When your tenants start making repairs—and making things difficult

A landlord’s guide to A.R.S. §§ 33-1364 and 33-1381: what a tenant can and can’t do when essential services fail, and how to act without inviting a retaliation claim.

As an Arizona residential landlord, few situations are more frustrating than this: your tenant complains about a maintenance issue, you try to address it, and then the tenant becomes uncooperative—refusing access, making unauthorized repairs, inflating costs, or leveraging the situation to withhold rent. You want to do the right thing, but you also need to protect yourself.

Arizona’s Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (“ARLTA”) gives tenants meaningful remedies when essential services fail. But those remedies come with strict procedural requirements, cost caps, and limitations that many tenants—and, frankly, many landlords—do not fully understand. Two statutes sit at the center of these disputes: A.R.S. § 33-1364, which governs a landlord’s failure to supply essential services, and A.R.S. § 33-1381, which prohibits landlord retaliation. Understanding both is essential to navigating a difficult tenant situation without exposing yourself to liability.

The essential services statute: A.R.S. § 33-1364

Section 33-1364 applies when a landlord deliberately or negligently fails to supply running water, gas or electrical service, reasonable amounts of hot water, heat, air-conditioning or cooling (where installed and offered), or other essential services. After giving the landlord reasonable written notice specifying the breach, the tenant may choose one of three remedies:

1. Procure the services and deduct the cost from rent. The tenant may obtain essential services—such as portable heating or temporary electrical—during the period of the landlord’s noncompliance and deduct the actual and reasonable cost from rent. If the service failure is due to the landlord’s nonpayment of a utility bill, the tenant may also arrange to pay the utility company directly and deduct that cost.
2. Recover damages based on diminished rental value. The tenant may pursue damages measured by the reduction in the fair rental value of the property during the period the essential services were unavailable.
3. Relocate to substitute housing. The tenant may move into substitute housing, with rent excused for the duration. If the substitute housing costs more than the rent, the tenant may recover the excess—up to 25% above the periodic rent for negligent failures, or up to 100% of the periodic rent if the landlord’s noncompliance was deliberate.

These remedies are alternatives, not cumulative. A tenant must elect one. This is important and commonly misunderstood.

What landlords need to know

While § 33-1364 provides tenants with significant protections, it also contains several important limitations that protect landlords.

Notice is a precondition, not a formality. No tenant rights arise under this statute until the tenant has given the landlord written notice specifying the breach. A tenant who skips notice, provides only vague or oral notice, or begins self-help before notifying the landlord has not triggered the statute. This is often the first line of defense for landlords dealing with tenants who jump to action without following the proper steps.

There is no right to repair under § 33-1364. This is one of the most commonly confused points in Arizona landlord-tenant law. The statute explicitly states that the rights it creates “do not include the right to repair.” Section 33-1364 authorizes tenants to procure essential services, recover damages, or relocate—it does not authorize tenants to hire a contractor to fix the HVAC system or replumb the bathroom and then bill the landlord. That repair-and-deduct remedy is found in a completely different statute, A.R.S. § 33-1363, which has its own separate requirements.

Under § 33-1363, a tenant may only repair at the landlord’s expense if:

• The landlord has failed to comply with the habitability requirements of § 33-1324;
• The cost is less than $300 or one-half the monthly rent, whichever is greater;
• The tenant gave written notice;
• The landlord failed to act within ten days (or as promptly as conditions require in an emergency); and
• The work was done by a licensed contractor, with an itemized statement and waiver of lien submitted to the landlord.

Each of those requirements matters, and a failure to meet any one of them is a defense for the landlord.

Tenant-caused conditions are excluded. If the condition at issue was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or any person on the premises with the tenant’s consent, the tenant’s rights under § 33-1364 do not arise at all. A tenant who broke the air conditioning unit cannot then invoke essential-services remedies against the landlord.

The election-of-remedies rule prevents double recovery. Under § 33-1364(G), if a tenant proceeds under this statute, the tenant may not simultaneously pursue remedies under § 33-1361 (general landlord noncompliance) or § 33-1363 (self-help for minor defects) for the same breach. A tenant who is deducting repair costs under one statute while also withholding rent for substitute housing under another—for the same issue—is overreaching.

Substitute housing costs are capped. Even when a tenant properly relocates, recovery is limited to actual and reasonable costs within the statutory caps. A tenant who checks into a resort hotel and presents the landlord with the bill is not entitled to full reimbursement.

