Israeli Court Orders Landlords to Pay Tenants Over NIS 45,000 for Uninhabitable Ashdod Apartment
A couple who rented an apartment in Ashdod were awarded a total of 45,600 shekels after being forced to leave due to severe water damage, mold, and continuous drying machines that made living conditions unbearable. The tenants had paid 4,900 shekels monthly but claimed the landlords breached the rental agreement by failing to provide a habitable apartment. The court ruled that faulty shower installation caused water leakage under the floor, leading to extensive dampness and mold on walls and furniture. The landlords delayed repairs, and the noisy drying machines operated nonstop, preventing reasonable use of the apartment.
The landlords counterclaimed, alleging the tenants breached the contract by leaving early and sought compensation for lost rent, municipal taxes, electricity, and repair costs. However, the Ashdod Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Judge Yehuda Livlayin, rejected the landlords’ claims entirely. The court found the apartment unfit for habitation and held the landlords responsible for the delay in repairs and the disruptive drying equipment. The tenants were found to bear only minor contributory negligence for briefly using the defective shower after being asked not to.
The judgment awarded the tenants 10,000 shekels for distress, 17,600 shekels for the return of their security deposit with linkage and interest, and 2,000 shekels for moving expenses. Additionally, the landlords must pay 16,000 shekels in legal fees. The court’s decision relied heavily on WhatsApp communications between the parties, including the landlord’s admission that no tenant would rent the apartment while drying machines were running.
The tenants’ attorneys, Yifat Krichli and Jessica Shachot, emphasized the ruling’s broader significance, stating it sends a clear message that landlords cannot unlawfully withhold tenants’ money or use counterclaims as pressure tactics. They highlighted that tenants should not have to accept unlivable conditions out of fear of losing their rights. This case underscores the legal protections available to tenants and the courts’ willingness to enforce them in appropriate circumstances.
