Not all answers on AskMe are good

October 28, 2005 9:00 AM

This answer is terrible, unsupported, and if the advice given were to be followed, would will lead to nothing but grief if someone were to follow it. It is sufficiently ill-informed and potentially disaster-inducing as to inspire me to request it be deleted rather then simply flagging it and moving on.
posted by mzurer to MetaFilter-related at 9:00 AM (34 comments total)

Erm, flagging it is a request for deletion.

That said, a downthread "DON'T DO THAT" comment would surely suffice? There is a certain risk inherent in requesting legal advice from a group of people whose minimum common qualification is that they can type.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:05 AM on October 28, 2005

It's certainly bad advice, but I think loquax responded sufficiently to suggest as much.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:07 AM on October 28, 2005

It seemed to me like people were pretty straightforward in that thread that withholding rent was a lousy idea. If that post was removed, people would just repost the same thing. It's better to have bad advice aired and other people say "that is seriously bad advice" which I think is what they have been doing.
posted by jessamyn at 9:12 AM on October 28, 2005

You ask for legal advice on an internet forum, you reap what you sow.
posted by smackfu at 9:13 AM on October 28, 2005

It's worded too strongly, but it's not altogether wrong. In similar situations, I have withheld rent for affected days, but I always informed management about it ahead of time. If they put up a fight, I negotiate.
posted by callmejay at 9:18 AM on October 28, 2005

It's not necessarily wrong. Withholding rent is, sometimes, an appropriate response to violation of the implied warranty of habitability. But it depends on the laws where the poster lives, and how the local courts look upon withholding rent. It's not the obvious answer that the comment makes it sound like it is.
posted by amro at 10:05 AM on October 28, 2005

It's not the obvious answer that the comment makes it sound like it is.

Yeah, that was the biggest problem with the comment. You can almost never unilaterally withhold rent, and I'm almost positive that you specifically cannot in Quebec, so in this case it is bad advice, but in general, it's certainly something to look at within the scope of local statutes. The biggest inaccuracy in the comment is that I don't live in a big city. Toronto is much bigger than provincial little Montreal. I don't think it should be deleted in any case though, the poster seemed to get enough from the discussion to look at the relevant law and talk to his landlord.
posted by loquax at 10:22 AM on October 28, 2005

You ask for legal advice on an internet forum, you reap what you sow.

As my father, a lawyer, used to say, "Sure, I'll give you some free legal advice, but bear in mind you get what you pay for..."
posted by ChasFile at 12:14 PM on October 28, 2005

It's not that absurd of an answer. My father and I rent out some houses and when rent is withheld from us (by the generally low-life people who live there) there is very little that we can do in the short term.

We've had some of these characters withhold rent for things as ridiculous as windows they've broken themselves. Of course, there's no way for us really to prove it and we generally fix things up and deal with it.

The law is usually on the side of the renter, in my experience as both a landlord and someone who rents. Withholding rent won't get you evicted the next day, 2 weeks, or even a month later. It is truly a lengthy process. His advice, though crass, isn't as horrible as you make it out to be, nor unsupported.

(that is, if I'm reading the right comment in that thread.)
posted by dead_ at 1:28 PM on October 28, 2005

It's not a bad answer. Witholding rent is a perfectly sensible solution that's used all the time. It hardly leads to "nothing but grief" otherwise people wouldn't do it and jellicle wouldn't recommend it. It is a drastic step, perhaps too drastic for the asker's situation where the problem isn't ongoing, but, regardless, it's not the terrible, life-destroying advice you make it out to be. This callout, on the other hand, will likely kill a dozen kittens or perhaps one large dog.
posted by nixerman at 1:49 PM on October 28, 2005

God, I hate kittens.
posted by mzurer at 2:09 PM on October 28, 2005

It seems to be perfectly reasonable advice to me. I have withheld rent (though admittedly in the UK) with success. Do you have specific grounds upon which you disagree? IANAL, but, as far as I can tell, neither is anyone else in that thread. It's one of those cases where you have to be careful about consensus, because sometimes the majority haven't got the first clue. I've seen it in the lighting threads.

As smackfu indicates, until someone brings an overwhelmingly convincing argument, the questioner would be wise not to seek a conclusion. If anything, it's the question that should be removed, or every last "guess" of answer posted in the thread: not the one you happen to disagree with.
posted by nthdegx at 3:56 PM on October 28, 2005

Look, no one is saying that it's not good advice somewhere. The big, huge, freakin' problem with the answer is that it's horribly bad advice in many places. Laws regarding this stuff vary widely. Laws, in general, vary widely.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:30 PM on October 28, 2005

"In the US, with-holding of rent is grounds for eviction."

