6 ms·

> that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights It could well be that they themselves don't understand

> that they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights It could well be that they themselves don't understand your rights. Sure, in the case of the security deposit, they should be smart enough to know what this is. But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes.

Fnoord 4y ago
They have a business, too: being a landlord. How about taking your business serious and not get in legal issues with your customer(s)?
sametmax 4y ago
Yes but in that case, they at least answer to you and you can have a human to human discussion.
vinnic 4y ago
> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. That's no excuse for not returning a tenant's security deposit though.
- detourdog 4y ago
  The regulations on security deposit in Massachusetts has led me to not use security deposits. I also don’t use a lease. A tenant can come and go from month to month. I only require first and last months rent.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Are you concerned about squatters rights?
    - detourdog 4y ago
      Fundamentally I would like to be able to trust the people I'm dealing with where a contract isn't needed and it all works out. I don't have a lot of faith in a contract really satisfying any of my needs. I feel a contract with its specifics and each sides personal interpretation can distract from disputer resolution. Squatters are my biggest fear. I feel it is a justified fear. I also am happy to offer anyone a lease that requests one. I don't want to mindlessly use one. Live and learn they say:)
      - analog31 4y ago
        I appreciate the sentiment, but your tenants might have rights that you don't know about. These may vary depending on your locale, and may include restrictions on evictions of tenants who don't have written leases.
        detourdog 4y ago
        I give my tenants this as part of the move in documentation. https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-landlord-and-tenant-rights https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-l... This was the document I used to shape my thinking and since I have more than 5 units (8 units total) I'm inspected by my town officials every 2 years to assure the livability. I see the whole relationship as reciprocal and hope to avoid evictions. I do no credit checks and I do my own internet research. I place a lot of value on the personal interactions and so far I have had good fortune.
  - zx8080 4y ago
    > first and last months rent. Just to be sure. Is this a smart name for what others call a 'deposit'?
    - astura 4y ago
      Seems that way to me. I looked this up and Massachusetts is actually extremely strange that they count "last months rent" separate from "security deposit." In my state any money required to be collected past the first month's rent is legally considered a security deposit and required to be treated as one and subject to legal limits on security deposits. Which makes sense. It's logical not to bother with the requirements of an extra security deposit if you can go ahead and collect two months rent up front without calling the extra a deposit. In my state the standard is also to collect two months rent up front - because the standard security deposit is a month's rent.
      - robryk 4y ago
        It seems to me that the semantics are different: you return the security deposit ~at handover time, while last month's rent is counted as rent for the last month of the stay, so the tenant "gets it back" (in the form of not having to pay rent they'd otherwise have to pay) a month before they move out. Do I misunderstand something?
    - rtpg 4y ago
      I thought the depsosit is for building damage, not for rent?
      - astura 4y ago
        The deposit is to cover any costs the tenant cause the landlord. Damage and unpaid rent are both costs. A tenant who has $1,000 in upaid rent and $0 is damage is no different than a tenant who has $1,000 in damage and no unpaid rent. The security deposit can be used to cover either.
    - detourdog 4y ago
      I think of it as 2 months rent I now hold. Whatever happens next I have that going for me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hahajk 4y ago
    I would never move into a home without a lease. A lease protects a tenant as much as the landlord. What's preventing you from raising the rent arbitrarily or canceling the agreement with little to no notice?
    - detourdog 4y ago
      Nothing. What holds a tenant to un-affordable/desirable apartment. I would offer a lease. So far no tenant has requested a lease. I'm not going to force someone into a contract beyond a handshake. I will see how this works out.
harvey9 4y ago
Sure. No big deal if they don't know about fire safety either, not like it's their real job anyway.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fuzzybiscuit 4y ago
  [flagged]
- DANmode 4y ago
  The commenter may or may not feel it's correct, but I didn't see that in their comment.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nvarsj 4y ago
That's precisely the problem with many landlords. Being a landlord is not free money without any work, even though many think it is.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  That doesn't stop many of them from taking your money while not doing work
ilyt 4y ago
> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes. ...so ? They earn money for doing essentially nothing, the least they should do is to know the law.
- fuzzybiscuit 4y ago
  [flagged]
- qwertox 4y ago
  I fully agree with this. But I just intended to point out that "they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights" is not the only reason. While I am no landlord, I have relatives who are and they don't care about the law. It's something you they will be made aware of when it arises and then dealt with accordingly. Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
  - blululu 4y ago
    You are giving very charitable interpretation to someone who was clearly withholding the full security deposit for two months past the due in flagrant violation of the law and common sense. He didn't even fully comply with the law when it was shown to him. At two months past due, he would have been required to pay double for late payment, and the OP was generous in not enforcing the law to its full extent. Given the asymmetry between the number of instances where a renter and a landlord will need to engage in this transaction, it is hard to extend the same leeway to someone who does this transaction for multiple units that we might afford someone doing this for one unit. If anything I would suspect that the landlord in question is a repeat offender.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    > Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point. I HIGHLY doubt land-lord didn't knew the meaning of "security deposit" and didn't return it immediately "because he didn't knew the law", especially when he was clearly ignoring the former tenant. He most likely counted on people not bothering to get it back when being ignored
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Intermernet 4y ago
Being a landlord is a job. If you aren't aware of the requirements of the job, you shouldn't be allowed to have the job. If you break the law by not adhering to the requirements, you should be punished. If you have a history of breaking said laws, you should be banned from being a landlord.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting Ah yes, the highly valuable-to-society job that is being a leech.
- sethammons 4y ago
  s/being a leech/providing housing liquidity Not everyone should have to purchase a home to live.
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Funnily enough, we do agree on that end result, but definitely not on the methods. Housing should be a right, and housing should be provided to any citizen of a country. Letting a small minority of wealthy land owners become more wealthy and centralizing home ownership is a sign of failing societies. A landlord does not "provide housing liquidity". Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
    - matchbok 4y ago
      Housing is not a human right. Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Think about it. Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it? These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
      - ohgodplsno 4y ago
        >Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Me ? No. Us, as a society, where we decide to ? Abso-fucking-lutely. >Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it? Nothing prevents you from putting in more money to make yourself the fancy house you've dreamed of. You can decide to give 300k to your favorite fancy house builder to have a prettier house than the plebs living in state housing. The US has the ACA, yet as far as I know the US still has private, higher quality hospitals. Turns out, making something a right doesn't mean "everyone has to have access to the best in class", but "has to have access to something which guarantees livable conditions." >These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility. These silly "people have to take responsibility" talking points mostly shows that you have no regard for human life and would rather perpetuate suffering than provide something as basic as housing to people. Then again, since almost 100% of your post history in the past three months is about "oh no being a landlord is hard", it seems that you actively benefit from misery.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting.While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes. And you can't fire them for doing a piss-poor job. Do you see why that's an issue? I mean, you're literally advocating breaking the law in order for already wealthy people to earn more money.
- DANmode 4y ago
  Are they advocating? > While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws We're asked to take the strongest, most charitable interpretation of people's words, here. It helps discussion.
- sparrish 4y ago
  People fire their landlord all the time. It's called moving.

