Do-It-Yourself Landlord's Blog - Maintaining & repairing

Quick Bedbug Update: Who's Paranoid? Us!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:48:00 -0500

I’m still on the fence concerning the whole Bedbug disaster. As a Landlord, I’m not interested in being legally responsible for any more than is necessary (could price me out of being a Landlord, so I’m simply being reasonable). But as a human being, I understand the plight of any Tenant who feels that they’re being unnecessarily menaced, by anything, while living in a property I own.

So I’m just going to periodically update the happenings surrounding Bedbugs, and try to answer any questions in the comments which a) I am qualified to, and b) do not require me to hire a lawyer for legal advice on how to sue someone (because we’re a litigious enough society as it is). That said:

Bugged Out, the good ol’ GO-TO site for anyone in the NYC area with bedbug issues, posted this up back in July. The post focuses on a sort of shell-shocked paranoia which (understandably) occurs after having had an infestation. They liken it to the delusions typically associated with schizophrenia or psychedelic drug use (I can’t believe I actually typed that out, so sterile sounding, like a high school principal or something).

I had a friend in high school who every time he tripped on acid, he swore his body was covered with worms. It was funny to watch, until he chose to pick up a razor to scrape them off. That obviously didn’t work out as well as we all had hoped it would, and lots of bandages were employed to remedy the situation.

Point being: there are obviously effects of an infestation which go far beyond the lingering worries associated with standard domicile infestations (roaches, ants, etc). I believe this is directly related to the actual human body being violated (fed upon). But, I’m no psychologist.

Bugged Out also dips into the whole Is DDT Really THAT Bad? question, which a perfectly fair thing to wonder. But that’s a mad-touchy issue, one with deep political ties, considering the reams of “research�? out there which brought about its demise, and the number of political careers which were built by (and still somewhat stand upon) the environmental movements spawned from the death of DDT.

I’m just sayin’.

Not-So-Quick Bedbug Update: Gettin' Litigious!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:00:00 -0500

I’m still on the fence concerning the whole Bedbug disaster. As a Landlord, I’m not interested in being legally responsible for any more than is necessary (could price me out of being a Landlord, so I’m simply being reasonable). But as a human being, I understand the plight of any Tenant who feels that they’re being unnecessarily menaced, by anything, while living in a property I own.

So I’m just going to periodically update the happenings surrounding Bedbugs, and try to answer any questions in the comments which a) I am qualified to, and b) do not require me to hire a lawyer for legal advice on how to sue someone (because we’re a litigious enough society as it is). That said:

Wow. Even more bedbug commentary happening here. It’s crazy how a miniscule menace from the prior century can come back and cause such a ruckus here in our modest, and modern times.

This time, the issue is legal responsibility. To begin, I must note that we’re something of a Landlord-centric blog, but we really do want to be reasonable on every front. And on the subject of infestation, of any variety, being reasonable is key above all else.

Again, this is a brief discussion on the legal responsibility for bedbug remediation. Who shoulders it?

Specifically, a commenter from a previous post, David, who is apparently from Canada, wondered about who it is that is responsible for remediation if the bugs are discovered AFTER the Tenant has already spent some time in residence.

The assumption here is that it was not a horrific infestation to begin with, but that it has become one, and that it is impossible to pinpoint an obvious source of entry for the pests. Considering the feeding patterns of bedbugs, the little buggers could have been hiding out for the initial months, waiting to feed, and simply took their time in getting established. Or they were brought in from Singapore by the Tenant and immediately set up shop.

No one knows for sure, it's a fantastic mystery. A mystery which, as a Landlord, you need to be aware of your liability in.

So there's quite a bit of conjecture on this. As I posted before, the Bed Bug Blog even lists out the things a Tenant might do to arm themselves before throwing it in litigious gear. Obviously, that assumes there’s a precedent somewhere for winning such cases, provided you follow their directions.

Hm.

Overlawyered discusses a case involving a couple and a Motel in Arkansas. The interesting points come out in the comments. Sure, they’re comments, so they aren’t Primary Sources or anything. But they give good leads.

This feels like the least helpful post I've ever made... Not sure how I feel about that just yet.

Quick Bedbug Update: Bring The Science!