In some places in the US, withholding of rent is grounds for eviction.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:31 PM on October 28, 2005

Part of my strong reaction was US-ian presumptiousness. The questioner is in fact in Canada, and I have no knowledge of Canadian real estate law, so I may be completely off-base. In every major city in which I have lived in the US, with-holding of rent is grounds for eviction. jellicle's post was wrong-headed for the reasons pointed out in the thread and here, to wit:

Loquax has obviously never lived in a big city

When the landlord fails to provide that[habitibility], the tenant is released from duty to pay rent for the place.

These are both demonstrably incorrect. The only correct in his post was that the landlord is required to provide housing services, including sufficient heating to make it habitable.

I've been threatened with (and successfully fought) eviction in the US, so I am familiar with the statutes in question, but I don't have any cites to go with my assertions.

I maintain that the advice is horrible, but I think the real root of my ire is that answers like jellicle's dilute AskMe as a resource.

And I love kittens.
posted by mzurer at 4:34 PM on October 28, 2005

Until a team of lawyers show up, questions about law diulte AskMe as a resource.
posted by nthdegx at 2:38 AM on October 29, 2005

A friend of mine got out of several months rent in Los Angeles taking exactly the course of action described in the comment. Also, when I went to a free legal clinic seeking advice about fighting an eviction, all the lawyers there talked about was my right to withhold rent because the dwelling wasn't being maintained properly. As AskMe advice goes, the comment in question is pretty good; it's this MeTa post that's irrational and not grounded in reality.
posted by bingo at 2:48 PM on October 29, 2005

Bingo, I didn't realize that everyone who reads AskMe lives in Los Angeles. Wow! That's amazing!

Get this through your thick heads: lots of states, counties, municipalities are heavily tilted toward the landlord and outright do not allow witholding of rent or make it impractical to do so. It's very bad advice in all those places and will result in an eviction.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:01 PM on October 29, 2005

All the comment in question warranted was another comment saying "Maybe so, but not in Montreal" (if that's even the case). Get this through YOUR thick head: withholding rent against irresponsible landlords is a hugely common practice, and it would have been ridiculous to exclude the possibility from the discussion in the AskMe thread. Yes, you risk eviction when you do it, but the eviction process (in many places) is long and difficult (for the landlord). It may be different in Canada, but in most if not all parts of the US, saying that "municipalities do not allow withholding of the rent" and that doing so "will result in an eviction" implies a confidence in the actual power of the landlord that is just plain misplaced. They don't have the power to just knock on your door one day and tell you to get out. In fact, for them to get you to physically move out, they have to get a court order for your eviction, and that means that you have the chance to confront them and to explain to the judge why you haven't been paying. Sure, it's a risk, and there are definitely smart and not-so-smart ways to go about the whole thing (get a lawyer, tell the landlord ahead of time via certified mail exactly what you are doing, keep track of all the times you asked for them to make the repairs, etc.), but that's all fodder for discussion that it makes sense to have in the thread.
posted by bingo at 4:34 PM on October 29, 2005

"). It may be different in Canada, but in most if not all parts of the US, saying that "municipalities do not allow withholding of the rent" and that doing so "will result in an eviction" implies a confidence in the actual power of the landlord that is just plain misplaced."

Look up Texas law, buddy.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:41 PM on October 29, 2005

From this page about Tenant Rights in Texas:

It is worth noting that under the law, even if you have a claim against your landlord for not maintaining your apartment, you are not excused from paying rent until you take the necessary steps. If you stop paying rent, your landlord could have you evicted. Here is what you have to do to withhold rent or get damages:

1) You must give the landlord written notice of the problems with your apartment. I recommend you send this notice via certified mail, return-receipt-requested. Explain the problem, and tell the landlord that it materially affects your health and safety. You cannot be delinquent in the payment of rent at the time notice is given.

2) The landlord has a reasonable time to repair the problem. What is reasonable depends on the facts of the situation. A leaking roof for example, is serious, and a few days may be a reasonable time to repair the leak.

3) If your apartment is not repaired within a reasonable time, you must give the landlord a second notice explaining that unless the condition is repaired you will terminate the lease, repair the condition yourself, or bring a civil action for damages.

4) If the landlord still does not make the repairs, you have the right to: (1) move out; (2) have the condition repaired; (3) sue and force a rent reduction; or (4) recover damages of one month’s rent plus $500. If you have to hire an attorney and win your case, the landlord must pay your attorney’s fees.

