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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.