SENATE BILL REPORT

SB 5166

BYSenators Wojahn, Lee, Warnke, Smitherman, Fleming, Gaspard and Talmadge

Specifying unfair practices for residential landlords and tenants.

Senate Committee on Commerce & Labor

Senate Hearing Date(s):February 10, 1987

Senate Staff:Dave Cheal (786-7576)

AS OF FEBRUARY 9, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Until January 1985, it was assumed that the Consumer Protection Act had some application to landlord tenant matters.  On January 11, 1985, the Washington State Supreme Court decided that tenants and landlords are limited to the remedies provided by the Landlord Tenant Act and that no remedy is available in the private right of action provisions of the Consumer Protection Act regardless of how unfair or deceptive the act or practice in question might be, or whether clear statutory violations are involved.  Current remedies under the Residential Landlord Tenant Act include termination of the tenancy, obtaining a determination from a court or arbitrator of a reduced rent based on the landlord's failure to repair as required by statute, withholding of up to one-half month's rent or $75, whichever is less, and making required repairs by obtaining bids from licensed contractors and having the work done up to the value of one month's rent.  Both tenant initiated types of repair may only be done once in a 12 month period.

When the court determined that the Consumer Protection Act did not apply to landlord tenant problems, the Attorney General ended its program of information-dissemination and conciliation.

SUMMARY:

Violations of the Landlord Tenant Act which are an unfair and deceptive act or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce are made violations of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, not every violation of the Landlord Tenant Act would constitute a basis for a cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Washington State Supreme Court has indicated that the determination of what constitutes an "unfair and deceptive act or practice" is by a "gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."  State v. Reader's Digest, 81 Wn. 2nd 259, 275 (1972).

Fiscal Note:      none requested