Kentucky Repair and Deduct Letter

Kentucky is one of the hardest states in the country to research this question in, and for two separate reasons that compound each other. The first is geographic: the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act is not Kentucky state law in the ordinary sense — it is a menu local governments may adopt, and most of the Commonwealth has not. The second is bibliographic: the section number that circulates for Kentucky repair-and-deduct is the wrong one. Get either wrong and you will be reading a real statute that does not govern your tenancy. This page settles both before it explains anything else.

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 Kentucky Repair and Deduct Letter — Fillable PDF explained

▶ Watch overview

The letter on this page is built around what KRS 383.635 actually asks for, which is more specific than a complaint. It states the tenant’s intention to correct the condition at the landlord’s expense, because that is the notice the section describes and a letter that merely reports a problem has not given it. It identifies the noncompliance and ties it to the landlord’s duty under KRS 383.595, since the section is triggered by a failure to comply with the rental agreement or with that section. It records the date of the notice, because the fourteen days runs from it. It carries the emergency alternative, so that a tenant facing a genuine emergency is not left believing the wait is unconditional. And it leaves room for the itemized statement that must follow, together with proof that the bill was paid in full, because a deduction taken before those two steps has skipped a condition the statute imposes. The form does not leave the local-option question to inference either: alongside the city and county of the premises it asks outright whether your city or county has adopted KRS 383.505 to 383.705. That is not administrative tidiness: it is the fact that decides whether the letter has any statutory footing at all.

• The full names of the landlord and of every tenant on the rental agreement.
• The address of the premises with any unit number, and the city or county — the fact that decides whether URLTA was adopted there.
• The condition complained of, described specifically, and why it materially affects health and safety.
• The duty it breaches: the rental agreement, or the landlord’s obligations under KRS 383.595.
• An express statement of the tenant’s intention to correct the condition at the landlord’s expense, which is the notice KRS 383.635 describes.
• The date the notice is given, since the fourteen (14) days runs from it — or, in the statute’s own alternative, “as promptly as conditions require in case of emergency.”
• Where it applies, a statement that conditions amount to an emergency, so the shortened alternative in the same sentence is invoked openly rather than assumed.
• The estimated reasonable cost of compliance, so the greater-of cap can be seen to be met.
• A statement that the condition was not caused by the tenant, a member of the tenant’s family, or another person on the premises with the tenant’s consent.
• A note that an itemized statement for the work actually done will follow once the tenant has paid it in full.
• The tenant’s signature, the date, and a record of how the letter was delivered.

• Stating the remedy as Kentucky law. KRS 383.500 makes URLTA a local option. Outside an adopting city or county there is no repair-and-deduct remedy in Kentucky, and a tenant who deducts anyway is short on rent.
• Citing KRS 383.640 for a repair. That section is captioned “Wrongful failure to supply essential services.” The repair-and-deduct section is KRS 383.635.
• Publishing the fourteen days bare. The same sentence adds “or as promptly as conditions require in case of emergency.” Quoting the number without the clause tells a tenant with no heat to wait two weeks.
• Reading the cap as a lesser-of. The statute says “whichever amount is greater.” Read the other way round it would strip the remedy from most tenancies, since half a month’s rent exceeds the flat sum in the great majority of them.
• Deducting before submitting the itemized statement. The statement is submitted to the landlord, and the work must be one “for which the tenant has paid in full.” Both conditions come before the deduction, not after it.
• Using both remedies for the same breach. KRS 383.640(3) says a tenant proceeding under the essential-services section “may not proceed under KRS 383.625 or 383.635 as to that breach.” The choice is real and it is made once.
• Treating a guest’s damage as the landlord’s problem. KRS 383.635(2) bars the remedy where the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a family member, or another person on the premises with the tenant’s consent.
• Assuming the landlord’s duty is absolute. KRS 383.595 can be varied by written agreement in the circumstances its own subsections describe, so read the lease alongside the statute.