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:17:13 -0500

Bugs Continue Bugging

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:40:40 -0600

It appears that Bedbugs are quite the rage, still, in and amongst the ranks of both Landlords and Tenants. In many ways, and for many reasons, I wanted this to be a temporary scare. My wants are not being met by the bugs.

If you’re wondering whether or not your Tenants might have a problem and simply aren’t talking to you about it, try and understand that many Tenants feel that admitting to bedbugs is the same as admitting to living in neglectful filth (which is NOT necessarily the case). This causes an understandable amount of shyness in getting the problem remedied early enough to avoid a full-blown infestation. I recommend printing or emailing the link for this site: Bedbugger. They have an awesome FAQ and a “tales of woe" post to help anyone feeling alone with the bugs. The University of Kentucky Entomology also has a fantastic write up on the bugs (complete with helpful pictures of infestation evidence).

Not convinced that bedbugs are a serious issue for Landlords? Well…

Bugged Out reflects on the perils of 2006, and the bedbugs it brought. The Bedbug Blog brings you photos of their handiwork. And while his war was waged and potentially won earlier in 2006, Bed Bug War’s chronicles are still worth a read since he was at the forefront of a building war.

In my recent research, I came across a humorous take on these blood suckers: The Frankenstein Bug. Funny, good times in the face of the merciless Bed Bug. It’s a long one, so get a cup of coffee and take off your shoes. Some guy on a bus once told me “humor is a healthy path to healing" after laughing at the freezing rain that almost gave me hypothermia. There might be something to the words of that crazy old man, as much as I preferred to ignore him that morning.

Germans Behaving Badly

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:57:00 -0600

Landlords misbehave in other countries too!

Hello Germany.

Ask The Relic is suffering through some obnoxious repair work being done to the kitchen of the place he/she (“Relic�? doesn’t exactly hint at gender) is currently dwelling with roommates in Germany.

No Tenant will respond favorably to having a kitchen renovation crew hammering and sawing about before 9am. That’s just unnecessary. Well, it might be necessary in Germany, and I’ve heard horror stories about dealing with craftspeople in Manhattan, but in the places where I collect rent it isn’t that far a stretch to schedule in-house work on a currently inhabited unit for mid-day.

Large-scale renovations are another story altogether, but Relic appears to be describing your basic “handy man�? type of work. Perhaps some aesthetic touches here and there. Nothing too involved.

At least I know what I’d be called in Germany now. Hausmeister is pretty sweet sounding if you ask me. “Landlord�? is cool and all, but it has some slightly negative connotations. Perhaps a nod toward a more cruel and medieval relationship between a Landlord and their Tenants. Like I have them tilling fields all day or something.

Now Hausmeister on the other hand, makes it sound like I am an actual professional of some sort! A MASTER if you will!

Yes, I realize that the normal translation of Hausemeister is the comparably less sexy “janitor�?, but whatever. I’m talking PERCEPTION here. Namely, my own.

Besides, being a master of the broad and necessary janitorial crafts industry can’t be all bad, even if it is a bit bad sounding.

[my sincere apologies to any potentially offended practicers of the janitorial arts out there, much respect due]

Canadians Behaving Badly

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:54:04 -0600

Landlords misbehave in other countries too!

Hello Canada.

Wow. Superfink is extremely upset about the current behavior of her Canadian Landlord. He’s showing her crib about to new prospective renters, even though he pushed to have her and her roommate leave so he could renovate. And he’s apparently a fan of the no-tell unit showing! He just shows up with a crew of potential renters, oh, whenever!

Actually, I (in a round-about sort of way) understand the Landlord’s desire to get some renovating done, and the need to get the current Tenants out before it begins. Two reasons:

1. The renovation project I’m looking at will require some serious effort, and will likely demand the repeated cutting off of electricity and water. Some issues, such as a bathroom re-tile, will take a couple of days to complete. There’s only one place to bathe in the unit. So how’s a Landlord supposed to get that accomplished without a severe hindrance to the current Tenant? Sure, there are ways. But those ways usually get trumped by the second issue.

2. It’s difficult to upsell a unit that’s currently inhabited, even if you do extensive remodeling/renovating. Fact is, they rented X place for X dollars a month. You deciding to take the interior and appliances to X+100 will likely not translate to X+100 dollars in new rent within the mind of the Tenant. And why should it? Seriously. Contracts simply don’t work that way, and for good reason. Long story short: it’s difficult to convince a current Tenant that a newer looking sink and a dishwasher should fetch an additional $50 in rent per month.

