Free Louisiana Repair and Deduct Letter

Louisiana is not a common law state, and its landlord-tenant rules do not look like anyone else’s. There is no Louisiana residential landlord and tenant act, no uniform act adopted from a model code, and no repair statute built out of a notice period and a spending cap. What there is instead is the Civil Code, and one article in it — art. 2694, “Lessee’s right to make repairs” — that runs to three sentences and contains the whole of the remedy. This page sets out what those three sentences say, in the article’s own words; separates the two different things the article lets a lessee do with the money; and corrects the one figure that circulates most widely and is not in the article at all.

Fill in the fields below and the generator produces a dated repair and deduct letter you can print, sign, serve and keep a copy of. Nothing is stored and there is no charge. Fields you leave blank print as a dash so you can complete them by hand.

Watch: Free Louisiana Repair and Deduct Letter — Fillable PDF explained

▶ Watch overview

This letter is not a statutory form, because Louisiana has no statutory form to be. Art. 2694 prescribes nothing about how the demand is made and does not even require it to be written. What the letter does is build the record the article silently assumes exists. Every contested Louisiana repair claim turns on three facts — that a demand was made, what defect it described, and when — and none of the three survives as a conversation neither side wrote down. In a state that sets a deadline, a tenant who waits the prescribed number of days is safe on timing whatever the paperwork says. In Louisiana there is no such shelter: the reasonableness of the wait is judged after the fact, and it is judged on evidence. The generator above produces a dated, specific demand naming the defect and the article, leaves room to record how it was delivered, and gives the lessee a copy to keep. Serving one costs nothing and converts an oral demand the article permits but nobody can prove into one that can be shown.

• The full names of the lessee and of the lessor or the person who manages the property.
• The address of the premises with any unit number, and the parish it is in.
• The date — the fact the “reasonable time after demand” is measured from.
• A specific description of the defect, in terms of what it stops the dwelling doing rather than as a general complaint.
• How long the condition has existed, and any earlier demand already made about it.
• Why the repair is necessary to keep the premises suitable for use as a dwelling, which is the first limb of art. 2694’s test.
• That the lessee is invoking La. Civ. Code art. 2694 and intends to cause the repair to be made if the lessor does not act within a reasonable time.
• Which route the lessee expects to take — immediate reimbursement, or applying the amount to the rent — even though the article does not require the choice to be announced.
• An estimate of the likely cost where one is known, and any quotes obtained, which is the beginning of the reasonableness record.
• A clear request that the lessor repair, and how to reach the lessee to arrange access.
• How the demand was delivered and to what address, plus the lessee’s signature and date.

• Quoting a ten-day or thirty-day repair notice. Those figures belong to art. 2728, which is the notice that terminates a lease with no fixed term. Art. 2694 contains no period at all, in words or numerals.
• Reading “no cap” as “no limit.” The limit is that the repair was necessary and the amount reasonable, and the lessee is the one who has to show it. That is a harder test than a fixed ceiling, not an easier one.
• Skipping the demand. The reasonable time runs “after demand by the lessee.” There is no clock that starts when the defect appears, so a repair made before any demand was ever put to the lessor is outside the article.
• Assuming deduction is the only route. The article gives an election: “demand immediate reimbursement” or “apply that amount to the payment of rent.” Reimbursement keeps the lessee out of any argument about unpaid rent.
• Deducting for an improvement. Money spent making the thing better rather than sound runs through art. 2695, which settles at the end of the lease at cost or enhanced value whichever is less, and only if the lessor appropriates it.
• Deducting for damage the lessee caused. Art. 2691 excepts repairs “for which the lessee is responsible,” and art. 2692 makes the lessee liable for damage caused by their own fault or that of people on the premises with their consent.
• Confusing this with the rent reduction in art. 2693. That article is about loss of use while the lessor repairs and gives abatement or dissolution. It is not a way to recover money the lessee spent.
• Publishing that the right cannot be waived. The Civil Code’s anti-waiver rule in art. 2699 is written for the warranty against vices or defects, not for art. 2694, and nothing found says the repair remedy may not be renounced. The honest answer is that the question is open.

