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

[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.

+1. I don’t rent anymore but if I were this would be a dealbreaker for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Rental insurance is normal. A security deposit is normal. A “copay” is not. Dealing with tenants and the minor damage they cause to one’s property is the reason I don’t rent my non-primary residences.

[Anonymous]

This is just so unnecessary. If tenants are responsible for changing light bulbs, fixing loose screws, clearing clogs, and wiping their plates off before putting them in the dishwasher, just say so in the lease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it would encourage tenants to handle very basic things themselves and cut down on nuisance maintenance calls but still have the onus of major issues and repairs on the landlord.

Yes. And knowing some tenants (my BIL and MIL were/are landlords), I think this is perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to pay $100 to the landlord, you can fix it yourself, and realize it might actually cost more. It helps the renter stay aware of costs, which makes them not abuse appliances as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it would encourage tenants to handle very basic things themselves and cut down on nuisance maintenance calls but still have the onus of major issues and repairs on the landlord.

Yes. And knowing some tenants (my BIL and MIL were/are landlords), I think this is perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to pay $100 to the landlord, you can fix it yourself, and realize it might actually cost more. It helps the renter stay aware of costs, which makes them not abuse appliances as much.

Or it incentivizes the renter to ignore minor problems until they grow into major ones, which are more costly for the landlord to fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it would encourage tenants to handle very basic things themselves and cut down on nuisance maintenance calls but still have the onus of major issues and repairs on the landlord.

Yes. And knowing some tenants (my BIL and MIL were/are landlords), I think this is perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to pay $100 to the landlord, you can fix it yourself, and realize it might actually cost more. It helps the renter stay aware of costs, which makes them not abuse appliances as much.

Why should the renter be responsible for repairs? I would not fix anything and let the landlord deal with it when I move out. That leaking faucet in the bathroom will be an expensive gut job.

[Anonymous]

I doubt this is legal. I haven’t rented in years but I would never rent and pay for maintenance. That’s the main benefit of renting.

[Anonymous]

how many times have you had to pay a plumber to unclog a shower drain the stupid tenant should have done themselves. there are no rules saying landlords need to pay for all the repairs, in fact it would make more sense if tenants had to reapair things so they can take care of the property

[Anonymous]

No. Saw your update. These sound like bad landlords. Try to find someplace else.

[Anonymous]

Is that really legal?
What is a minor update?
Something minor could become major if you ignore it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how many times have you had to pay a plumber to unclog a shower drain the stupid tenant should have done themselves. there are no rules saying landlords need to pay for all the repairs, in fact it would make more sense if tenants had to reapair things so they can take care of the property

Yes, there are absolutely legal requirements for the landlord to keep a residential property in good repair. Are you an idiot or just a POS slumlord? Suing jerks like you is bread and butter pro bono at every law firm.

[Anonymous]

I grew up my first 12 years of my life in a rental. My parents lived in that rental for 16 years. In that time they had ZERO repair calls. I do recall we did ask permission to paint apt.Dad would fix a washer or loose toliet seat.

I rented an apartment 6 years as a single person once agin zero calls to landlord.

Both times with parents and me we had below market rents with small time landlords.

But as an adult I did rent from a large building owned by a corporation with a managing agent payinig full market rent and of course I would put a ticket in for repairs if I had to.

But I find some tenants want it both ways. They want to rent from a small overwelmed owner below market and then pay below market rents and then expect service like they are staying in a Marriot Hotel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up my first 12 years of my life in a rental. My parents lived in that rental for 16 years. In that time they had ZERO repair calls. I do recall we did ask permission to paint apt.Dad would fix a washer or loose toliet seat.

I rented an apartment 6 years as a single person once agin zero calls to landlord.

Both times with parents and me we had below market rents with small time landlords.

But as an adult I did rent from a large building owned by a corporation with a managing agent payinig full market rent and of course I would put a ticket in for repairs if I had to.

But I find some tenants want it both ways. They want to rent from a small overwelmed owner below market and then pay below market rents and then expect service like they are staying in a Marriot Hotel.

Small overwhelmed owners do not offer below market rents
I don’t know who does

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like it would encourage tenants to handle very basic things themselves and cut down on nuisance maintenance calls but still have the onus of major issues and repairs on the landlord.

Yes. And knowing some tenants (my BIL and MIL were/are landlords), I think this is perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to pay $100 to the landlord, you can fix it yourself, and realize it might actually cost more. It helps the renter stay aware of costs, which makes them not abuse appliances as much.

Or it incentivizes the renter to ignore minor problems until they grow into major ones, which are more costly for the landlord to fix.

That's against the lease as well, you are too report major problems or be liable

[Anonymous]

So many people here have absolutely no business being landlords. Apparently you don't understand that it's not free cash. You're responsible for repairing and maintaining the property.