The retaliation statute: A.R.S. § 33-1381

This is the statute that requires the most caution from landlords. Section 33-1381 prohibits a landlord from retaliating—by increasing rent, decreasing services, or bringing or threatening an eviction action—after a tenant has:

• Complained to a government agency about a building or housing code violation materially affecting health and safety;
• Complained to the landlord about a violation of the landlord’s habitability obligations under A.R.S. § 33-1324; or
• Organized or joined a tenants’ union or similar organization.

If the tenant made a complaint within six months before the landlord’s alleged retaliatory act, there is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. That means the burden shifts to the landlord to introduce evidence that the action was motivated by a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. The consequences are significant: under A.R.S. § 33-1367, the tenant may recover up to two months’ rent or twice actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney’s fees, and the tenant has a complete defense to any eviction action.

However, the statute contains two critical exceptions. Even when the tenant has made a protected complaint, the landlord may still bring an eviction action if:

1. The code violation was caused primarily by the tenant’s own lack of reasonable care (or by someone in the tenant’s household); or
2. The tenant is in default in rent.

The rent-default exception is particularly significant. If a tenant has improperly deducted repair costs—because they failed to follow the procedural requirements of § 33-1363, or because they are claiming a repair right that § 33-1364 does not authorize—and the tenant is consequently short on rent, the landlord may issue a five-day pay-or-quit notice under A.R.S. § 33-1368(B) and proceed with an eviction action, notwithstanding the tenant’s prior complaint.

Practical tips for landlords dealing with difficult tenants

Document everything, especially your good-faith efforts to cure. If the tenant notifies you of a breach, respond in writing and offer to fix it. If you need access to the property, provide the required 48-hour written notice under A.R.S. § 33-1343 and keep a record of every communication. If the tenant refuses to grant you access, document that refusal. A landlord who is actively trying to remedy the condition has a powerful defense against any claim of noncompliance.

Scrutinize whether the tenant has actually followed the law. Many tenants (and sometimes their advocates) conflate the different remedial statutes. Did the tenant give proper written notice? Did they wait the required period? Are they within the cost cap? Was a licensed contractor used? Was a lien waiver provided? Is the tenant claiming a right to repair under § 33-1364, which does not authorize repairs? Each procedural shortcoming is a legitimate defense.

Avoid anything that looks retaliatory. Do not increase rent, decrease services, or threaten eviction in close proximity to a tenant’s complaint about habitability—even if you believe the complaint is unfounded. If you have a legitimate basis for action (a rent default, an independent lease violation, tenant-caused damage), make sure it is thoroughly documented and clearly independent of the complaint. The six-month presumption window under § 33-1381 is real, and courts apply it.

If the tenant is blocking your access for repairs, that’s a problem for them, not just for you. Under A.R.S. §§ 33-1341(6) and 33-1343, a tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent for the landlord to enter for inspection and repairs. A tenant who complains about a habitability issue and then refuses to let the landlord in to fix it is undermining their own position. A documented pattern of obstruction may itself constitute a breach of the tenant’s obligations under both the lease and the ARLTA.

If the tenant is behind on rent, the law allows you to act. The § 33-1381(C)(2) exception expressly permits an eviction action when the tenant is in default on rent—even if the tenant has previously made a protected complaint. Serve a proper five-day notice under § 33-1368(B) and follow all procedural requirements carefully.

The bottom line

Arizona’s landlord-tenant statutes are designed to protect tenants when essential services fail—and that is as it should be. But those protections come with strict procedural conditions, cost caps, notice requirements, and an election-of-remedies framework that the law expects tenants to follow. A tenant who exceeds the scope of the statute, makes unauthorized repairs, refuses to allow the landlord access, inflates costs, or stacks inconsistent remedies may be acting outside the protection of the law.

For landlords, the path forward is clear: stay on the right side of the retaliation statute, document your good-faith efforts to address legitimate complaints, and hold tenants accountable to the strict requirements of whichever statutory remedy they have elected. When in doubt, consult with an experienced Arizona landlord-tenant attorney before taking action.

Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every situation is different, and Arizona law is subject to change and judicial interpretation. If you are facing a landlord-tenant dispute, you should consult with a qualified Arizona attorney about your specific circumstances.