Lease provision requires renter to pay a $100 "copay" for repair costs -- is this a thing?

[Anonymous]

We had this as a renter once. She asked $200 initially and I countered with $100. She only charged if she had to hire someone vs. when she sent her dad to fix things.

[Anonymous]

I would not agree to those terms and would find alternate housing.

Not having to deal with maintenance is the main reason I rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not agree to those terms and would find alternate housing.

Not having to deal with maintenance is the main reason I rent.

Same.

Sounds like some landlords are disappointed that it’s not easy money and blame tenants for caring too much and too little depending on how it inconveniences them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's quite common. We were a tenant and it was in our lease decades ago. It's to discourage a tenant who might be seen as a difficult personality from making very frequent, picky demands for very minor repairs. Repairs that most would think are unnecessary. It has the tenant think twice about complaining.

This is stupid. You can say no to nit picky or unreasonable requests. But this encourages them to ignore all maintenance making for bigger problems and bills for you later.

I’m paying you rent and I want everything in working order. I shouldn’t have to pay $100 to tell you the mailbox fell off the post, the 40 year old lock broke, and there’s water leaking around the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I once had a lease that stated that the tenant (me) would cover any small repairs up to $100 per month. It was fine. Once we'd been there a while and got to know the landlord, he explained that he'd been burned by a previous tenant who called multiple times a month for stupid things like a burned out light bulb (back in the incandescent days), and the tenant refused to fix them himself because the lease didn't say he had to. The landlord added that clause to the lease to avoid those nuisance calls. He was extremely responsive to any real problems we had.

Yep, had a similar situation except I think it was $50. He never actually charged us and said he'd only added due to being burned as well. Great landlord, we stayed 8 hours. The "landlord" that sits in here all the time disparaging tenants and complaining about WFH could learn a lot from him.

[Anonymous]

Well. How awkward. We stayed 8 years, not hours. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It probably covers the minimum fee a handyman charges just to come to the property to evaluate the repair.

Yes but that’s part of the landlord’s responsibility, unless the tenant caused the problem.

With WFH a lot of tenants are causing more wear-and-tear on homes. Makes sense that now a nuisance fee is attached.

What exactly- besides the toilet- is getting used more? Working from home I use the dishwasher less, it's one time a day versus two times a day when I was going to the office. I absolutely shower less often. I blow dry my hair less often. The temperature stays the same in the house as when I worked out of the house. I cook the same amount I just cook it three times a day versus only two.
Signed mom with a family of three plus a dog.

Fridge is being constantly opened and closed for more snacks, food, lunch, coffee, baby needs etc. A/C or heat is running all day instead of off from 7-6. Showers and toilets are being used all day. Carpet and flooring had greater tread patterns and if you have kids at home - spills and mess.

My amazing tenants a couple with one kid were nightmare train wrecks wrecking things during pandenic from around summer 2021 to spring 2022. Back to great again

They normally work in person and kid in day care. They in pandemic both worked from home, kid then home then mom moved out to help with kid. Now I got 4 people 24/7 and wear and tear was really high.

It is what it is and back to normal




Utilities and electricity is being used more and therefore the appliances that run on them as well.

This is asinine. You're not running a hotel, you're renting a property. Tenants are allowed to LIVE in the property that they're paying for. You have no business being a landlord.

[Anonymous]

That's an old trick. I think it's a red flag that it's a bad landlord that doesn't like to make repairs.

[Anonymous]

IDK, I don't think it means anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this an individual landlord or a property management company?

OP here, just catching up on replies (thanks).

It's a property management company that handles rentals for a small garden apartment development in Prince Georges County.

[Anonymous]

OP here again. If you're curious about the specific language in the lease, here it is:

"Tenant is responsible for the first $100 co-pay towards minor maintenance repairs."

It also says, "Tenant is responsible for all repairs incurred by tenant." I take that to mean that if you call a repair service about a problem without clearing it with the landlord first, you're on the hook for the cost. My family member has no issue with that provision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. If you're curious about the specific language in the lease, here it is:

"Tenant is responsible for the first $100 co-pay towards minor maintenance repairs."

It also says, "Tenant is responsible for all repairs incurred by tenant." I take that to mean that if you call a repair service about a problem without clearing it with the landlord first, you're on the hook for the cost. My family member has no issue with that provision.

This would make me very uncomfortable. If the landlord ignores your maintenance request for months and you take care of it, you get stuck with the bill. It’s to their advantage to ignore you.

[Anonymous]

I had this in my rental agreement when I first became a landlord. It was $75. I was a single female in my 20s and I was prepared to pay for major repairs, but didn't want to be called for every little thing. I also required rental insurance. Twenty years later I'm still a landlord, but no longer have this in the lease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. If you're curious about the specific language in the lease, here it is:

"Tenant is responsible for the first $100 co-pay towards minor maintenance repairs."

It also says, "Tenant is responsible for all repairs incurred by tenant." I take that to mean that if you call a repair service about a problem without clearing it with the landlord first, you're on the hook for the cost. My family member has no issue with that provision.

I think you need to learn more about the law in PGC.

[Anonymous]

One of the main pluses of renting is you don't have any responsibility to make repairs (things you don't cause), pay for repairs or deal with the repair people.

If you have to pay for any portion of repairs, you are better off owning and building equity.

I would not rent this property.