It is a self-help remedy in the Civil Code: if the lessor does not make a necessary repair within a reasonable time after the lessee demands it, the lessee may have the repair done and either demand the money back immediately or take it out of the rent. The authority is La. Civ. Code art. 2694, in Title IX of Book III, the title on Lease, and it is three sentences long including its source note.

Art. 2694, “Lessee’s right to make repairs,” in full: “If the lessor fails to perform his obligation to make necessary repairs within a reasonable time after demand by the lessee, the lessee may cause them to be made. The lessee may demand immediate reimbursement of the amount expended for the repair or apply that amount to the payment of rent, but only to the extent that the repair was necessary and the expended amount was reasonable.” Its source note reads “Acts 2004, No. 821, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2005,” and carries no later amendment — the article is the product of the 2004 revision of the lease title and has not been touched since.

That really is the entire remedy. Every condition in it is one of four words: necessary, demand, reasonable time, reasonable amount. There is no inspection step, no certification, no municipal or health-department involvement, no minimum length of tenancy, no requirement that the lessee be current on rent, no requirement that the lease be written, and no requirement that it be residential. Louisiana’s remedy opens on the lessee’s own demand and nothing else. That is a lower procedural barrier than most states set — and the trade is that correspondingly more of the risk sits on the lessee’s own judgment about what was necessary and what was reasonable.

No number of days. Art. 2694 sets no waiting period at all, and every day-count circulating for Louisiana repairs has been borrowed from a different article about a different subject. This is the single most misreported fact on this topic, so here is exactly what was searched and exactly what was found.

All sixty-two articles of the lease title were fetched individually and swept for every period in both word and numeral form. Louisiana writes its periods in words, so a numeral-only search finds nothing and proves nothing; both were run. Four day-periods exist anywhere in the title, and not one of them is about repairs:

Art. 2728 carries the five, ten and thirty calendar days. It governs the notice one party gives to terminate a lease with no fixed term. Art. 2721 carries a day, a week and thirty days, and governs reconduction — what happens when a tenant stays on after a term ends. Art. 2710 carries fifteen days and concerns enforcement of the lessor’s privilege. Art. 2680 carries a month, and supplies a duration where the parties agreed none. Arts. 2691, 2692, 2693 and 2694 — the four repair articles — contain zero periods in either form.

So a “ten-day Louisiana repair notice” or a “thirty-day repair notice” is wrong law twice over: it attaches a termination period to a repair, and it hands the reader a deadline the Civil Code never wrote. What art. 2694 requires instead is that the lessor be given “a reasonable time after demand.” That is a standard, and it necessarily varies with the defect — which is why no single figure could have been written into it. Termination notice, where it is genuinely the question, is a separate subject with its own rules; see our guide to Louisiana lease termination laws.

There is no numeric cap, and there is a real limit. Both statements are true and they are not in tension. Louisiana states no months-of-rent ceiling, no dollar figure, no percentage, no per-repair maximum and no annual allowance. The whole of the limit is the tail of art. 2694’s second sentence: recovery runs “only to the extent that the repair was necessary and the expended amount was reasonable.”

That is a two-limb test, and both limbs sit on the lessee’s own expenditure.

Necessity asks whether this was a repair the lessor was bound to make. Art. 2691 supplies the measure: repairs that “become necessary to maintain the thing in a condition suitable for the purpose for which it was leased.” For a dwelling the purpose is residential occupation — art. 2671 characterises a lease as “residential, when the thing is to be occupied as a dwelling.” Work that makes the place nicer rather than fit is not covered by this article at all.

Reasonableness asks about the amount. An over-priced or gold-plated job is recoverable up to the reasonable figure and no further. Note the mechanism: the words “to the extent” make the disallowance partial, so a lessee who overpaid does not lose the claim, only the excess. That is more forgiving than a hard cap in one direction and less predictable in the other, because nobody can tell the lessee in advance where the line falls.