But a new Tenant might not mind!

However, I suspect that Superfink’s Landlord was trying to lever them out before their actual Lease was up. Which is indicative of a rather low moral character, and sorta brings us all down in the process. Even in calm realm of Canada.

On The Timeliness Of Repairs

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:58:00 -0600

Here’s a pretty standard issue with the average end-of-lease scenario: (from Curbed) Tenant in NYC wonders what they’re actually liable for paying on some damage resulting from an incident earlier in their residency (they want to know how they can get out with paying the least amount of money, none if at all possible). Of course it’s about more than just what the Tenant feels is reasonable to pay. It’s also about the timely cost-estimation and handling of such necessary repairs.

Based solely upon the account of the soon-to-be ex-Tenant in the post, there are a couple of things that the Landlord should have done.

1. TIMELY REPAIR. Sure, it’s New York City, so contractors are difficult, schedules are hurried, life is complicated, and blah-blah I don’t wanna wah-wah-wah. Six months to repair over $2,000 in damage? Come on. Many LEASES are six months in length. If you can’t get your repairs done quicker than that, perhaps Landlording isn’t the right business to be in.

2. REMOVAL OF PADDED EXPENSES. Who knows whether the “call box�? or any other miscellaneous “repairs�? should have been involved in this particular bill. Maybe there really was damage that the Tenant wasn't aware of. Maybe not. What IS known is that Landlords have been known to trump-up repair fees JUST to keep deposits. Not all business owners have scruples, and Landlords are not immune to the temptations involved. Having rented in a college town, I know this from experience. And even though I’m on the other side of the fence now, and I can see how those Landlords felt some weird, relativistic justification for it, it still wasn’t proper. Karma, my friends. Karma.

Then there’s the way that the Tenant went on to deal with the issue, which as a Landlord, I must say kinda sucks. From my point of view, I don’t care who my Tenants hire to do things (as long as they’re insured), I will hold the Tenant responsible for any damage their moving crew may inflict on my property. And by the grace of that responsibility, I do not feel that simply waiting on an estimate is enough to warrant skipping out on the bill entirely.

If you read into the comments, you’ll see a good deal of advice that revolves around simply NOT paying the last month’s rent to recoup the potentially usurious cost of repairs. While I understand the motivation to do this, it would be wholly unfair. The Tenant DID damage the property, and therefore owes restitution. If they needed that estimate sooner, then they should have made that contractually plain to avoid any potential confusion. The fact that the moving company is no longer willing to cover the cost due to the length of time lapsed has nothing to do with whether the Tenant owes money to repair the damage they did to the property. That’s between the Tenant and their chosen Moving Company.

Is there any real legitimate reason why the Landlord should even be involved in this dispute? Beyond a re-estimation of repair costs?

Long Term Tenants Are Usually Considered A Blessing

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:47:13 -0600

Anesia Springborn over at The Landlord Blog has a great write-up on the loss of a long term Tenant (8 years!) who pretty much destroyed the place. It will need an ENTIRE remodel as soon as this Tenant vacates the premises. And of course, they were a month-to-month renter, so 30 days is all she had in order to inspect for, estimate, and conclude what will likely be a complete interior rehab project.

I cannot put enough stress on the need to do periodic inspections of your properties. No need to be overbearing, but a twice-yearly walk-through based on any circumstance available, or simply stated in the lease (unless it violates state law, which I can't imagine that being the case, but one never knows), can do wonders to avoid rehab disasters like these.

This is especially germane to one of my properties because I have a 10+ tenant on a month-to-month who has had some interesting issues during my ownership of the unit. Fortunately those issues afforded me the opportunity to check up on the unit itself. I simply did some cursory peaks at the rooms, while the plumber fixed the toilet or what-have-you, as the Tenant stood watch. No big deal. But it gave me a good basis for figuring out what exactly I’m going to need to save up for once the Tenant chooses to move on.