Only in a city or county that has adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Everywhere else in Kentucky there is no repair-and-deduct remedy at all. That qualifier comes first on this page because getting it wrong is not an academic error. A tenant outside an adopting locality who hires a plumber and takes the bill off the rent has not exercised a statutory right; they are simply short on rent, and the landlord’s answer is a forcible detainer action under KRS 383.200 to 383.290.

KRS 383.500 is the section that does this, and its operative sentences read: it “authorizes cities, counties and urban-county governments to enact the provisions of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act as set forth in KRS 383.505 to 383.705. If adopted, these provisions shall be adopted in their entirety and without amendment.” Two adopting localities have been confirmed from their own primary codes for this page: Louisville / Jefferson County Metro Government, which enacted the Act as Chapter 151 of its code, and Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, whose § 12-54 is captioned “Landlord-tenant act adopted.” Others have adopted as well. No statewide registry of them exists that we could verify, so we name the two we read and tell you to check your own local code — and to check it rather than rely on it, because an adoption can also be repealed.

Note the “in their entirety and without amendment” requirement, because it has a useful consequence. Where a locality has adopted, the local text should track the state text. That is what Louisville’s does: the Metro code carries the Act as Chapter 151. So reading the state section tells you what your local section says, once you have established that you have one — but read your own local text to be sure.

KRS 383.635, not KRS 383.640. The number that circulates in secondary guidance for Kentucky repair-and-deduct is the wrong one, and this is settled by reading the captions rather than by argument.

KRS 383.640 is captioned “Wrongful failure to supply essential services.” It is the uniform act’s utility-outage remedy. When a landlord “willfully fails to supply heat, running water, hot water, electric, gas, or other essential service,” the tenant may give written notice specifying the breach and may “procure reasonable amounts of heat, hot water, running water, electric, gas, and the essential service during the period of the landlord’s noncompliance and deduct their actual and reasonable cost from the rent”; or recover damages based on the diminution in fair rental value; or procure substitute housing, in which case the tenant is excused from paying rent for the period of noncompliance. Subsection (2) adds that “in addition to a remedy provided in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) the tenant may recover reasonable attorney’s fees.” That section has no cap and no waiting period.

KRS 383.635 is captioned “Remedies for noncompliance that affects health and safety.” It is the repair-and-deduct section, and everything readers come looking for — the cap, the fourteen days, the workmanlike standard, the itemized statement — is in it and in no other section. The distinction is not pedantry. Cite 383.640 for a leaking roof and you have cited a utility statute at a repair problem. Cite 383.635 for a mid-January heating failure and you have imposed a cap and a fourteen-day wait on a remedy the legislature deliberately left free of both.

Subsection (1) is one long sentence pair and it repays reading in full: “If the landlord willfully and materially fails to comply with the rental agreement or fails to comply with KRS 383.595 and such noncompliance materially affects health and safety and the reasonable cost of compliance is less than one hundred dollars ($100), or an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the monthly rent, whichever amount is greater, the tenant may notify the landlord of his intention to correct the condition at the landlord’s expense. If the landlord willfully fails to comply within fourteen (14) days after being notified by the tenant in writing or as promptly as conditions require in case of emergency, the tenant may cause the work to be done in a workmanlike manner and, after submitting to the landlord an itemized statement for the work actually done and for which the tenant has paid in full, deduct from his rent the actual and reasonable cost or the fair and reasonable value of the work, not exceeding the amount specified in this subsection.”

Subsection (2) is the exclusion: “A tenant may not repair at the landlord’s expense if the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a member of his family, or other person on the premises with his consent.” Note how far that reaches. It is not confined to the tenant’s own conduct — a guest’s negligence defeats the remedy for the condition that guest caused.

The flat sum in that sentence is one hundred dollars ($100), and KRS 383.635(1) prints it in both forms — the words and the numeral — exactly as quoted above. It is worth knowing the figure and then setting it aside, because it has stood unchanged since the section was enacted and has never been indexed. In nearly every Kentucky tenancy one-half of the monthly rent is the larger of the two limbs, so the shape of the test does the real work, and the shape is what most summaries get backwards.