There is also no frequency limit. Art. 2694 imposes no twelve-month window, no anti-accumulation rule and no carry-forward. It is written per repair — “the amount expended for the repair” — and nothing in the lease title counts how many times the article has been used.

Art. 2694 offers two remedies under one governing “may,” and most guides mention only the second. The lessee may “demand immediate reimbursement of the amount expended for the repair” or “apply that amount to the payment of rent.” They are not the same act and they do not carry the same exposure.

Immediate reimbursement is a money claim against the lessor, payable now. The lessee keeps paying rent in full. If the lessor refuses, the lessee has to pursue the claim — but at no point is the lessee in default on the lease, and possession is never on the table. The cost of this route is that the lessee is out of pocket in the meantime and may have to sue to get the money.

Applying the amount to the rent is repair and deduct in the strict sense. It needs no lawsuit and no permission: the lessee simply pays the reduced figure. The cost of this route is the one that catches people. If the repair is later held unnecessary, or the amount unreasonable, the disallowed portion was never paid rent — and art. 2704 provides that where “the lessee fails to pay the rent when due, the lessor may … dissolve the lease and may regain possession in the manner provided by law.” A judgment call about a repair has then turned into a question about possession.

Art. 2694 says nothing about how a deduction is to be presented. It requires no statement, no itemisation, and no notice to the lessor that a deduction is being taken. That silence is not an invitation to say nothing: a deduction the lessor learns about only as a short payment looks like a short payment. Sending the invoice and a short covering note with the reduced rent costs nothing and changes the character of what the lessor receives.

Art. 2694 enforces an obligation it does not itself define. The obligation is art. 2691: “During the lease, the lessor is bound to make all repairs that become necessary to maintain the thing in a condition suitable for the purpose for which it was leased, except those for which the lessee is responsible.” It sits inside the lessor’s three principal obligations in art. 2682 — to deliver the thing, “to maintain the thing in a condition suitable for the purpose of which it was leased,” and to protect the lessee’s peaceful possession.

Notice what the threshold is not. Louisiana does not ask whether a housing code has been violated, and does not ask whether health or safety is endangered. The test is contractual: was the repair necessary to keep the thing suitable for the purpose it was leased for? For a dwelling that is a broad standard and a practical one.

The exception at the end of art. 2691 is where most disputes live, and art. 2692 states its content affirmatively: the lessee is bound to repair “damage to the thing caused by his fault or that of persons who, with his consent, are on the premises or use the thing,” and to repair “any deterioration resulting from his or their use to the extent it exceeds the normal or agreed use of the thing.” Art. 2687 puts the liability with it. The carve-out therefore reaches guests and invitees, not just the lessee, and it reaches ordinary use once that use goes past what was normal or agreed. A lessee cannot demand a repair, refuse to pay for it, and then deduct for damage their own household caused. Art. 2686 adds a separate consequence for using the thing for the wrong purpose or in a way that may damage it: injunctive relief, dissolution, and damages.

Running alongside all of this is a duty of the lessee’s own. Art. 2688 provides that the lessee “is bound to notify the lessor without delay when the thing has been damaged or requires repair,” and that “the lessor is entitled to damages sustained as a result of the lessee’s failure to perform this obligation.” That is not a step in the art. 2694 remedy and should not be described as one — it is a free-standing obligation with its own sanction. Its practical bite is real: a lessee who lets a small leak run for months can owe the lessor for the extra damage even while being right about the repair. The broader duty picture is set out in our guide to Louisiana habitability laws.

In a state with a deadline and a cap, the paperwork mostly proves compliance with two numbers. Louisiana has no numbers, so the evidence is the case. Art. 2694 imposes no receipt-retention duty and no deadline to furnish anything — but the two-limb test is a burden the lessee carries the moment the lessor disputes the deduction, and it is carried with contemporaneous records or not at all. Everything in this section is practical necessity, not a statutory requirement, and this page is careful not to blur the two.