Most of the issues are the same as they were when I purchased the place, but have understandably deteriorated since then. Bathroom issues, kitchen horrors, ceiling problems, and all sorts of creative landscaping corrections all need to be addressed. Little by little, I am fixing what the Tenant allows, but only because I am able to get in there periodically and check the environment for future hazards that I can head off early (such as the leaky gas stove I replaced a few months back).

Planning ahead, I started a small fund, and have been adding to it ever since I purchased the place, expecting that rehab to hit me like a ton of bricks at any given moment. The lost rent during the rehab process, whenever it occurs? Well, I’m just hoping it won’t take too long. Whatever it is, it’ll just be sunk.

Don't Be That Landlord vol. III

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:49:23 -0600

The main point of being a Landlord is to profit from sound, practical investment. This is understandable fact. It is understandable because it is the capitalist backbone of our entire system of freemarket ownership for things with speculative rates of appreciation. Namely: real estate. But there are other important, and arguably more socially responsible facets of being the proprietor of where other people sleep. Where they raise their children. Where they celebrate holidays. Where they experience life.

In that context, there are other responsibilities that need to be lived up to by Landlords. And some appear too cold-hearted to understand that. This is most unfortunate.

It’s yet another installment of “Don’t Be That Landlord�?.

Apparently, and this should really come as no surprise to anyone, tenants do not approve of unsolicited sexual advances. Who would have known! Seems to me that a pool of people who you depend on for money would be a PRIME set of folks to risk royally PISSING off by way of creepy requests for sexual favors!

Some people simply shouldn’t be in a position of authority. Spiffle’s Landlord is amongst that group of people.

And then there’s the oh-so-typical issue of mold in the unit. For the love of pete, this should not be a problem in modern times. Leaks are more than a mold problem for a Landlord. Leaks ruin foundations, destroy ceilings, wear away at expensive bathroom tiling, stain or warp valuable flooring, and cause endless damage to the sticks that build up a unit. But the mold is what will likely cause a Tenant to mount a legal offensive. It is also what will cause a potential Tenant to pass, or a current Tenant (who pays on time and causes no other problems) to vacate. Make routine checks, and reassure your Tenants that it is in their benefit to report leaks to you as soon as they notice them.

Because really, it’s in your benefit too.

Lose Those Bad Tenants Already: Vol III

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:52:25 -0600

Finding Tenants is an arduous process. Full of potential legal pitfalls, and pre-screening failures. Criminals, practicing addicts, deadbeats and con artists. They all need somewhere to live, and there’s a chance that they’ll slip right through your defenses and end up with their name on one of your mailboxes.

If it happens, take solace in knowing you are far from alone in your tragedy. There are others who have suffered too.

It’s yet another installment of Lose Those Bad Tenants Already.

Property Grunt sifted through Teri Karush’s NY Times article on some of New York’s most disturbed tenants. Makes me feel fantastic about Landlording elsewhere. Obviously, in Gotham, it’s much more difficult to oust nasty tenants. In fact, having lived there for a spell, it should be known that nasty tenants are the norm.

Anywhere else? Dish the warning letters and prep for an eviction, ‘cause those people described in the article are big bags of CRAZY.

Bryc3 in Washington DC just recently took over an interesting apartment situation. Some fascinating porn involved, which should fall under personal preference rather than a reason to pressure a tenant, but interesting to run across nonetheless. Mainly, the issue with the previous tenant was apparently financial.

And they got the proper boot. Hopefully their lives aren’t in complete shambles. Regardless, it’s a funny read.

And if you don’t get the paperwork rolling on deadbeat tenants with a quickness, you’ll get stuck holding the bag. Quite literally. Which_chick has definitely endured a doozey of a tenant set. And now that the eviction has been properly served, there’s a whole unit full of garbage that must be STORED, and cannot be sold, pretty much until the delinquent ex-tenants show up to claim it.

I feel for you which_chick. I really do.

Are Bed Bugs The New Scourge For Landlords?

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:06:28 -0500

This New York Times article is quite possibly the best run-down on bedbugs I’ve seen to date. It dashes the myth that they’re only associated with filth and poor hygiene. It outlines the recent spike in reported infestations. It’s got Landlords a bit ruffled with all the talk of responsibility for eradicating infestations falling squarely on property owners’ shoulders.

