is enforceability -- they're equally binding.

kill3r7 had a point when he said the landlord may have included a clause in the lease stating oral agreements would be nonbinding, but that's not what you and I are arguing about.

If you want to say I'm wrong, and what my law prof taught me is wrong, then back it up with facts. Just saying "you're wrong, oral agreements are nonbinding" doesn't count.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Going to court is exactly what I'd do, if the situation were serious enough.

You're still not supporting your argument, in any way.

From a legal dictionary:



Note the only difference they focus on is enforceability -- they're equally binding.

kill3r7 had a point when he said the landlord may have included a clause in the lease stating oral agreements would be nonbinding, but that's not what you and I are arguing about.

If you want to say I'm wrong, and what my law prof taught me is wrong, then back it up with facts. Just saying "you're wrong, oral agreements are nonbinding" doesn't count.[/QUOTE]

My point was that the written K/agreement is a complete, integrated agreement. Thus, any additional oral agreements will most likely not be recognized by the court "Parol Evidence Rule of Thumb". In the real world most landlord/tenant courts will not even hear the case because not having internet does not violate the warranty of habitability, and no one in their right mind would file a complaint for a claim of $90. Hell just filing the paperwork alone will cost you roughly $70 in NY.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']:rofl:

That's just like telling Best Buy or Gamestop "I WILL NEVER SHOP HERE AGAIN!".[/QUOTE]

Sort of except in this instance the OP always has the option of not paying his rent until the issue has been remedied.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Sort of except in this instance the OP always has the option of not paying his rent until the issue has been remedied.[/QUOTE]

He could do that, but then the landlord could evict him.
 
It may be just as valid as a written agreement, but the problem is the whole provable thing. If one is more provable than the other, wouldn't that mean that one is better than the other? If your client, person b, had an oral agreement with person a, but person a had a written and signed document from your client, who has the better argument?
 
Thanks for finally admitting that you've been wrong, this is a great relief, I can finally sleep at night. I'm glad you're able to admit they're equally binding.

[quote name='kill3r7']My point was that the written K/agreement is a complete, integrated agreement. Thus, any additional oral agreements will most likely not be recognized by the court "Parol Evidence Rule of Thumb". In the real world most landlord/tenant courts will not even hear the case because not having internet does not violate the warranty of habitability, and no one in their right mind would file a complaint for a claim of $90. Hell just filing the paperwork alone will cost you roughly $70 in NY.[/QUOTE]

I think you may be losing sight of the original argument: someone said he can't be faulted for breach of contract it was oral, I said oral agreements are contracts every bit as binding as written ones, and Michael Scott denied that claim. The original contractual obligation was in reference to the charge for fixing the internet.

"Our apartment manager expected us to pay $45 for this, which of course we did not pay...especially since we never signed anything about this."

If he orally agreed to pay, regardless of whether or not he signed, he's contractually obligated to pay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless Kogit, the court fees to "prove" an oral contract would negate the payment, that's why no one goes to court over a small oral contract such as this.
 
[quote name='lordwow']He could do that, but then the landlord could evict him.[/QUOTE]

It's highly unlikely/unlawful that the landlord would evict him prior to giving him at least some form of notice. In the mean time he could contact the managing office and explain the situation and state his demands. I would think if the charges are only $90 the landlord will cave in. It's not worth the effort of losing the tenant and rent for a month over a $90 fee, at least that's the way I see it.
 
[quote name='lordwow']Regardless Kogit, the court fees to "prove" an oral contract would negate the payment, that's why no one goes to court over a small oral contract such as this.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know it wouldn't be worth going to court in this case, which is why I haven't made any post claiming that he should. I'm not sure why you're insinuating otherwise, it's off-base. Like kill3r7, I think you lost track of the conversation.

Reread the convo. Michael Scott and I have been arguing because he claimed I was wrong when I said written/oral agreements are equally binding. He was wrong, so I responded to him. I never said this issue is worth going to court over.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Going to court is exactly what I'd do, if the situation were serious enough.

