Quasi, I don’t think you should be posting your phone number publicly. Those who wish to contact you can PM and then you can send your number directly.
Colibri
Moderator
Why does every topic in the Pit end up becoming a “you’re mean…no, YOU’RE a troll…you hurt my widdle feelings…you’re disturbed?” slugfest? :rolleyes: I find it much more interesting to actually talk about the original subject of the posts (in this case, in my opinion, why it’s so sadly easy for renters to get treated like crap by their irresponsible landlords). I guess I’m in the minority, however.
Agreed.
It’s because the landlords have the upper hand in negotiating a lease in part because of simple supply and demand but also in that many tenants haven’t the first clue about the law in this area or the status of a a landlord’s mortgage, whereas landlords have the inside scoop.
Oh, and the law is inadequate to even the playing field.
I disagree. It varies by jurisdiction but IMHO the law is generally too favorable to tenants. And I find it silly to think the object of the law should be to protect tenants against their own ignorance. When I don’t know enough about a subject I hire a proffessional who will advise me what is in my interest. Whether it is a lawyer, a doctor, a banker, whatever. I listen to advice and educate myself. Laws which deny the freedom to choose certain options, just because those options may not be in the interests of some people, are IMHO counterproductive.
The more you tilt the law in favor of protecting tenants the less supply you will have of rental properties and the higher the market price for rentals will be. Just look at any place with rent control and other such protections.
Agreed 100%.
Also, the landlord in the article linked in the OP is just some private person, not some big company, so there’s no reason to presume the landlord knew any more about the law or had unequal bargaining power than did the tenant.
The mere fact the landlord has the resources to own a building whereas a tenant usually does not does, in fact, weigh the balance at least slightly in the landlord’s favor. Although yes, the tenant has some responsibility not to be stupid, too.
However, Mr. Rover, I think you can agree that all parties to the contract SHOULD follow the laws and regulations regarding said contract, yes? In my area we’ve had a rash of both owners/landlords and the banks FAILING to follow the law, which truly is a wrong against a tenant who has been faithfully upholding his/her end of the contract. Or do you disagree?
When I said the landlord has superior bargaining power, I was talking about things in general but more specifically to the issue in the OP. The landlord has the power of knowledge about the status of his own mortgage and default on that mortgage. The tenant knows nothing.
If a prospective tenant starts prying into the landlord’s mortgage status, the landlord will simply move on to a new applicant that doesn’t ask so many pesky questions until he finds someone willing to rent quietly.
In general terms the landlord knows less about the tenant’s ability to pay the rent than the tenant knows about the landlord’s ability to provide the premises.
I really do not get this thing about the landlord or the employer having a huge advantage. Yes, the tenant needs a place to live but there are plenty to choose from and if he does not like one he can go to another and it costs him nothing. The landlord on the other hand is losing money for every day the property is empty. The way I see it the landlord needs a tenant more than the tenant needs the landlord.
How so?
This is a joke. The guy who has a fixed amount of time to strike a deal before his family is living on the street, has an advantage over the guy who is going to lose some money every day he doesn’t get a tenant, and who might lose his investment property if he gets foreclosed on?
Landlords typically do credit checks and verify employment of prospective tenants, but the background check is a one way street.
Also, if a landlord indeed takes on a person without the means to pay, the landlord will know it very quickly and has a remedy in a summary unlawful detainer proceeding.
If a tenant takes on a lease with a landlord who is defaulting on a mortgage and is on the verge of foreclosure, the tenant may not find out until the landlord is long gone with the tenant’s money. Tenants, as a class, typically need that amount of money more than landlords, as a class.
Arguing against myself here, I suppose a judgment proof deadbeat tenant can move in, fail to pay rent, clog up an unlawful detainer proceeding, and move out a step ahead of the sheriff’s eviction, and disappear.
Firstly, as others have noted, the pressures on a tenant are often a lot more immediate and monumental than pressures on a landlord. Yes, landlords have financial obligations to meet, but in most cases they can survive a month or two without rental income; tenants, on the other hand, often need a place to avoid either being on the street, or, at best, having to find a place to store all of their worldly possessions.
Second, while a relatively loose rental market might give renters something of an advantage, in terms of viewing and choosing between different properties, the fact is that even in such a market, most renters are on a deadline in terms of how quickly they need to find a place. They can’t, as a rule, just wait indefinitely until the perfect place comes up.
Also, when rental markets are very tight, any advantage the renter might have under normal circumstances goes out the window altogether. In San Francisco during the dot com boom, the Chronicle basically didn’t even have a Rental Property section for a long time, because every single place was snapped up the moment it was available. New York, especially Manhattan but also the other boroughs, has had similar situations in the past. In Sydney at times over the past decade, every available rental property had so many prospective tenants that they got into bidding wars with one another.
And such a market leaves people open to other types of scams. I read a couple of years ago about people who signed a lease on an apartment in New York, and paid 3x the monthly rent up front (first month, last month, security deposit), and then turned up on the day of moving in to find that the “landlord” had rented the place to 5 or 6 different people (taking about $6000 from each) and just disappeared. The “landlord” had never even owned the place on the first place.
This happens too.
I remember a story a couple of years ago about a guy in San Francisco who essentially survived by taking out a lease, moving into a place, failing to pay rent, and then living rent-free for the 3-6 months that it took for the eviction process to work its way through the system. He would then move on to another place and do the same thing. A city like San Francisco, which has strong renter protections and a fairly tortuous eviction process, makes this relatively easy to do, especially if landlords are at all remiss in checking names, references, etc.
I’ve been trying to find the story online, because it’s fascinating, but haven’t had any luck so far.
So you are basing your feelings about landlords v. tenants in the abstract based on your hypothetical scenario of a market with one available rental property? That doesnt’ see like a good idea.
I’m not sure that it is a one way street–there are public records available for all properties that will give you some perspective on the owners real estate holdings. If tenants did their due dilligence they could cut down on some of their risk.
Another way to cut down risk for tenants is to really look at the property. If you are renting property that seems like a steal, it may just be–the landlord trying to hold onto property, or milk some money out of it before foreclosure.
Also, I don’t know where all of you are posting from, but here it is a renters market, for sure. This place has more homes/condos/apartments, than it has people. You can ask for a background check on landlords too. If they really want to rent the place, and are reputable they will comply.
You haven’t rented much, have you.
What does this have to do with anything? I’ve rented places for about 6 years in my life, FWIW. I’ve also been a landlord.
Depends on the rental market. In my area so many homes were destroyed last year between tornado and flood that there were, essentially, no vacancies left in the county for some months.
Who has the upper hand will vary somewhat, and sometimes it’s a renter’s market, but in general he who has the property usually has the advantage.
The naiveté of your comment betrayed your inexperience.
Right, I was responding to a comment where someone said that either the tenant rents THIS house or goes homeless, and I’m the one being naive. This conversation with you has been as productive as every other one (which is to say “not very”).