Renting from a landlord... met prior tenant :(

Renting from a landlord... met prior tenant :(

Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes

Hey all,

So we are facing a big decision on whether to move into a rental or not. It's in an area we have been wanting to move, there are currently no other rentals that fit our criteria, now is a good time to move (as we intend to move out of the current place and sell it), and the place we are considering renting is nice and well-kept overall but it is slightly smaller than the current place so we have some minor concerns about squeezing everything in.

BUT the bigger concern is with the landlord. During our due diligence process, we actually knocked on the doors of a few neighbors and spoke with them. One happened to be the prior tenant who had lived at the unit we are considering renting. She really liked it and said the landlords were "nice" but that they were actually quite difficult to work with (I think there might be a slight barrier in communications/understanding what the landlords were saying as English is their second language). She then went on to start ranting and complaining about how they were unreasonable and essentially stingy/penny-pinchers... basically that they made her pay for the home warranty service calls on normal wear and tear types of issues (the washing machine didn't work well, the water heater started leaking and needed replacement, etc). She also complained that they took money out of her security deposit for a landscaper they just brought in to clean up broken pottery in the yard which she claims was there from the prior tenants. On top of that, she wanted to have her own landscaper come in to do general maintenance/cleanup (presumably for a lower cost) but they ignored her requests to that and had someone else do it.  

We met them yesterday (including their agent and our realtor/agent) and they were...interesting. Prior to this my realtor raised some of the concerns that we heard about from the prior tenant and the landlords seemed to get quite defensive (understandably so). Anyway, when we met with them nearly the first thing the landlord did was have me come over to look at all his documentation about the water heater and basically trying to justify why he was in the right and why the prior tenant had no business complaining about paying a $75 service fee for a leaking water heater (which it seems to me is normal wear and tear since most people aren't going to damage a water heater) and how he had to pay out of his own pocket to replace the thing outside of whatever the home warranty deductible was. It felt...petty. I almost wanted to tell him that I'm not there to play the judge (because it started feeling like that) but that I just wanted a fair and reasonable relationship when it comes to that stuff. I've read around and my understanding is that some landlords leverage home warranties but some think that in addition to offshoring the headaches of work requests, they can also offshore some of the costs (including being billed the service call charge regardless of whether it was wear and tear or tenant-induced damage). My understanding, from a *reasonable* landlord's perspective, is that landlords *should* just take care of and cover any non-damage/wear-and-tear issues that arise. If something was damaged, of course the tenant should be responsible, however. My point is, and I hope this would never happen, but I don't want to have to pay a $75 service fee every time something starts going wrong not due to damage (e.g. leaky pipe/faucet, leaking water line behind fridge, leak from washing machine, clogged dryer vent, leaking water heater, A/C condenser fan gave out, furnace stopped working because the control board went out, etc etc etc). I don't know what the condition is of *everything* in this unit or how much life is left - we could go in there and have all these things fail on us 5 months in, and then what? 

Anyway, both the husband and wife were slightly stand-offish but the husband more so than the wife. It was a little awkward and often hard to understand the points they were trying to make. But they seemed nice and *wanted* us to rent from them. My take, based on the discussion between their agent and my realtor, is that the prior tenant was troublesome (sounded like the feeling was mutual though) and that they are looking for a 'unicorn' of a tenant who won't give them any trouble (or even complain) and who will pay rent on time. Out of all the applicants, it seems we are top of the list (else they wouldn't have wanted us to come meet them and have a long discussion yesterday). My realtor perceives them as wanting to be as passive as possible. I have no problem when it comes to trying to be passive but I think there are certain things where no landlord (at least ones who choose not to use property management) can assume to be fully passive, particularly when it comes to the topic of repairs/maintenance. I'm just trying to prevent headaches here if possible - would really like to just sign the lease agreement but wanted to get some feedback on if this sounds like a "skip it" situation or if we should suck it up and if there are also ways to protect ourselves or 'manage' the landlords so that we can prevent these types of issues from arising. One of the big reasons we want to make the move is to get our kids into the boundary of a certain school to get them enrolled in a language immersion program (guaranteed in if you are inside the neighborhood boundary of the school).

This would be on a 1 year lease, and the intention is that we would be looking for a new permanent home and hope to have bought by the time the lease is up anyway. The option of selling now and buying ASAP has come up but this would put other constraints and stress on us that I think would be just as if not more difficult (stress of prepping, staging and showing WHILE residing here, which means moving all our stuff around for paint work, carpet cleaning, etc. We also have new noisy upstairs neighbors who just moved in so this is partially driving our desire to generally just get out from living under someone. But even after this, we'd have to rent-back for 60 days or so and would still be on the clock to find a place and in the specific neighborhood of the school where we want our kids, and we'd be doing all this during the election timeframe, where there may be low inventory levels based on what we've heard from realtors in general etc - if we can't find anything, we'd have to rent anyway). The 1yr lease option I'm inquiring about gives us the most flexibility but at a higher cost and with potential conflict. 

