You're viewing a single thread.
"All I want to do is exploit struggling people for far more than my property is worth. Is that so wrong?!"
Even more ironic is that the "professional" landlords/property holding companies hire property managers who do literally all the work, including both the upkeep for the house and interaction with the tenants. Like, what exactly do you contribute at that point? What would change practically if I hired the property manager directly with the money I would be paying you? Especially when the most common pro-landlord argument (used by landlords themselves) is that they fix things around the house and maintain it.
"You expect me to unclog a toilet?!"
Yes. That's exactly what I expect a landlord to do. And if you don't live in the same city as your rental property, maybe that shouldn't be allowed.
I am against landlords like everyone else, but I draw the line at unclogging the toilet. It isn't worth the effort to report that and I don't need people unnecessarily seeing my shit in the literal sense. Provided that it is a standard clog and not something wrong with the toilet.
I'm not talking standard clog. I don't mind using a plunger. But sometimes you need more than that and they should either do it or spend their own money on a plumber ASAP.
Ah, I see. The Super Poo, the Toilet Destroyer, HAZMAT. Things that only a professional can do. Sometimes the rabbit doesn't come out of the hat and you need an extra hand.
I had a landlord who wrote into the original version of the lease that I (as the tenant) would be responsible for any needed repairs to the sewer system. This was a much more extreme version of being unwilling to unclog a toilet lol. I said fuck that noise and he took the clause out. He turned out to be a good landlord and he didn't raise my rent once in seven years, but his tendency to just try and get away with whatever he could in the lease had me a bit worried at the start.
For individuals who own like a single rental property as an investment property, you could blame the banks. Maybe the tenants don’t have the 20% the bank would require for a mortgage. But they can afford the monthly rent for the larger house rather than a smaller apartment. Also the landlord takes on the risk here. (Market value, no Rent payment, property damage, maintenance…)
They take on the risk? That's hysterical. Landlords don't risk market value. They buy up all the houses when they're cheap, make their money back and then some by renting the property, then make even more money when the housing market goes up and they kick the tenant out to sell the property. They don't risk property damage, that's the entire point of a security deposit. They don't "risk" maintenance, that's called doing their job.
Ok kid. I think you missed the first sentence in my comment.
I don't understand why a 20% deposit is necessary. If you can make repayments as you can make rent, let them own the house already
You don't need 20%, you do need at least 3% in most cases. You then pay pmi which is an extra cost.
PMI sucks too. (Again, banks suck.) but it’s still better than paying rent.
In Australia its way more common for landlords to use propert management companies.
They charge about 5%, the tenant rings them and says "The hot water is out" they ring me and say "You need to authorise us to send a plumber" I say "Ok" they ring one of their go-to plumbers who attends super fast because they dont want to lose the repeat business of a property manager who has 100 properties to look after and they fix it at a fair rate because if they dont the property manager will find a new plumber.
When I was renting out my first house (had to move for work for a few years) I couldnt get an electrician for my own house as fast and as cheap as my property manager could get one for my tenants.