You're still not supporting your argument, in any way.

From a legal dictionary:



Note the only difference they focus on is enforceability -- they're equally binding.

kill3r7 had a point when he said the landlord may have included a clause in the lease stating oral agreements would be nonbinding, but that's not what you and I are arguing about.

If you want to say I'm wrong, and what my law prof taught me is wrong, then back it up with facts. Just saying "you're wrong, oral agreements are nonbinding" doesn't count.[/quote]

Hahaha just like a lawyer, leaping right to the "I'll take you to court!!"

You ever think that maybe lawyers get special treatment since we all know they can haul us into court and make us pay beaucoup fees over charges (BS or no)?

The rest of us live in the real world, and as mere mortals we're trying to give the guy practical advice about the value of oral contracts.
 
[quote name='Koggit']

If he orally agreed to pay, regardless of whether or not he signed, he's contractually obligated to pay.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with your statement.

I understood the original argument to be whether the landlord had orally promised them "high speed" internet and thus my response that this wouldn't be a binding agreement since the terms were not listed on the lease/K. Anyhow, it's a moot point.
 
If Qwest is showing that the address in question should have DSL service available, then Qwest and the apartment management should be the ones talking, and the OP shouldn't be involved with this, nor should he be the one who's footing the bill.

If the issue was "fixed" the first time, this "contractor" should have some guarantee of the work that was done, if there's any issues that should come up the first time after the work was done. This second $45 fee is ridiculous, especially for "speeding up the line". :roll: The only reason the line would work OK for voice and not for DSL is if they have one of the pairs crossed incorrectly. There's no "speeding up the line" that is needed, they just have to fix wiring issues, which you could call Qwest local for and they would have fixed the line for that $90 charge, and you'd know it's fixed.

Unfortunately, OP, I think you're stiffed, though I'd make sure Qwest comes out after the line is "fixed" and have them make sure it's working correctly, if the DSL isn't working correctly.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Thanks for finally admitting that you've been wrong, this is a great relief, I can finally sleep at night. I'm glad you're able to admit they're equally binding.



I think you may be losing sight of the original argument: someone said he can't be faulted for breach of contract it was oral, I said oral agreements are contracts every bit as binding as written ones, and Michael Scott denied that claim. The original contractual obligation was in reference to the charge for fixing the internet.

"Our apartment manager expected us to pay $45 for this, which of course we did not pay...especially since we never signed anything about this."

If he orally agreed to pay, regardless of whether or not he signed, he's contractually obligated to pay.[/QUOTE]


Actually, you're the one that is wrong. Unless you record or videotape the oral agreement, you cannot prove what someone said. The manager cannot prove to the Judge that the OP agreed to pay without a written agreement. I suggest you find a better law school/professor.
 
Heh, none of this makes sense. As a former (shitty) apartment dweller and former DSL subscriber, I'm scratching my head.

First off, Qwest (like any DSL company) can tell you if DSL service is available in the area and test the lines. I could be wrong (as I only worked with the phone company's DSL) but any issues with slow speeds would more than likely be traced to the phone wiring (like 95% of the issues - Unless your friends lived closer to the trunk than they do now, which will slow the speeds). Inside phone wiring would be an issue between the phone company and property owner - the OP is just a tenant. I don't understand why a separate contractor was called in the first place instead of the phone company, unless they knew up front they had bad lines.

Granted, the wiring inside is the property owner's responsibility. And the "speed up the lines?" That is bullshit; more than likely the first person who did the wiring didn't do it right and they had to pay someone else to come in and do it right. If they are going to charge you, ask for a copy of the two contractor's invoices, which should say exactly what was done.

However, you will probably have to pay that $90 - it's not worth it to go to court to fight it, especially if it causes bad blood.