The job must come in under one-half of the monthly rent or one hundred dollars ($100) — KRS 383.635(1) — whichever of those two is greater, and the same figure caps what may then be deducted. So on a rent of nine hundred dollars a month the limit is half of that, not the flat sum; on a rent of one hundred and fifty dollars a month the flat sum is the larger and it governs. Two features of that are worth pausing on.

First, “whichever amount is greater” runs in the tenant’s favour, and reading it as a lesser-of is a live error in circulating guidance. The one-hundred-dollar limb was fixed when the section was written and has never been indexed for inflation, so in the great majority of Kentucky tenancies half a month’s rent is the larger of the two and therefore the operative limit. Flip the test around and you would strip the remedy from nearly everyone it was written for.

Second, the cap does two jobs, not one. It is an eligibility threshold at the front — the reasonable cost of compliance has to fall under it before the tenant may give the notice at all — and it is a ceiling at the back, because the deduction is capped at “the amount specified in this subsection.” A job that is obviously going to blow through the limit is not a small overrun; it is a job the section never authorised. For work of that size the route is the landlord’s duty under KRS 383.595 and the remedies that enforce it in court, not self-help.

On frequency, the section is silent. It sets no per-month, per-year or per-tenancy limit. We do not invent one, and we equally do not tell you the right is unlimited, because the statute simply does not address it. The related limits on what a landlord may charge back are set out in our guide to Kentucky security deposit laws.

Fourteen (14) days after written notice — “or as promptly as conditions require in case of emergency.” Those two limbs are in the same sentence, and the second is the half that gets dropped. A tenant reading a page that quotes only the number will believe they must sit through two weeks without heat or water before anything can be done. The statute does not say that.

What it does not do is define “emergency” or set a shorter floor in its place. There is no statutory list of qualifying conditions and no minimum number of hours. So a tenant relying on the emergency limb is making a judgment the statute leaves open, and the sensible protection is evidential: say in the notice that conditions amount to an emergency and why, date it, keep proof of delivery, and photograph the condition. If it later has to be defended, it will be defended on that record.

Two more conditions ride on the waiting period and are easy to skate over. The notice must be in writing — the period runs “within fourteen (14) days after being notified by the tenant in writing or as promptly as conditions require in case of emergency.” And the remedy opens only if the landlord “willfully fails to comply” in that window. A landlord who has a contractor scheduled and is visibly acting on the notice is not obviously failing willfully, and a tenant who proceeds regardless is taking a risk the section does not cover.

KRS 383.635 does not require a licensed contractor. The tenant “may cause the work to be done in a workmanlike manner,” and the standard attaches to the quality of the work, not the identity of the worker. A tenant with the relevant skill may do it personally; a tenant without it should not, because the standard does not soften for a well-meaning amateur.

Two proof steps are mandatory before any money comes off the rent, and both are commonly missed. The tenant must submit to the landlord an “itemized statement for the work actually done,” and it must be work “for which the tenant has paid in full.” A tenant holding an unpaid invoice has not satisfied the section, and neither has a tenant who paid the bill but never delivered the statement. Keep three documents together: the written notice with proof of when it went, the itemized statement, and evidence of payment in full. The deduction itself is then taken directly from rent — the section requires no escrow account, no court order, no code inspection and no landlord consent.

On what may be deducted, the section offers two measures rather than one: “the actual and reasonable cost or the fair and reasonable value of the work,” capped either way at the subsection’s amount. That second measure matters where the tenant did the work personally and the out-of-pocket cost understates its value.

KRS 383.635 is triggered by a failure to comply with the rental agreement or with KRS 383.595, the landlord’s maintenance obligations. That section requires a landlord to comply with applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety; to “make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition”; to keep common areas clean and safe; to “maintain in good and safe working order and condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and other facilities and appliances” supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord, including elevators; and to supply running water, reasonable amounts of hot water at all times, and reasonable heat between October 1 and May 1, subject to the exceptions the subsection itself sets out.

