All Forum Posts by: Shayna Adams

We got it figured out.  Thanks for the input.

Hi!  I've got a question regarding doing quick fixes on damages that would otherwise be a humongous expense, and how tenants should actually be charged for these things.  Here is my story:

I have a tenant moving out this week. They are in our small 1bd/1bth cottage/ADU which we remodeled from top to bottom right before they moved in. New vinyl "wood" plank flooring throughout, new cabinets, countertops, dishwasher, sinks and faucets, lighting fixtures, paint, window treatments, door seals... literally everything but the bathtub and stove was replaced, and it looks beautiful. I completed their move-out inspection today and there is a piece of damage that we can fix in a super complicated and expensive way, or in a cheap (but not easy) way. They dropped a dumbbell weight on the brand new floors and punched a hole in one of the floor planks. It's in the middle of the room so if we were going to replace the plank (which is the only true way to bring this unit back to the condition we gave it to them in), we'd have to remove half the flooring in the room to get to it. Not to mention all the baseboards would have to come off and be put back, and the days of labor this would require (or hiring a pro to do it faster). This is not an option as we have a new tenant moving in right away. The other way to "fix" it is to fill the hole with epoxy and reassemble the broken bits like a puzzle to try to disguise the damage as much as possible. Obviously, much cheaper and quicker, but not an ideal fix either.

Essentially, I'm just really annoyed that because they never disclosed this to me and left it for me to find, I now can't remedy the damage the way it should be, and I don't think it's fair that they should benefit from forcing me into a cheaper fix in the form of a smaller security deposit deduction.  So my question is, how would you actually value damage like this?  Would you get a quote for making the repairs properly from a flooring installer and pass that cost on to the tenant, or would you only pass on the costs for the cheap fix?  

 That's an excellent perspective.  I hadn't considered that it could be seen as retaliatory, and I definitely don't want to play that game.  I guess I'm trying to find a way so that one negligent tenant doesn't ruin it for everyone else, but there may just not be a way around that.  

Thank you for suggesting donations to local rent assistance programs.  This could be a really lovely way to balance my concerns and stay in alignment with my values, while also protecting my investment.  

 Thank you very much for your time and advice, Joe. I agree with you and think you are right on all fronts.  I will look into those Schlage door locks.  Sounds like that's exactly what I need if I decide to keep laundry available.  Either way, the laundry is going to be "closed for maintenance" for a while...  

Learning this lesson the hard way is certainly what's happened here... LOL!  I really do believe that affordable housing should be available to all.  Gentrification really does negatively impact legacy communities and results in varying levels of population turnovers, and this is definitely happening in my area.  I try to keep these things in mind when I am managing my investment properties and working with human beings, but obviously I let this issue go too far.  I should have addressed this with cameras or a better door locking system the first time it happened rather than trusting the tenants to care as much as I do after nothing more than a stern talking to.  And believe me, it's not lost on me that the likely culprits in this scenario are the ones paying less than 60% of market value. I will be addressing this without question.  

Can you tell me what you think about barring access to the laundry to just the one tenant?  The situation is that this tenant is on an older lease that has rolled over to month-to-month, that also never had the laundry machines mentioned on it, since it was signed before we installed the machines.  They are also the tenant paying extremely low rent (for now), and they are very likely the culprit.  The other two tenants in the other units have provided a significant amount of assistance and information regarding this situation, while the third tenant has been shady.  Would it be fair to restrict access to only the one tenant, or is that unreasonable as far as tenant/landlord relations go?

I'm wondering if there is some way to control access even further with a coded lock... Like, if I could program a lock to be disabled from 9pm-7am every day, then I could ensure that no one is opening the door during the coldest times.  Then if I also have a freezing alarm and someone leaves the door open during the day time operating hours there will be plenty of time and opportunity to remedy the situation before damage occurs. 

 Thank you for your reply!  Love these ideas and I'll look into each one.

Currently the room is secured with a knob and dead bolt the tenants all have keys to.  I do really like the idea of a coded lock and each tenant having their own code.  Access to the laundry room isn't required for anything the tenants need.  It's an exterior door that leads only to the laundry/utility room.  I could easily change the lock, and my life would be so much easier... LOL.

I really don't want to remove the access.  The property did not have on site laundry when we bought it and it was something we added at the request of our tenants.  That being said, there is a serious shortage of housing in our area, and an unprecedented amount of people moving in.  If my tenants were to move out because of taking the laundry, I'd have the units refilled overnight.  I recently had a turnover and within 24 hours of listing I had more than 20 applications from extremely qualified people.  I have no worries there.  

I have been an open minded and flexible landlord.  I've amended my pet policy for these people, installed laundry at their request where there was none before, and the rents for my legacy tenants are significantly below market value (the possible culprit is paying $800/month for a 2bd/1bth apartment I could easily get $1400/month for!) because I have felt bad about raising their rent too much at once and I know they wouldn't be able to find anything else affordable in this area.  At this point I just feel like I don't want to be flexible or forgiving about this anymore, because it's been such an expensive issue, and especially since no one is admitting it was them.  Someone is lying to me and I'm 99% sure I know who, just can't prove it.  If I have no legal obligation to maintain a non-essential amenity after the tenants negligence has caused outrageously expensive damage multiple time then I do not want to anymore. 

 That's an interesting idea...  Will look in to that.  If shared laundry is an amenity that I want to discontinue going forward, could I bare access to the tenants that do not currently have it as part of their lease, and remove it from all future leases?  I'm not sure how else I'd go about getting rid of it going forward since everyone is on different lease term dates.  I'd have to remove it in a "rolling" fashion...  Right?

Could you recommend the type of camera system I should be looking at?  Don't most of them run off of WiFi or bluetooth?  How do I set that up when there's no "office" on the premises?  

Wanted to add that I've been talking to tenants today to try to figure out who caused the damage last night, but the two possible culprits are now blaming each other.  I'm was hoping I could figure it out definitively so that I could assess the damage to the guilty party, but since that's a dead end, I'm moving on and now considering just closing the laundry permanently.

Hello!

We have a triplex in Missoula, MT, and have had repeated issues with tenants not caring for the shared laundry room.  Actually that's an understatement...  It's happened twice now that one of the tenants has left the door to the laundry room open, causing the entire room to freeze (it's winter in Montana...).  I have actually found the door left open dozens and dozens of times, but it's only caused frozen pipes and major water damage twice.  It happened again last night when there were sub-zero temps, and we are currently waiting for the pipes to thaw to see if any pipes are broken.  The property is on a private well, and the well pump/pressure tank is also housed in the laundry/utility room.  Currently all incoming and outgoing water lines are frozen solid.  If the well pump were to break from freezing damage it would be thousands of dollars to replace.  

The laundry room is something we added after we purchased the property 2 years ago.  We inherited 2 of the 3 tenants with the purchase and they've all been great other than this one recurring issue.  That being said, the machines are mentioned as "included appliances" on 2 of the updated leases.  One of the tenants is still on an old lease that has rolled over to month-to-month, and it makes no mention of the machines (after some investigating it seems that it's THEM that has continually caused this damage).  

Am I obligated to maintain all the tenants access to the shared laundry if they continually destroy it and cause thousands of dollars of damage?  The consequence of this event from last night is that the entire property is without water until the lines are thawed and the damage can be assessed and repaired.  Am I right in assuming my right to mitigate damage and respond to recurring issues trumps any responsibility I might have to maintain access to shared laundry machines?  Would love any thoughts.