Evidence that the demand was made, and when. This is the foundational one, because the reasonable time runs from the demand and from nothing else. A dated written demand, kept as a copy, with a record of how it was sent and to what address, fixes the start of the clock. An oral demand is permitted by the article and worth what the other side remembers of it.

Evidence of the defect itself. Photographs and video with dates, taken before the repair, are the only proof that survives the repair. Once the work is done the condition is gone, and a description written afterwards is an assertion rather than a record. Where a defect recurs or worsens, capture it at each stage: the progression is often what makes the necessity obvious.

Evidence of necessity. The question is whether the premises were suitable for use as a dwelling without the repair. A plumber’s or electrician’s written diagnosis does that work far better than the lessee’s own opinion, and it does it in language a court reads as technical rather than partisan. Where a defect affects habitability rather than convenience, say what it prevented: not being able to bathe, heat the unit, cook, or lock the door is concrete in a way that “the bathroom is a mess” is not.

Evidence of reasonableness. This is the limb most lessees neglect. More than one quote for the work is the cleanest possible answer to a claim that the price was inflated, and it costs nothing but time. Keep the invoice, the itemised scope of work, and proof of payment. Keep the scope tied to the defect that was demanded: a lessee who demands a repair to a leaking water heater and returns with an invoice for a whole-house replumb has invited exactly the argument the second limb exists to have.

Evidence that the wait was reasonable. Because there is no safe number of days, what a lessee wants on the record is the lessor’s response or silence: the follow-up message, the unanswered call log, the promised visit that did not happen. A short wait can be entirely reasonable where the defect is severe; the way to show it is to be able to say what the defect was doing while the wait ran.

Louisiana gives a lessee four distinct routes when the premises are defective, and only art. 2694 is self-help. Borrowing the conditions of one for another is a common way to end up in the wrong article.

Art. 2693 — rent reduction or abatement, where the lessor does the repair. This is the mirror image of art. 2694 and is often quoted as if it were the same thing. It provides that where a repair cannot be postponed the lessor has the right to make it even if that causes inconvenience or loss of use, and that in such a case the lessee “may obtain a reduction or abatement of the rent, or a dissolution of the lease, depending on all of the circumstances, including each party’s fault or responsibility for the repair, the length of the repair period, and the extent of the loss of use.” That is compensation for disruption, not recovery of money the lessee spent.

Arts. 2696 to 2699 — the warranty against vices or defects. A warranty claim, not a deduction. Art. 2696 provides that the lessor “warrants the lessee that the thing is suitable for the purpose for which it was leased and that it is free of vices or defects that prevent its use for that purpose,” extending to defects arising after delivery and “not attributable to the fault of the lessee.” Art. 2698 adds that in a residential lease the warranty “applies to all persons who reside in the premises in accordance with the lease” — wider than the signatories. This is what a lessee sues or defends on when the thing is unfit, and it has its own waiver rule, discussed below.

Art. 2715 — diminution or dissolution for substantial impairment of use. Where without the lessee’s fault the thing is partially destroyed, lost, expropriated, or its use is “otherwise substantially impaired,” the lessee may obtain “a diminution of the rent or dissolution of the lease, whichever is more appropriate under the circumstances,” and “if the lessor was at fault, the lessee may also demand damages.” Where the impairment comes from circumstances external to the leased thing, the lessee gets dissolution but not diminution. This is court-adjudicated, not self-help.

Art. 2719 — dissolution for failure to perform. Where a party “fails to perform his obligations under the lease or under this Title, the other party may obtain dissolution of the lease” under the general law of conventional obligations. A termination remedy, routed out of the lease title entirely.

And one regime that is not a remedy at all but is constantly merged with art. 2694: art. 2695, improvements. Money spent on an attachment, addition or improvement is settled at termination, not at the next rent day. The lessee may remove improvements on restoring the thing to its former condition; if they are not removed the lessor may appropriate them by reimbursing “their costs or for the enhanced value of the leased thing whichever is less,” which requires additional notice by certified mail, or may demand removal. Characterising the work wrongly puts a lessee in the wrong article and at the end of the lease instead of the next rent day. The distinction is simple to state: necessary repair goes through art. 2694; making the thing better goes through art. 2695.