That list is not untouchable, and a page presenting it as absolute would be misleading. The section’s later subsections allow repair duties to be shifted by written agreement in the circumstances they describe — more freely for a single-family residence, and for other dwelling units only where conditions are met, one of them being that the work is not necessary to cure noncompliance with the building-and-housing-codes obligation. So read the lease alongside the statute before assuming a given duty still sits with the landlord. The fuller picture is in our guide to Kentucky habitability laws.

Use KRS 383.640, and no, you cannot use both for the same breach. A utility failure is what 383.640 was written for, and it is the better remedy on its own terms: it is uncapped, it imposes no waiting period, and it gives three routes rather than one — procure the service and deduct the actual and reasonable cost, recover damages based on the diminution in fair rental value, or procure substitute housing and be excused rent for the period of noncompliance.

The bar on stacking is express. KRS 383.640(3) provides that if the tenant proceeds under that section, “he may not proceed under KRS 383.625 or 383.635 as to that breach.” And subsection (4) adds that the tenant’s rights “do not arise until he has given notice to the landlord,” or where the condition was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a family member, or another person on the premises with the tenant’s consent — the same fault exclusion 383.635 carries.

So the choice is a real one and it is made once, per breach. As a rule of thumb: if the landlord has failed to supply a service, 383.640 is the section, and its lack of a cap is the whole point of choosing it. If a component has broken and needs fixing, 383.635 is the section, and its cap is the price of the self-help right. Where a single failure could be described either way — a dead boiler is both no heat and a broken appliance — the uncapped route is usually the more valuable, but the election forecloses the other, so decide before you spend rather than afterwards.

Then no statutory repair-and-deduct remedy was located, and none is invented here. The complete caption census of KRS chapter 383 was read for this page — every entry from KRS 383.010 through the forcible entry and detainer sections and the domestic-violence protections at 383.300 and 383.302. No caption in that list is a repair, habitability, maintenance or deduct-from-rent provision. Nor was a statutory habitability duty located for a tenant outside a URLTA locality to enforce.

The nearest candidate was read in full so that it is not misused. KRS 383.170, captioned “Buildings destroyed without fault of tenant — Replacement of, and rent on,” provides that unless the written contract expressly says otherwise, a lessee’s agreement “that he will repair or leave the premises in repair shall not bind him to erect similar buildings if, without his fault or neglect, the buildings are destroyed by fire or other casualty,” and that a tenant, unless he otherwise contracts, “shall not be liable for the rent for the remainder of his term of any building leased by him, and destroyed during the term by fire or other casualty without his fault or neglect.” That is a rent-abatement-on-destruction rule and a limit on a tenant’s repair covenant. It gives the tenant no right to fix anything and no right to charge the landlord for it.

What governs there is the lease and Kentucky common law, which was not verified for this page because no case law was fetched. We leave that gap unresolved rather than filling it with a number, a notice period or a cap. Practically: put the request in writing and keep proof of it; escalate to the local code-enforcement authority, whose powers are independent of URLTA adoption; read the lease closely, because it is doing work the statute would otherwise do; and take advice from a Kentucky attorney before deducting anything, because on this record a deduction outside a URLTA locality is a deduction without statutory authority. If matters have already reached a notice, our guide to Kentucky eviction notice laws sets out what follows, and the wider picture is in our guide to Kentucky landlord tenant laws.

Everything above turns on one question — what has to happen before a Kentucky tenant may spend money on a repair — and the answer is what it is because whether this remedy exists at all depends on your city or county. If the tenancy itself is ending rather than the fixture, the notice that ends it follows separate rules entirely: Kentucky 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 Kentucky security deposit laws. And if the condition makes staying unrealistic, leaving early carries its own exposure: breaking a lease in Kentucky.

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.