By the way, I had a very similiar issue at my old apartment with comcast cable and internet. It turned out they had wired the apartments on the cheap and just split one line to all the apartments (I didn't know this, so I paid for cable while the rest of the building enjoyed free service). When my cable internet barely worked, they sent out a tech who found the issue and the wiring needed to be redone (just in one spot, though). I never had to pay for that, but the owner took a hit because they suspected he had this done on purpose (ie piracy) - which did lead to bad blood and several stories that I won't bore you with.
 
[quote name='Michael Scott']It may be just as valid as a written agreement, but the problem is the whole provable thing. If one is more provable than the other, wouldn't that mean that one is better than the other? If your client, person b, had an oral agreement with person a, but person a had a written and signed document from your client, who has the better argument?[/QUOTE]
See that now?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Yes, I know it wouldn't be worth going to court in this case, which is why I haven't made any post claiming that he should. I'm not sure why you're insinuating otherwise, it's off-base. Like kill3r7, I think you lost track of the conversation.

Reread the convo. Michael Scott and I have been arguing because he claimed I was wrong when I said written/oral agreements are equally binding. He was wrong, so I responded to him. I never said this issue is worth going to court over.[/QUOTE]

Alright, so in theory he has a case, but in practice he'd never be able to pursue it.
 
[quote name='PlumeNoir']Heh, none of this makes sense. As a former (shitty) apartment dweller and former DSL subscriber, I'm scratching my head.

First off, Qwest (like any DSL company) can tell you if DSL service is available in the area and test the lines. I could be wrong (as I only worked with the phone company's DSL) but any issues with slow speeds would more than likely be traced to the phone wiring (like 95% of the issues - Unless your friends lived closer to the trunk than they do now, which will slow the speeds). Inside phone wiring would be an issue between the phone company and property owner - the OP is just a tenant. I don't understand why a separate contractor was called in the first place instead of the phone company, unless they knew up front they had bad lines.

Granted, the wiring inside is the property owner's responsibility. And the "speed up the lines?" That is bullshit; more than likely the first person who did the wiring didn't do it right and they had to pay someone else to come in and do it right. If they are going to charge you, ask for a copy of the two contractor's invoices, which should say exactly what was done.

However, you will probably have to pay that $90 - it's not worth it to go to court to fight it, especially if it causes bad blood.

By the way, I had a very similar issue at my old apartment with comcast cable and internet. It turned out they had wired the apartments on the cheap and just split one line to all the apartments (I didn't know this, so I paid for cable while the rest of the building enjoyed free service). When my cable internet barely worked, they sent out a tech who found the issue and the wiring needed to be redone (just in one spot, though). I never had to pay for that, but the owner took a hit because they suspected he had this done on purpose (ie piracy) - which did lead to bad blood and several stories that I won't bore you with.[/quote]

Qwest will tell you if DSL service is available for your phone number, which will tell you if it's available up to your building, from their DSLAM to your building. Anything beyond the outside of the building is the responsibility of the tenant/owner, as you stated.

The building owner could've hired Qwest to do the work, rather than the line monkey they seemed to have hired. From the rates I've been charged for wiring work on both work and personal needs, it would've been about the same from the phone company than from some wiring jockey.

I think you're right that the first guy screwed it up and they had to call in a second guy to do it, as the first guy should have just fixed it again himself from the work he had just done.

This situation seems like the issue you had with your cable modem service, since I had a similar issue in my previous apartment with my cable service, where the service was crap until I complained enough to have the cable company rewire everything.

Sounds like we're both in the same vein on this messy bit.
 
I don't think the problem here is whether or not a landlord is responsible for a tenet to have internet service, but rather the fact that it was fixed and the tenet charged without a written or oral agreement.

Landlords do not need to provide parking, but if my parking lot is so fucked up (broken and cracked) that I can't use it and call the city and the landlord brings in a private contractor to lay asphalt why would I have to foot the bill? Just because the landlord is not required to have available parking doesn't mean that I should pay for anything that the owner will benefit from and use for years and years, especially without making the charge and process spelled out to me.

Basically the landlord is saying hey thanks for bringing this very important problem to my attention, but since I am not legally require to provide this to you I am going to permanently fix this problem and then charge you for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top