Fnoord 4y ago

They have a business, too: being a landlord. How about taking your business serious and not get in legal issues with your customer(s)?

sametmax 4y ago

Yes but in that case, they at least answer to you and you can have a human to human discussion.

vinnic 4y ago

> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. That's no excuse for not returning a tenant's security deposit though.

detourdog 4y ago
The regulations on security deposit in Massachusetts has led me to not use security deposits. I also don’t use a lease. A tenant can come and go from month to month. I only require first and last months rent.
- analog31 4y ago
  Are you concerned about squatters rights?
  - detourdog 4y ago
    Fundamentally I would like to be able to trust the people I'm dealing with where a contract isn't needed and it all works out. I don't have a lot of faith in a contract really satisfying any of my needs. I feel a contract with its specifics and each sides personal interpretation can distract from disputer resolution. Squatters are my biggest fear. I feel it is a justified fear. I also am happy to offer anyone a lease that requests one. I don't want to mindlessly use one. Live and learn they say:)
    - analog31 4y ago
      I appreciate the sentiment, but your tenants might have rights that you don't know about. These may vary depending on your locale, and may include restrictions on evictions of tenants who don't have written leases.
      - detourdog 4y ago
        I give my tenants this as part of the move in documentation. https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-landlord-and-tenant-rights https://www.mass.gov/guides/the-attorney-generals-guide-to-l... This was the document I used to shape my thinking and since I have more than 5 units (8 units total) I'm inspected by my town officials every 2 years to assure the livability. I see the whole relationship as reciprocal and hope to avoid evictions. I do no credit checks and I do my own internet research. I place a lot of value on the personal interactions and so far I have had good fortune.
- zx8080 4y ago
  > first and last months rent. Just to be sure. Is this a smart name for what others call a 'deposit'?
  - astura 4y ago
    Seems that way to me. I looked this up and Massachusetts is actually extremely strange that they count "last months rent" separate from "security deposit." In my state any money required to be collected past the first month's rent is legally considered a security deposit and required to be treated as one and subject to legal limits on security deposits. Which makes sense. It's logical not to bother with the requirements of an extra security deposit if you can go ahead and collect two months rent up front without calling the extra a deposit. In my state the standard is also to collect two months rent up front - because the standard security deposit is a month's rent.
    - robryk 4y ago
      It seems to me that the semantics are different: you return the security deposit ~at handover time, while last month's rent is counted as rent for the last month of the stay, so the tenant "gets it back" (in the form of not having to pay rent they'd otherwise have to pay) a month before they move out. Do I misunderstand something?
  - rtpg 4y ago
    I thought the depsosit is for building damage, not for rent?
    - astura 4y ago
      The deposit is to cover any costs the tenant cause the landlord. Damage and unpaid rent are both costs. A tenant who has $1,000 in upaid rent and $0 is damage is no different than a tenant who has $1,000 in damage and no unpaid rent. The security deposit can be used to cover either.
  - detourdog 4y ago
    I think of it as 2 months rent I now hold. Whatever happens next I have that going for me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hahajk 4y ago
  I would never move into a home without a lease. A lease protects a tenant as much as the landlord. What's preventing you from raising the rent arbitrarily or canceling the agreement with little to no notice?
  - detourdog 4y ago
    Nothing. What holds a tenant to un-affordable/desirable apartment. I would offer a lease. So far no tenant has requested a lease. I'm not going to force someone into a contract beyond a handshake. I will see how this works out.