Those are a lot of hoops to jump through and simply withholding rent will get you evicted. Eviction for non-payment of rent is a quick process in Texas, they can have you out within a few days.

Also, the only things that Texas law allows withholding of rent for are sewage, water, and heating/cooling and only if the landlord has promised to provide those things.

Texas may well be the most landlord-favored state in the US, but it's certain that there are other areas where merely withholding rent will get you evicted. The advice to withhold as general advice is bad advice.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:51 PM on October 29, 2005

Oops. This page to see Texas landlord/tenant law in all its horror.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:52 PM on October 29, 2005

The second option of the fourth condition you posted above ("have the condition repaired") contains within it this whole debate. Where is the money for the repairs supposed to come from?

If evictions are such a high priority that a landlord can have you on the street in three days, that would have to mean that either a hastily-scheduled hearing takes place within those three days, or the tenant doesn't even have the right to argue in his own defense, in which case, what can I say except that I'm glad I don't live in Texas.

The person asking the question is not in Los Angeles, nor are they in Texas, so this is all pretty academic. Legal advice given on AskMe should not be followed rashly and without further investigation, entailing assuring yourself that the advice in question is relevant in your specific circumstances. Again, this is all legitimate fodder for the thread in question.
posted by bingo at 5:32 PM on October 29, 2005

No, read that closely. The way it works in Texas is you have to actually sue for rent reduction. If you don't pay the rent because you think you are withholding because the landlord has violated the lease, you will get evicted because by Texas law you are violating the lease. I was in this situation in Texas. Withholding rent wasn't an option. Texas law insanely favors landlords. Some people might say that some other states insanely favor tenants. Laws vary greatly within the US and certainly internationally.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:58 PM on October 29, 2005

Okay. On a related note: what a helpful comment in that other thread. Up jellicle, down mzurer!
posted by bingo at 6:30 PM on October 29, 2005

I advised withholding rent too. I've done it in both the US and the UK and it worked. I never got evicted and I got the water heater and stove fixed. Besides which a) it takes ages to get evicted, they no longer send bailiffs around the following day to throw everything in the street while your wife weeps and your children cling to her skirts b) most landlords don't' WANT to evict you: they will fix the problem, you will pay them, all will be cool and c) it's not like being kicked out of a place with no [i]heat[/i] in [i]Canada[/i] in the [i]winter[/i] is exactly the worst thing that could happen to you. If the landlord is serious about going through the eviction process (which I doubt if he can't even get his act together enough to get a furnace fixed) just.... MOVE. You've saved yourself a month of rent and you now have a place with heat.

Withholding rent for a few days and telling him why (don't put it in writing unless you're an idiot) is the tenants equivalent of lighting a fire under his ass. He's screwing you over by not maintaining the place you pay for, it's not like he's a nice guy- he's a slumlord and witholding $$ is speaking in a language he will understand. If push comes to shove you can always just claim the check got lost in the mail and you have no idea what he's talking about.

Remember this guy said the furnace has been broken for a YEAR.
posted by fshgrl at 7:35 PM on October 29, 2005

I've done it in both the US and the UK and it worked. I never got evicted and I got the water heater and stove fixed.

And your experience is all that matters, right?

it takes ages to get evicted

Didn't read EB's comment, did you? I particularly direct your attention to the phrase "they can have you out within a few days." But hey, maybe he's making it up! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
posted by languagehat at 6:12 AM on October 30, 2005

Ah, well, it's not that I was ever actually evicted in Texas. But I had two different conflicts with landlords in Texas, both of which when I checked to see what my options were, I found they were very limited because Texas law is very tilted toward the landlord.

The first case was similar to the AskMe question. We had an electrical problem where the power went out to the kitchen and living room. Which was a problem. It wasn't a breaker, it was something else. The landlord couldn't figure it out (or, rather, her handyman) and she basically just threw her hands up and did nothing. That went on for a while until we got pissed. One of us thought of the withholding rent option. So we looked at our lease, then checked Texas law, and realized that it wasn't an option. You can see why it isn't because you have to jump through a bazillion hoops and even then its adjudicated before the rent reduction.

Not paying rent is grounds for eviction and most leases also specify that the landlord doesn't have to give you the option of paying late. So, as soon as you don't pay rent, then in one day they can post the eviction notice, and then the next they can file with the court. They can also take your property in your dwelling to get their rent. And you're still evicted. Maybe just a few days was an exageration, but I didn't see anywhere anything like a mandatory mininum of 30 days to vacate for Texas. The courts work fast, and contrary to what fsbgrl said, in the end they do have law enforcement there and (near) literaly throw you out on the street. When I talked to people about it, they said that they were forced to vacate in days, not a month or months.

