Anonymous wrote:This is genius if legal. I'm just upset I had never thought of this. If you've never been a small landlord that's not local than you have no idea the frustration with getting a call from a renter about a plug going out just to fork over hundreds of dollars to an electrician to find out that the gfci tripped because of... If the landlord is a decent person than this is 100% to get the buy in from the renter to not abuse the situation and to use some common sense not a money grab.

This is not genius. It's shitty. If you don't want to be a landlord, then don't be one.

The short answer is no, this would generally not be legal. A landlord is required to maintain the premises in good condition. A landlord cannot make a tenant pay for that. In certain circumstances, a landlord and tenant may negotiate that the tenant does certain, specified maintenance; however, that must be negotiated in good faith and not for the purpose of the evading a landlord's legal obligations.

This is slum lord type shit. Tell them to pound sand.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Landlord here -- I wouldn't include this provision for the reasons cited above: I want to know if something is wrong before it becomes a major issue.

I do have a provision in my leases that states all clogs of any kind are the tenant's responsibility. And when tenants call with issues that could be easy fixes ("the plugs stopped working in the bathroom" "the hall light doesn't work anymore") I walk them through the repair before sending someone out.

Yes, this is the only logical way. Preventing people from raising issues is only going to hurt the landlord in the long run (and maybe even short run).

Landlord here -- I wouldn't include this provision for the reasons cited above: I want to know if something is wrong before it becomes a major issue.

I do have a provision in my leases that states all clogs of any kind are the tenant's responsibility. And when tenants call with issues that could be easy fixes ("the plugs stopped working in the bathroom" "the hall light doesn't work anymore") I walk them through the repair before sending someone out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Downside to this provision: you incentivize the tenants to not call in any repairs. Small issues that are left unaddressed can become much bigger and much more expensive issues.

Exactly. The #1 challenge for landlords is finding tenants who pay on time and who won't trash the place. If you charge 100 bucks per repair, I guarantee you:
1) decent tenants won't rent from you
2) no tenant will contact you about a repair until it's massive. Or they'll try to "fix" things on their own and cover up problems.

Yeah, all this whining about maintenance is so slumlord. Houses require maintenance. If that irritates you, quit complaining about tenants not taking care of the place because you obviously don’t care about your property either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Downside to this provision: you incentivize the tenants to not call in any repairs. Small issues that are left unaddressed can become much bigger and much more expensive issues.

Exactly. The #1 challenge for landlords is finding tenants who pay on time and who won't trash the place. If you charge 100 bucks per repair, I guarantee you:
1) decent tenants won't rent from you
2) no tenant will contact you about a repair until it's massive. Or they'll try to "fix" things on their own and cover up problems.

+1 Better to build in the cost of expected repairs when setting the rent amount.

Rent is what the market will bear regardless of landlord expenses

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Downside to this provision: you incentivize the tenants to not call in any repairs. Small issues that are left unaddressed can become much bigger and much more expensive issues.

Exactly. The #1 challenge for landlords is finding tenants who pay on time and who won't trash the place. If you charge 100 bucks per repair, I guarantee you:
1) decent tenants won't rent from you
2) no tenant will contact you about a repair until it's massive. Or they'll try to "fix" things on their own and cover up problems.

+1 Better to build in the cost of expected repairs when setting the rent amount.

This would be illegal in DC. I don’t know about other jurisdictions but it would make me very wary of the landlord

Anonymous wrote:I would rent if the place was at least $300 less per month than a comparable place, figuring that I'll need maybe two calls per month on average at the most, and then a little extra for renting from a place where the landlord is a pain.

You would make calls TWICE PER MONTH?!? That’s insane.

Anonymous wrote:Downside to this provision: you incentivize the tenants to not call in any repairs. Small issues that are left unaddressed can become much bigger and much more expensive issues.

Exactly. The #1 challenge for landlords is finding tenants who pay on time and who won't trash the place. If you charge 100 bucks per repair, I guarantee you:
1) decent tenants won't rent from you
2) no tenant will contact you about a repair until it's massive. Or they'll try to "fix" things on their own and cover up problems.

Anonymous wrote:This is genius if legal. I'm just upset I had never thought of this. If you've never been a small landlord that's not local than you have no idea the frustration with getting a call from a renter about a plug going out just to fork over hundreds of dollars to an electrician to find out that the gfci tripped because of... If the landlord is a decent person than this is 100% to get the buy in from the renter to not abuse the situation and to use some common sense not a money grab.

If you’re not local you either need a property manager or handyman who is, or you need to try to troubleshoot with the renter before you call a professional.

Downside to this provision: you incentivize the tenants to not call in any repairs. Small issues that are left unaddressed can become much bigger and much more expensive issues.

I have a couple friends who tried being landlords rather than selling their houses, because everyone seems to give the advice that this is the thing to do to get rich, and they stopped after the tenants moved out and then sold the houses. They said it was just too much work with tenants calling about stupid stuff. And every repair person in the DMV seems to charge $200 just to travel to the house then once you factor in the 15-minute fix to the problem, it's at least $350.