5 ms·

> They were shocked when I told them I would cover the cost of their relocation expenses while the repairs occurred. Assuming you’re in the United States you w

> They were shocked when I told them I would cover the cost of their relocation expenses while the repairs occurred. Assuming you’re in the United States you would’ve been legally required to do this anyways. The bar really is set on the floor.

sidlls 4y ago
That's not uniformly true, and often only applies if it's due to citation after an inspection. Regardless, the tenants are often not aware of these regulations. Besides, my point was mainly that the tenants I have are so used to landlords taking advantage of them that they are shocked when one shows basic human decency to them.
- jaltekruse 4y ago
  I could barely believe this story when a pretty big youtuber had his upstairs neighbor flood his entire apartment, mold started growing everywhere and all his landlord offered was signing a new long-term lease on a different unit he didn't want. He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option. https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE
  - sidlls 4y ago
    Petty landlords are the vast majority, unfortunately. All they care about is extracting rent. They don't see tenants as human beings who can struggle, but rather as a source of income to exploit and ignore as much as they can.
    - smegger001 4y ago
      yeah i lived in one that got in trouble (after i had moved out) for not telling their tenants about the lead paint or asbestos. they also had the elevator out of order for nearly two years during which period they raised the rent three times. have fun moving out of a fifth floor apartment when you have to carry furniture down the narrow stairs with four right angle turns every floor.
      - NortySpock 4y ago
        Are you sure that wasn't just the backdrop of the Big Bang Theory?
        smegger001 4y ago
        yes quiet. It sucked, especially because we had a baby at the time and trying to carry groceries and a child up those stairs to a unairconditioned apartment mid summer was not something deserving of a laugh track.
        NortySpock 4y ago
        I am sorry to have made a comedy reference at your expense. I hope you are dealing with less stress these days!
    - kaczordon 4y ago
      The reverse can also be true, tenants don’t care about landlords.
      - jjj123 4y ago
        That’s not equivalent in any reasonable way. Tenants can’t put a landlord on the street.
        kaczordon 4y ago
  - jon-wood 4y ago
    It’s a similar deal in the UK, where not to long ago parliament voted down an attempt to require rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. Apparently that’s too high a demand from landlords.
    - nec4b 4y ago
      Just curious, what does it mean "fit for human habitation"?
      - jll29 4y ago
        The backgrounds is a boy's dead from a moldy place he and his family had to live in: https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-death-from-mould-as-a-defining-moment-for-housing/#:~:text=A%20two%2Dyear%2Dold%20boy,Aisha%20Aminin%20and%20Faisal%20Abdullah https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-d....
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        As an example of this kind of rule from a place that currently has them, the basic coverage of California’s implied warranty of habitability are covered on pp 48-50 of this document: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    In many jurisdictions there are habitability requirements that, if not met, make it unlawful for the landlord to collect rent for the period during which they are not remedied, but there I am not aware of any that requires the landlord to supply substitute lodging (the presumption generally being that the withheld rent can instead be used for that purpose, though that’s dubious, in general.)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - bdowling 4y ago
      It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount. So the landlord may not have to provide substitute accommodations, but he would be liable for damages if he didn’t. Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.
Frost1x 4y ago
I think it depends on the state as well as contractual agreements. It's amazing how many rights you can legally sign away or minimize via contract law, largely to the benefit of those writing the contracts and not those signing contracts. Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well. So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process. In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.
gregd 4y ago
Being legally required to do something as a landlord, seldom translates into something convenient or even in one's favor, as a renter. Most landlords I've ever had use "legally required to do so" as a way to do the bare minimum and let you initiate contact with a lawyer or court, thus dragging out whatever it is you think they're legally required to do.
manojlds 4y ago
The case in UK as well.
mitchdoogle 4y ago
It's like multi-millionaire CEOs congratulating themselves for creating so many jobs for the poors

sidlls 4y ago

That's not uniformly true, and often only applies if it's due to citation after an inspection. Regardless, the tenants are often not aware of these regulations. Besides, my point was mainly that the tenants I have are so used to landlords taking advantage of them that they are shocked when one shows basic human decency to them.

