Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

Ok so received a letter this week saying that as per the new maintenance policy all villas in complex will be subject to paying for all the maintenance required from now on.

Is this legal? We don't pay a maintenance charge but isnt the owner responsible for things like wiring, plumbing and air con? Plus whitegoods that are included in the rental?

Depends on your lease terms!

What the owner might have to pay for maitenance, common charges, fees, etc. is outside your lease terms. Read your lease and see whether it imposes an obligation on you, as tenant, to pay any such increases. That obligation might be imposed by stating that the tenant will be responsible for any new fees, charges etc. due to changes in legislation or development/condo board rules, etc.

If your lease is silent as to who pays for it then you would not have to pay. The landlord's "remedy" is to increase the rent on the new tenant (or your renewal) - well, the Landlords in Dubai do not need anything to increase the rent.


Your deal is your deal...

p.s. If you have don't have a written lease, in legal terms you will be: screwed!

hmm the lease says nothing of the sort. it's a funny complex (12 villas), there are some tenants paying up to 100,000 less per year for their villas than newer tenants. we think the newer tenants did not get the letter.
We payed 7% increase last year and 5% this year

It sounds like your landlord is trying to pull a fast one...as well as putting up the rent! Hope he realises he is not allowed to increase for the next 24 months now he has put this year's 5% on?

The norm here is for the landlord to be responsible for the 'fabric' of the building and he is also bound by law to repaint the interior every 2 years (its not and never is in the contract, but the details are available from the Municipality Rents Commission) so this includes the walls, floors, windows, doors, AC and any other structural parts. If you wish to alter the building in any way, you have to get his written permission but after that he should be fully responsible.

If he is now trying to charge you for the maintenance, just look at the lease agreement and ask 'Where does it say I am responsible for the upkeep of YOUR property?' Its his. He has to pay for it.



Knight

a landlord would be in his rights to charge for maintenance within the property if the lease was issued to an individual, and that "individual" then sublet rooms within the property.

The reason being that the landlord would be within his rights under an individual lease that the leaseholder acted unreasonably in subletting a property in allowing the appt/villa to become a property of multiple occupation.

I believe this has already been challenge at the municipality rent committee and was a sucess for the landlord, once the word gets around rents will increase on those properties of multiple occupation and bypasses the cap on annual rent increases.

Yeah but the LL would have to prove that there is a sub-lease in place. And if it's you and your mate, I doubt that there's a lease written between the two of you.

But we digress and this is not applicable in this instance...

It is very relevant as the majority of appts/villas in dubai are room share properties. There are very few "couples" and singles soley renting their own places excluding family occupations obviously.

arniegang wrote:a landlord would be in his rights to charge for maintenance within the property if the lease was issued to an individual, and that "individual" then sublet rooms within the property.

The reason being that the landlord would be within his rights under an individual lease that the leaseholder acted unreasonably in subletting a property in allowing the appt/villa to become a property of multiple occupation.

I believe this has already been challenge at the municipality rent committee and was a sucess for the landlord, once the word gets around rents will increase on those properties of multiple occupation and bypasses the cap on annual rent increases.

A lease is nothing more than a contract between two parties.

As a matter of law, "reasonableness' has nothing to do with it, whether you breach the lease willfully, negligently, unreasonably makes no difference as far as the remedy. This applies to any contract (and providing there is no provision allowing for "cure' of the breach before the right to terminate the contract/lease matures).

What likely happened in the scenerio you described is that the landlord wished to take back the premises (terminate the lease) due to the breach of the leas - the "subtenancies". If subletting was not allowed per the agreement (no sure whether allowed if silent) then the landord can terminate the lease. In that case the landlord is entitled to a new lease and in the new lease the landlord puts a clause stating that maintenance is to be paid by the tenant.

If it is not on the lease then the tenant would not be liable (provide the lease is not terminable for other reasons - in which case see above).

You are almost spot on there Concord, except the landlord found out the contract to the leaseholder was in breach because the subletting clause was broken. But the landord was not seeking a new tennant but increased rental. The landlord won his arbitration hearing and increased the rent over and above the % set by the rent commitee because of a "breach of contract". His default option was the serve the tennant "notice to quit" and would have therefore won either way

Like i said once the word gets around, this clause if inserted into any existing tennacy agreement re "no subletting" opens the floodgates for rent increases and or teminations for those in shared accomodation.

Power to the Landlords

generally it follows this process:

1. Landlord makes unreasonable demand.
2. Landlord finds reason to vacate (i.e. moving in).
3. Landlord gets taken to rent committee.
4. Landlord whinges.

Lots of whinging about 'only 5%' going on around the traps.