Thoughts?

0Reply
58 views

Most Popular Reply

Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
6y

@Jeremy Lee  If they were just using the standard CAR residential lease template, pretty much all of the things you previously mentioned (e.g. leaky pipe/faucet, leaking water line behind fridge, leak from washing machine, clogged dryer vent, leaking water heater, A/C condenser fan gave out, furnace stopped working because the control board went out, etc) would typically fall under normal wear-and-tear and would not be a tenant's responsibility.  However, it's that other added clause about the tenant paying the $75 co-pay for ANY repair that's the problem. 

If you and the landlord MUTUALLY agree to that in the lease, it's enforceable (just like the answer from the attorney in the link I included in my previous post states). 

At least now you know that.  (Good job for reading the lease.  Not all tenants do.)  So now you can either accept it, see if you can negotiate with the landlord to remove that clause, or decline to accept it and not rent this place. 

(I would not accept it unless you actually plan to report issues that come up and pay the service fee, since - as you see in the language of the lease - you can be charged for "all damage to Premises as a result of failure to report a problem in a timely manner." Just FYI.)

And yes, it's a Marlin in my photo that I caught in Cabo.  :)  Nice catch in your pic too by the way!


See this reply in the discussion

19 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2015 · 100 posts · 40 votes
    6y

    Wow.  In my experience as a landlord, water heater leaks are the landlord's responsibility, unless there was gross negligence on the tenant's part. You may want to check their lease to make sure it conforms with state law. 

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Janice R.:

    Wow.  In my experience as a landlord, water heater leaks are the landlord's responsibility, unless there was gross negligence on the tenant's part. You may want to check their lease to make sure it conforms with state law. 

    I don't have all the full details but I'm pretty sure the landlord had to replace the water heater. I don't know how long it was leaking for but I would think that usually you'd know pretty quickly if it were leaking that badly - even before ours was replaced, the pilot light went out and I noticed a small amount of leakage before the point that we decided to replace it. Unless the tenant was living with no hot water for a long time and didn't care to report it, I could see that as gross negligence (in terms of not reporting it). At the same time, when the water heater leaks like that, it seems like there isn't much that could have been done to prevent it other than by getting it checked regularly and just replacing it. So I suppose it's a toss-up but I would think overall this is something the landlord should have just taken care of completely.  

  • Investor · Marin County California · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    You will be at this property for 1 year, right?  In Irvine, I suspect the rent is several thousand dollars per month, right?  In the highly unlikely event you will have a service call every month, you will incur about $900 in fees per year.  People pay that much every two weeks for private school and here you will have your choice of school district for a whole year while you look for your permanent home.  Could it be that you are over-analyzing this issue?     

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Darius Ogloza:

    You will be at this property for 1 year, right?  In Irvine, I suspect the rent is several thousand dollars per month, right?  In the highly unlikely event you will have a service call every month, you will incur about $900 in fees per year.  People pay that much every two weeks for private school and here you will have your choice of school district for a whole year while you look for your permanent home.  Could it be that you are over-analyzing this issue?

    It would be a one year lease. We would be moving to South county. But yea, you're probably right about things not breaking every week - I think the concern is more about the big picture and what will happen with the way other things are handled overall. "Small things" like this seem like they can be indicative of bigger issues. But again, this is for a year - it's not like we're planning to stay forever.   

  • Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    6y

    @Jeremy Lee  I wouldn't get too hung up on the drama between the landlord and the former tenant.  I've found that there's usually three sides to every story....this side, that side, and the truth somewhere in the middle.  So take both of their versions with a grain of salt because you'll never know what really happened.

    As for how things would turn out between you and this landlord, especially when it comes to how repairs are handled, that is going to be heavily controlled by how the lease reads.  None of us have read the lease, and perhaps you haven't even read it yet either.  However, it sounds like you are very thorough when it comes to your due diligence, so I'd suggest you obtain a copy and read it over. 

    Usually, a landlord can charge a tenant for damage that they cause, but not normal wear-and-tear items that come up during a tenancy (like the A/C condenser fan giving out that you mentioned).  However, it is possible that the landlord and tenant could MUTUALLY agree in the lease that the tenant could be responsible for the first X amount of money for service visits.  If that were the case, then yes, a tenant could end up having to pay for the A/C condenser fan service fee visit. 

    (There's plenty of other posts on BP about those types of arrangements, and here's some additional reading too if you're interested: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-landlord-require-first--100-of-any-repair-paid-437564.html.)

    For what it's worth, I don't personally like those type of arrangements because I feel it encourages tenants not to call for repairs since they know it's going to cost them money.  And that can lead to minor issues going untended to and turning into much bigger issues.  However, they are generally legal and perhaps that's the arrangement the former tenant had.  I can't say for sure though because, like I said, we haven't read the lease (but you definitely should). 