harvey9 4y ago

Sure. No big deal if they don't know about fire safety either, not like it's their real job anyway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fuzzybiscuit 4y ago
[flagged]
DANmode 4y ago
The commenter may or may not feel it's correct, but I didn't see that in their comment.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nvarsj 4y ago

That's precisely the problem with many landlords. Being a landlord is not free money without any work, even though many think it is.

kevviiinn 4y ago
That doesn't stop many of them from taking your money while not doing work

ilyt 4y ago

> But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting. While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes. ...so ? They earn money for doing essentially nothing, the least they should do is to know the law.

fuzzybiscuit 4y ago
[flagged]
qwertox 4y ago
I fully agree with this. But I just intended to point out that "they expect you, the tenant, to not understand your rights and the laws that enforce those rights" is not the only reason. While I am no landlord, I have relatives who are and they don't care about the law. It's something you they will be made aware of when it arises and then dealt with accordingly. Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point.
- blululu 4y ago
  You are giving very charitable interpretation to someone who was clearly withholding the full security deposit for two months past the due in flagrant violation of the law and common sense. He didn't even fully comply with the law when it was shown to him. At two months past due, he would have been required to pay double for late payment, and the OP was generous in not enforcing the law to its full extent. Given the asymmetry between the number of instances where a renter and a landlord will need to engage in this transaction, it is hard to extend the same leeway to someone who does this transaction for multiple units that we might afford someone doing this for one unit. If anything I would suspect that the landlord in question is a repeat offender.
- ilyt 4y ago
  > Take the example of GP's post, he kindly did the research for his ex-landlord until he convinced him. His ex-landlord may now see himself confirmed in that his approach to not caring is the right one, until the ex-renter brings up a very valid point. I HIGHLY doubt land-lord didn't knew the meaning of "security deposit" and didn't return it immediately "because he didn't knew the law", especially when he was clearly ignoring the former tenant. He most likely counted on people not bothering to get it back when being ignored

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Intermernet 4y ago

Being a landlord is a job. If you aren't aware of the requirements of the job, you shouldn't be allowed to have the job. If you break the law by not adhering to the requirements, you should be punished. If you have a history of breaking said laws, you should be banned from being a landlord.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting Ah yes, the highly valuable-to-society job that is being a leech.

sethammons 4y ago
s/being a leech/providing housing liquidity Not everyone should have to purchase a home to live.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Funnily enough, we do agree on that end result, but definitely not on the methods. Housing should be a right, and housing should be provided to any citizen of a country. Letting a small minority of wealthy land owners become more wealthy and centralizing home ownership is a sign of failing societies. A landlord does not "provide housing liquidity". Housing is not a good that I can live without. I'll die without a roof over my head. Profiting off of that is the behavior of a leech.
  - matchbok 4y ago
    Housing is not a human right. Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Think about it. Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it? These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility.
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      >Do you have a right to force me to build you a house? Me ? No. Us, as a society, where we decide to ? Abso-fucking-lutely. >Why would we have any nice housing at all in that situation? Why would anyone build it? Nothing prevents you from putting in more money to make yourself the fancy house you've dreamed of. You can decide to give 300k to your favorite fancy house builder to have a prettier house than the plebs living in state housing. The US has the ACA, yet as far as I know the US still has private, higher quality hospitals. Turns out, making something a right doesn't mean "everyone has to have access to the best in class", but "has to have access to something which guarantees livable conditions." >These silly things like "x is a human right" miss the point. At some point people have to take responsibility. These silly "people have to take responsibility" talking points mostly shows that you have no regard for human life and would rather perpetuate suffering than provide something as basic as housing to people. Then again, since almost 100% of your post history in the past three months is about "oh no being a landlord is hard", it seems that you actively benefit from misery.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>But many landlords are just normal people with other jobs, where being a landlord is not a job to them, but an opportunity to earn money by renting.While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws, I bet that most of them don't care to bother because of the time and effort it takes. And you can't fire them for doing a piss-poor job. Do you see why that's an issue? I mean, you're literally advocating breaking the law in order for already wealthy people to earn more money.

DANmode 4y ago
Are they advocating? > While one should be able to expect them to know the relevant laws We're asked to take the strongest, most charitable interpretation of people's words, here. It helps discussion.
sparrish 4y ago
People fire their landlord all the time. It's called moving.