This record does not answer that, and this page will not pretend otherwise. It is a question worth being precise about, because two provisions look like answers and neither one is.

The Civil Code’s anti-waiver rule is art. 2699, and it is written for the warranty, not for art. 2694. It says the warranty in the preceding articles “may be waived, but only by clear and unambiguous language that is brought to the attention of the lessee,” and that a waiver is nevertheless ineffective as to defects the lessee did not know about and the lessor knew or should have known about, to the extent it is contrary to art. 2004, and — the important limb for a dwelling — “in a residential or consumer lease, to the extent it purports to waive the warranty for vices or defects that seriously affect health or safety.” That protection is real, and it protects the warranty.

No equivalent article protects art. 2694. Nothing in the lease title says the repair remedy may not be renounced in the lease. That cuts both ways and the honest position is symmetrical: this page does not publish that Louisiana’s repair-and-deduct right is non-waivable, and it does not publish that a lease clause defeats it either. The drafters demonstrably knew how to forbid a waiver when they meant to — art. 2718 expressly bars renouncing the termination-notice right in advance — and they did not say it in art. 2694.

The other provision people reach for is La. R.S. 9:3221, and it needs to be placed exactly. Its caption is “Assumption of responsibility by lessee; liability of owner,” and by its own words it provides that, notwithstanding art. 2699, the owner of premises leased under a contract whereby “the lessee assumes responsibility for their condition” is “not liable for injury caused by any defect therein” to the lessee or those deriving their right to be there from the lessee, “unless the owner knew or should have known of the defect or had received notice thereof and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time.” Read what that actually does: it shifts liability for injury caused by a defect. It is a tort-liability provision, it operates against art. 2699, and it does not on its face speak to art. 2694 or to repair and deduct at all. What it does prove is that Louisiana law expressly contemplates a lease clause under which the lessee assumes responsibility for the condition of the premises. Whether such a clause also displaces the art. 2694 remedy is a question neither provision answers, no case was read on it, and a lessee facing one in their lease should take advice on their own document rather than a general rule from any page. The wider map is in our guide to Louisiana landlord tenant laws.

They can, and this page does not survey them. Everything above is the Civil Code’s lease title — arts. 2668 through 2729, read article by article. Louisiana’s parishes and municipalities have their own authority over housing conditions, and New Orleans in particular operates a rental registry and healthy-homes regime that sits on top of the Civil Code rather than replacing it. Those rules were not searched for this page and nothing here should be read as excluding them.

Two other limits on scope are worth stating plainly rather than leaving a reader to assume. The Louisiana Revised Statutes carry a good deal of lessor-and-lessee law outside the Civil Code — the residential security-deposit rules among them — and Title 9 was not swept in full, so no claim is made here that it contains nothing further about repairs. And federal overlays, including the lead-paint disclosure regime for older housing, apply on top of state law regardless of what art. 2694 says.

The practical consequence for a lessee is small but real: check whether the parish or city has a housing inspection or code-enforcement route, and use it alongside art. 2694 rather than instead of it. A code inspection does not start any clock the article recognises — the article’s clock runs from the lessee’s demand — but an inspector’s written finding is close to ideal evidence on the necessity limb.

Everything above turns on one question — what has to happen before a Louisiana tenant may spend money on a repair — and the answer is what it is because Louisiana sets no deadline and no ceiling, only reasonableness. If the tenancy itself is ending rather than the fixture, the notice that ends it follows separate rules entirely: Louisiana eviction notice laws.

Money withheld over a repair and money withheld from a deposit are decided under different rules, and treating them as one question is expensive — what a landlord may keep and by when it must come back is Louisiana security deposit laws. And if the condition makes staying unrealistic, leaving early carries its own exposure: breaking a lease in Louisiana.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.