The cost for remediation is prohibitive. Up into the thousands of dollars for a professional touch. And there are no guarantees that the little buggers won’t simply return. If a property does NOT have bedbugs one day, and then is infested the next, well, those bugs came from somewhere. Did the tenant bring them in? More than likely. Will they bring them in again? Difficult to say.

It’s especially difficult because of the stigma associated with bedbugs. Similar to the shadow cast over lice, it is assumed that bedbugs are the result of poor hygiene. This is a widely held fallacy, both for bedbugs and lice. But no tenant will want to take responsibility for bringing them into their own home, to save their pride if nothing else.

But some Property Managers aren’t taking the blame-game with a level head, as is seen here in a NY housing project where the tenant got evicted after she ceased making rent payments due to a child-horrifying bedbug infestation.

I’m not so sure it should be the responsibility of the Landlord. Not that they don’t have a responsibility to provide a clean and safe environment for Tenants, but certain infestations are NOT the result of poor property management. Most rodent infestations, or insect infestations (tree roaches, palmetto bugs, wasps, bees, ants, there are several potential examples) that result from poorly sealed properties, are understandably the responsibility of a Landlord. But what about infestations which obviously have no source in the quality of ownership? Kitchen roaches? Mosquitoes? Fleas? These are either brought in, allowed in, or openly attracted by the Tenants themselves.

Most pest control treatments are handled by the Landlord as a service, or as routine maintenance to ensure quality residences for rent. They aren’t wholly obligatory, most aren’t terribly expensive, and they rarely involve direct cleaning for the personal belongings of the Tenant.

So really, should Landlords take the financial beating brought about by remediation of bedbugs that were obviously brought in by Tenants? As is happening in NYC (based on the Times article mentioned above), where courts are finding in favor of Tenants, forcing Landlords to handle all remediation? I’m having trouble making that connection.

Renter's Insurance Recommendation

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:31:55 -0500

You might consider recommending Renter’s Insurance to your tenants, or for yourself if you are living in one of your own units. After all, it can be relatively inexpensive to obtain ($20-$30 per month, depending on level of coverage), and it could possibly help give your tenants some peace of mind.

In my neighborhood, where I am a owner-occupied duplex dweller, Renter’s Insurance is something of a must. Not that there’s rampant burglaries or that we’re in a hurricane trail, but it really only takes one sizable uninsured disaster to wipe out everything. There are periodic break-ins, and we are in an area that does experience mild flooding and the possible tornado. With all the normal computer and entertainment equipment in the average household today, the total value of property to insure is an easy $20,000. Especially when you consider just how much is potentially covered by the average policy: jewelry, coin collections, recreational vehicles, and exercise equipment. With the ridiculous prices out there for the latest Solo-Nautilus-Bow-Homegym-flex personal gym equipment, it might make sense to insure it like a child.

Daisy runs through some coverage points and brings up that if you already have an automobile insurance policy, you may get a multi-policy discount if you get Rental Insurance through the same agency. Sharonhr has an especially good take on the difference between Actual Cash Value (ACV) vs. Replacement Cash Value (RCV), in the event that one would need to use their policy.

Liability Blurbed

nospam@example.com (Craig) — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:53:51 -0500

Insurance horror stories. You'd think there would be a lawsuit hitting you every hour. What with tenants slipping and falling on driveways all the time. Knifings by the trashcans. Branches crashing down on baby carriages or whatever. All the insurance alternatives out there would have you believe that the sky is constantly falling on your tenants, on your property, on your watch. Constantly.

It's a bit difficult to say what's reasonable for the average Landlord to expect in terms of liability-proofing. That depends on the specifics of the property, and the legal powers that reside over its location.

But there’s an over-abundance of general information out there on the liabilities inherited by you as a landlord. Mold and Mildew. Asbestos. Radon. Lead paint. Slippery surfaces, handrail quality, stairwell integrity. Emergency access. Security against criminal acts between your tenants, or brought about by outsiders (select your state, etc). In The U.K., even terrorism gets tossed on the lot. Landlords are pretty much on the hook for more than all levels of government and law enforcement combined. Fantastic.

There's no real fair way of estimating your real liability. Best to keep on your guard though. Check your property regularly, and consider inviting your insurance agent over for dinner every now and again. Perhaps a fruit basket. Just to keep in their good graces.