G.L. c. 186, § 14; G.L. c. 260, § 5A; Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass. 714 (1977)
Quiet enjoyment and illegal lockouts in Massachusetts — three months' rent, minimum
A claim in Massachusetts trial courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Section 14 is the provision that makes self-help eviction expensive in Massachusetts. It reaches three things a landlord might do: cut off an essential service, interfere with quiet enjoyment, or try to retake the property by force without going to court.
The remedy is fixed at the bottom. A tenant recovers "actual and consequential damages or three month's rent, whichever is greater, and the costs of the action, including a reasonable attorney's fee." And the same conduct is a crime, punishable by a fine of $25 to $300 or up to six months in jail.
What the claim is
Your landlord shut off the heat or water, locked you out, moved your things, or made the home unusable — and did it without a court order.
Where the right comes from
G.L. c. 186, § 14. The leading case on the standard is Blackett v. Olanoff, 371 Mass. 714 (1977).
What the section prohibits
Reading the statute carefully, there are four distinct routes to liability, and they do not share a mental state.
Willfully or intentionally failing to furnish a required service. The section lists them: water, hot water, heat, light, power, gas, elevator service, telephone service, janitor service, or refrigeration service — where the landlord is required by law, contract, lease or tenancy at will to furnish them, and the service is necessary to the proper or customary use of the premises.
Directly or indirectly interfering with the furnishing of those services by another.
Transferring responsibility for payment of a utility to the occupant without their knowledge or consent — which reaches the landlord who quietly puts the building's gas account in the tenant's name.
Directly or indirectly interfering with the quiet enjoyment of residential premises, or attempting to regain possession by force without benefit of judicial process. Note that this clause carries no willfulness requirement in its own terms, and Blackett holds that it is the landlord's conduct, not their intentions, that controls.
What a tenant has to prove
- A residential tenancy — the section excludes a room in a hotel but includes a manufactured home and the land for it;
- A duty to furnish the service, or conduct within one of the other clauses;
- An act or omission that cut off the service or interfered with quiet enjoyment; and
- Serious interference — the courts require substantial rather than trivial disturbance.
Intent is not the test for the quiet-enjoyment clause. A landlord who could not afford heating oil, whose contractor failed to appear, or whose other tenants' noise made the unit unusable can be liable. Blackett itself held a landlord responsible for the conduct of a downstairs bar the landlord had leased.
How long you have to file
Four years, under G.L. c. 260, § 5A, which sets a four-year period for consumer-protection actions and names "sections fourteen, fifteen B, fifteen C, and eighteen of chapter one hundred and eighty-six" among them.
This is worth being exact about, because § 14 is often described as a three-year tort claim. The Legislature put it on the consumer clock. The period runs from the interference.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. A chapter 93A count requires the 30-day demand letter unless it is asserted as a counterclaim — which, in a summary process case, it usually is.
What the claim pays
The greater of actual and consequential damages or three months' rent. The floor is the point: a tenant locked out for two days who suffered $400 in losses still recovers three months' rent.
Costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, mandatory.
Setoff and recoupment. The statute says the damages "may be applied in setoff to or in recoupment against any claim for rent owed or owing." A tenant who owes rent still gets the benefit, and this is how a § 14 counterclaim defeats a non-payment eviction.
Injunctive relief. The section gives the Superior and District Courts jurisdiction in equity to restrain violations — which is how a locked-out tenant gets back in the same day.
Criminal exposure for the landlord: a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $300, or imprisonment for up to six months.
Retaliation protection. Section 14 provides that c. 186 § 18 and c. 239 § 2A apply to any reprisal for reporting or proceeding against a § 14 violation.
No waiver. A lease provision waiving § 14 is void, with a narrow exception for service restrictions imposed by government and not caused by the landlord.
Chapter 93A alongside — but no double recovery
The same facts usually support a chapter 93A claim, and a tenant should plead both, because 93A adds the willful-or-knowing multiplier on top of the § 14 floor.
What a tenant cannot do is collect the same loss twice. Simon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91 (1982), holds that a plaintiff may not recover cumulative damages for the same injury under multiple theories. The court awards the greater recovery, not the sum.
Which court
Housing Court, with no monetary ceiling. District Court or the Boston Municipal Court within the $50,000 threshold. Superior Court above it. And, in practice, most often as a counterclaim in summary process, where the three-months'-rent floor frequently exceeds the rent the landlord is suing for.
Who can be sued
The landlord or lessor, and the section reaches an agent as well — "any person who commits any act in violation of this section."
A property manager who carried out the lockout or the shutoff.
Common defenses
- The interference was not serious — a brief, minor disturbance.
- The tenant caused the condition, or refused access so the landlord could not restore service.
- The landlord acted lawfully — a proper entry to inspect or show the unit, with notice.
- The service was not one the landlord was required to furnish.
- Damages are duplicative of another count on the same injury.
- Limitations — four years.
What people get wrong
Owing rent is not a defence. The damages offset the rent claim; they do not disappear because the tenant is behind.
Intent is not required for the quiet-enjoyment clause. A landlord who ran out of money for heating oil is still liable — conduct, not intention, controls.
Three months' rent is a floor, not a cap. Actual damages control if they are larger.
Fees are mandatory. This is what makes a small tenancy claim worth bringing.
Putting the utility in the tenant's name without telling them is its own violation — a separate clause, frequently overlooked.
It is also a crime. Few landlords are prosecuted, but the criminal penalty is in the same sentence as the civil one, and it changes how these cases settle.
Where it came from
Before § 14, a landlord who wanted a tenant out and did not want to wait for the courts had a cheap option: turn off the heat in January. The tenant's remedies were a suit for breach of the lease worth little and a criminal complaint nobody brought.
Section 14 answered that with three devices working together. A damages floor, so the claim is worth something even when the measurable loss is small. Mandatory attorney's fees, so a lawyer will take it. And a criminal penalty, so the conduct is not merely a cost of doing business.
Blackett then removed the escape that would have swallowed the rest. If liability required proof of intent, every landlord would say the boiler broke, the contractor was late, or the noisy tenants were somebody else's problem. By making conduct rather than intention the test, the SJC put the risk of a failed building on the person who owns the building.
The statute has not needed amendment since, which is unusual, and the reason is that the numbers still work. Three months' rent plus a lawyer's fee is more than any landlord saves by skipping the courthouse.
Common questions
Can my landlord shut off my heat or water?
No. Willfully failing to furnish heat, hot water, water, light, power, gas and several other services violates c. 186 § 14 and carries a minimum of three months' rent plus attorney's fees.
Can my landlord change the locks?
No. Attempting to regain possession by force without judicial process violates the section. A court can order you let back in the same day.
What if I owe rent?
You still recover. The statute lets the damages be applied in setoff or recoupment against the rent claim.
How much is the claim worth?
The greater of your actual and consequential damages or three months' rent, plus costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.
Does the landlord have to have meant to do it?
Not for the quiet-enjoyment clause. Courts look at conduct rather than intention.
How long do I have to sue?
Four years. Chapter 260 § 5A names § 14 expressly.