The real problem here is that the instant that you've broken your contract and failed to pay rent, they can file the eviction notice and there's nothing that will force them to allow you to stay, assuming that you really did fail to pay your rent. So, in Texas, you're starting a battle that you're going to lose if the landlord wants you to lose, and there's no turning back unless the landlord relents out of their own generosity.

So, in some areas including Texas, not paying rent is like the "nuclear option" for a tenant. You can gamble that they won't want the hassle of evicting you and they'll decide to fix the problem, but you're completely at their mercy as to whether you get to continue to live there or not even if they were in the wrong by not fixing a crucial problem. In the eyes of the law, you've done at least as bad by withholding rent. Seems to me that's a last resort, not one of the first.

I'm surprised none of our attorneys have weighed on this. Or someone who's been evicted in Texas (or evicted someone).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:44 AM on October 30, 2005

One of us thought of the withholding rent option. So we looked at our lease, then checked Texas law, and realized that it wasn't an option. You can see why it isn't because you have to jump through a bazillion hoops and even then its adjudicated before the rent reduction.

The law you quoted, which looks practically identical to California law, doesn't say that it isn't an option. What you're saying is that you decided not to exercise the option because you didn't want to deal with the red tape. Some people do. And, once again returning to the reason we're here, the fact that the option exists means that it's perfectly valid to suggest exercising it in an AskMe thread.

Maybe just a few days was an exageration...When I talked to people about it, they said that they were forced to vacate in days, not a month or months.

The people you 'talked to about it' were probably referring to the typical 'three days to pay rent or quit premesis' notice that, from the landlord's point of view, typically represents the beginning of the eviction process. I got one of those too, months before I moved out; months before the landlord had even filed for an eviction with the court, as it turned out. No doubt those notices serve to scare the hell out of a lot of people who promptly pack up their stuff and hit the street, imagining that their irresponsible landlords wouldn't post such a bold notice if the law wasn't standing behind them.

My experience (or fshgrl's) is certainly not all that matters, but it certainly matters as much as anyone else's, especially anyone else's who (like EB, both fshgrl and I, and, probably, most people on the meta thread) doesn't live in Montreal.
posted by bingo at 10:53 AM on October 30, 2005

"What you're saying is that you decided not to exercise the option because you didn't want to deal with the red tape."

Which one of these options looks like withholding rent the way that you and others are talking about it?

"4) If the landlord still does not make the repairs, you have the right to: (1) move out; (2) have the condition repaired; (3) sue and force a rent reduction; or (4) recover damages of one month’s rent plus $500."

Answer: none of them.

"My experience (or fshgrl's) is certainly not all that matters, but it certainly matters as much as anyone else's, especially anyone else's who (like EB, both fshgrl and I, and, probably, most people on the meta thread) doesn't live in Montreal."

I'm starting to get annoyed. My experience matters. Your experience matters. So you say that there's an equivalency. But only one of us generalized about the matter based upon our experience.

Question: "Is it safe to publish a newspaper that's critical of the government?"

Someone answers: "Absolutely safe. Freedom of the Press, you know."

Someone else says: "Huh? Where I live, there's no 'Freedom of the Press' and if you publish something critical of the government, you're likely to get a visit from the police. So you shouldn't just tell people that it's safe to do this. Some places it's safe, some places it's not."

Someone replies: "But I've done it, I know it's safe."

Someone else says: "Yeah, and I have and it's not. Don't say it's safe everywhere."

Someone replies:" Why does your experience count any more than mine in answering this question?"

Someone else says: "Okay, I need a drink. Bye."

posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:21 PM on October 30, 2005

Or put another way: that's crazy troll logic.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:27 PM on October 30, 2005

Which one of these options looks like withholding rent the way that you and others are talking about it?

As I already said, it's condition number two. You disagree with my interpretation. On your side is the fact that the law you quoted doesn't explicitly say that withholding the rent is an option. On my side is the fact that, in another state with a law that is worded almost exactly the same way, withholding the rent is an option. Since I know that to be true for a fact, since the Texas law looks the same, and since you eventually admitted that you didn't actually put it to the test, your blanket statement "Answer: none of them" is unwarranted.

My experience matters. Your experience matters. So you say that there's an equivalency. But only one of us generalized about the matter based upon our experience.