jaltekruse 4y ago
I could barely believe this story when a pretty big youtuber had his upstairs neighbor flood his entire apartment, mold started growing everywhere and all his landlord offered was signing a new long-term lease on a different unit he didn't want. He ended up somewhat deliberately staying after he got it out of them that they couldn't legally kick him out quickly, and he was trying to finish the purchase of a house at the time. But it seemed nuts that the landlord wouldn't be on the hook to provide him housing through the term of his lease without signing a new contract, or pay some large amount to break the contract that could have helped him cover a temporary mold-free option. https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE https://youtu.be/2R-KDji7tGE
- sidlls 4y ago
  Petty landlords are the vast majority, unfortunately. All they care about is extracting rent. They don't see tenants as human beings who can struggle, but rather as a source of income to exploit and ignore as much as they can.
  - smegger001 4y ago
    yeah i lived in one that got in trouble (after i had moved out) for not telling their tenants about the lead paint or asbestos. they also had the elevator out of order for nearly two years during which period they raised the rent three times. have fun moving out of a fifth floor apartment when you have to carry furniture down the narrow stairs with four right angle turns every floor.
    - NortySpock 4y ago
      Are you sure that wasn't just the backdrop of the Big Bang Theory?
      - smegger001 4y ago
        yes quiet. It sucked, especially because we had a baby at the time and trying to carry groceries and a child up those stairs to a unairconditioned apartment mid summer was not something deserving of a laugh track.
        NortySpock 4y ago
        I am sorry to have made a comedy reference at your expense. I hope you are dealing with less stress these days!
  - kaczordon 4y ago
    The reverse can also be true, tenants don’t care about landlords.
    - jjj123 4y ago
      That’s not equivalent in any reasonable way. Tenants can’t put a landlord on the street.
      - kaczordon 4y ago
- jon-wood 4y ago
  It’s a similar deal in the UK, where not to long ago parliament voted down an attempt to require rented accommodation be fit for human habitation. Apparently that’s too high a demand from landlords.
  - nec4b 4y ago
    Just curious, what does it mean "fit for human habitation"?
    - jll29 4y ago
      The backgrounds is a boy's dead from a moldy place he and his family had to live in: https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-death-from-mould-as-a-defining-moment-for-housing/#:~:text=A%20two%2Dyear%2Dold%20boy,Aisha%20Aminin%20and%20Faisal%20Abdullah https://propertyindustryeye.com/coroner-describes-toddlers-d....
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      As an example of this kind of rule from a place that currently has them, the basic coverage of California’s implied warranty of habitability are covered on pp 48-50 of this document: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide.pdf https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/California-Tenants-Guide...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  In many jurisdictions there are habitability requirements that, if not met, make it unlawful for the landlord to collect rent for the period during which they are not remedied, but there I am not aware of any that requires the landlord to supply substitute lodging (the presumption generally being that the withheld rent can instead be used for that purpose, though that’s dubious, in general.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bdowling 4y ago
    It’s a simple breach of contract. A rental agreement basically states that the tenant will pay rent and the landlord will provide a habitable apartment. The most common breach occurs when the tenant doesn’t pay their rent. However, when the apartment isn’t habitable, it’s the landlord who is in breach. The damages in such a case are the cost of substitue comparable accommodations, even if that cost is higher than the rental amount. So the landlord may not have to provide substitute accommodations, but he would be liable for damages if he didn’t. Edit: I may be biased by living in California where there is apparently an implied warranty of habitability.

Frost1x 4y ago

I think it depends on the state as well as contractual agreements. It's amazing how many rights you can legally sign away or minimize via contract law, largely to the benefit of those writing the contracts and not those signing contracts. Simply relabeling or reclassifying the use of something and having agreement to those uses to pass liability of "misuse" when both parties are aware of actual and intended use goes a long way as well. So many ways to pass liabilities and rights. The more society evolves, the less business is about providing or creating any sort of new value and more about optimizing away risk, costs, and any other potential liabilities while capturing as much actual value from the deal as possible in the process. In theory, competition "regulates" this away. Some other landlord who provides a better value or service will clearly succeed over less value-add services to the consumer. In practice, the amount of choice, finite limitations of the best service providers, and often sheer complexity anymore of determining which amongst a set of options is actually best to the consumer seems to make this a non-starter. It allows a lot of abuse on the provider side to provide little-to-nothing and a continuous supply of new consumers to abuse should previous consumers become wiser and move on.

gregd 4y ago

Being legally required to do something as a landlord, seldom translates into something convenient or even in one's favor, as a renter. Most landlords I've ever had use "legally required to do so" as a way to do the bare minimum and let you initiate contact with a lawyer or court, thus dragging out whatever it is you think they're legally required to do.

manojlds 4y ago

The case in UK as well.

mitchdoogle 4y ago

It's like multi-millionaire CEOs congratulating themselves for creating so many jobs for the poors