Actually, neither of us did. I think you're conflating me with some other people. Take a look at my first two comments on this thread.

Your fabricated example with the disembodied voices is not analogous to this argument, either in form or content. The conversation didn't begin with someone asking whether or not it was a good idea to withhold rent. Someone suggested it as a response to an irresponsible landlord. There was no comment equivalent to your "But I've done it, I know it's safe," certainly not from me. Some have argued that they've successfully withheld rent, but when they make that argument in this thread, they are doing so to argue that jellicle's answer should not be deleted, i.e. that the callout that spawned this thread was unwarranted. That's why I'm here. I didn't even post in the other thread. Saying that jelicle's answer should not be deleted and that this callout was ridiculous (which I am saying) is not the same thing as saying that Napierzaza should definitely withhold rent as a solution to his problem (which I'm not saying).
posted by bingo at 12:57 PM on October 30, 2005

"...but in most if not all parts of the US"

That looks like a generalization to me.

You're right that the second remedy is a specific example of withholding rent, but it's the only version of rent withholding available under Texas law and the withheld money has to be proven to have been used for repairs. And there's more hoops to be jumped through to get that far.

Start reading about Texas law here. Pay particular attention to this introductory paragraph:

Under general principles of contract law, a breach of contract by one party will normally allow the other party to withhold its performance to compensate or mitigate the damages caused by the breach. This general rule is not recognized for residential leases. Texas courts apply the theory of independent covenants to rent withholding. Even if the landlord has breached a covenant or term of lease, a court can hold that such breach does not justify nonperformance by the tenant, absent a specific statute or lease provision to the contrary. Mitchell v. Weiss, 26 S.W.2nd 699 (Tex. Civ. App.--El Paso 1930, no writ). The court in Mitchell held that the payment of rent is an independent covenant that must be fulfilled regardless of the other party's actions.

Looking that the requirements, I see among them that you can't have been delinquent in your payment of rent at any time during which you made your written requests for repairs. So you've given two notices to the landlord, seven days between them, and the second one has to tell them that you're going to repair it yourself and deduct it from the rent. You have to wait for a reponse then, too. You can deduct only up to one month's rent. A housing official has to have given the landlord notice that the problem is a danger to health or safety. If the landlord begins to, is attempting to, or has made an afidavit of delay, then the tenant cannot repair and deduct.

If the tenant withholds rent in violation of any of these conditions, not only can they be evicted, but the landlord can sue for damages, too. On that page, the "repair and deduct" section has this heavily bolded:

"WARNING: This remedy has numerous exceptions and stipulations. Before advising a client to utilize this remedy be sure all the prerequisites are met as per the exact language of the statute -- Texas Property Code SS 92.0561, et seq."

When someone asks about, or is told about withholding rent in lieu of repairs that haven't been made, they think "I don't have to pay rent until they fix this problem." They don't think "I have to follow a specific set of legal steps, taking at least ten days to two weeks, of which the landlord can utilize technicalities to stymie or nullify ("I'm negotiating with contractors"), which if I mess up I can both be evicted and sued for damages, and at the end of which I can only use up to one month's rent to make the repairs myself and I have to document that use of the money."

So if that person lived in Texas, then the advice "You can withhold rent until the landlord makes the repairs" is likely going to get the person evicted, not solve their problem.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:52 PM on October 30, 2005

That looks like a generalization to me.

What you accused me of is generalizing based solely on my own one specific experience. Technically speaking, what I said is a generalization, but I didn't get to it just by extrapolating from a single thing that happened only to me, and I still contend that it's true.

Okay, you've convinced me that it's a bad idea in Texas, so sure, if the questioner lived in Texas, which they don't, then the answer in question would not have been helpful in and of itself. However, someone from Texas probably would have picked up the ball and given and answer like the one you just now gave. And, in fact, within the thread in question, that's basically what happened, except the discussion was about Montreal.

Most answers on AskMe are not helpful, most people who answer have no idea what they're talking about, and most askers are obviously asking the wrong question to solve their problem. But that doesn't mean that all those misplaced questions and answers should be deleted. Someone posted an answer that would, in many situations, be reasonable, though it turned out to not make sense in that specific situation. I think that such comments should stay, and I think that calling for their deletion amounts to an undeserved attack on the answerer. You may disagree, but in this case anyway, the comment stayed, and this MeTa thread has scrolled off the front page, so I suggest that we sublimate any antagonism we have here into some thread that at least two or three other people are likely to read.
posted by bingo at 2:30 PM on October 30, 2005