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Kyle J.:

    @Jeremy Lee  I wouldn't get too hung up on the drama between the landlord and the former tenant.  I've found that there's usually three sides to every story....this side, that side, and the truth somewhere in the middle.  So take both of their versions with a grain of salt because you'll never know what really happened.

    As for how things would turn out between you and this landlord, especially when it comes to how repairs are handled, that is going to be heavily controlled by how the lease reads.  None of us have read the lease, and perhaps you haven't even read it yet either.  However, it sounds like you are very thorough when it comes to your due diligence, so I'd suggest you obtain a copy and read it over. 

    Usually, a landlord can charge a tenant for damage that they cause, but not normal wear-and-tear items that come up during a tenancy (like the A/C condenser fan giving out that you mentioned).  However, it is possible that the landlord and tenant could MUTUALLY agree in the lease that the tenant could be responsible for the first X amount of money for service visits.  If that were the case, then yes, a tenant could end up having to pay for the A/C condenser fan service fee visit. 

    (There's plenty of other posts on BP about those types of arrangements, and here's some additional reading too if you're interested: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-landlord-require-first--100-of-any-repair-paid-437564.html.)

    For what it's worth, I don't personally like those type of arrangements because I feel it encourages tenants not to call for repairs since they know it's going to cost them money.  And that can lead to minor issues going untended to and turning into much bigger issues.  However, they are generally legal and perhaps that's the arrangement the former tenant had.  I can't say for sure though because, like I said, we haven't read the lease (but you definitely should). 

    Thanks @Kyle J. Nice marlin btw! Southern CA or Baja I'm assuming? 

    In terms of the lease agreement (CAR Form LR), it states:

    "Tenant shall be charged for all repairs or replacements caused by Tenant, pets, guests or licensees of Tenant, excluding ordinary wear
    and tear. Tenant shall be charged for all damage to Premises as a result of failure to report a problem in a timely manner.
    Tenant shall be charged for repair of drain blockages or stoppages, unless caused by defective plumbing parts or tree roots
    invading sewer lines."

    However, they added a filled-in provision (D. Landlord Tenant shall maintain:) that states: "Tenant to call American Home Shield Warranty and pay the co-pay amount of $75 for any repairs" - this doesn't seem to make much sense since this line item provision seems to be in the context of anything else the landlord will maintain not mentioned within section 11. Maintenance Use and Reporting.

    I agree with you though on it not being a good idea - in terms of things going unreported that's exactly what I've read could happen. And this could, in fact, be what arose from the issue with the water heater in part.
     

  • Investor · Marin County California · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    It's pretty clear you will not be paying for any underlying damage to the property unless it's tenant caused.  Not will you be paying for the monthly AHS premium.  Your only obligation will be an occasional $75 service charge if anything gets broken.  Kyle J. raises a good question as to whether this is a smart practice from the landlord's perspective.  We use AHS at some of our rentals and we pay the service charge for precisely the reason he cites.  Dumb or not, those are the terms on which the LL is proposing to rent out the unit.  Again, you will be in control over how many service calls get made.  If you can live with minor annoyances for a year, the answer may be "none."  

  • Rental Property Investor · Northern, CA · Member since 2012 · 5k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    6y

    @Jeremy Lee  If they were just using the standard CAR residential lease template, pretty much all of the things you previously mentioned (e.g. leaky pipe/faucet, leaking water line behind fridge, leak from washing machine, clogged dryer vent, leaking water heater, A/C condenser fan gave out, furnace stopped working because the control board went out, etc) would typically fall under normal wear-and-tear and would not be a tenant's responsibility.  However, it's that other added clause about the tenant paying the $75 co-pay for ANY repair that's the problem. 

    If you and the landlord MUTUALLY agree to that in the lease, it's enforceable (just like the answer from the attorney in the link I included in my previous post states). 

    At least now you know that.  (Good job for reading the lease.  Not all tenants do.)  So now you can either accept it, see if you can negotiate with the landlord to remove that clause, or decline to accept it and not rent this place. 

    (I would not accept it unless you actually plan to report issues that come up and pay the service fee, since - as you see in the language of the lease - you can be charged for "all damage to Premises as a result of failure to report a problem in a timely manner." Just FYI.)

    And yes, it's a Marlin in my photo that I caught in Cabo.  :)  Nice catch in your pic too by the way!


  • Theresa HarrisPro Member
    Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    6y

    If it gets you in the right school district and is only for a year, just rent it.  Any problems with repairs that arise-if you are handy...just deal with them or pay the $75 (which seems silly and should only be paid by the tenant if it is the result of something the tenant did).  As another person said, you shouldn't have things breaking often.

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Theresa Harris:

    If it gets you in the right school district and is only for a year, just rent it.  Any problems with repairs that arise-if you are handy...just deal with them or pay the $75 (which seems silly and should only be paid by the tenant if it is the result of something the tenant did).  As another person said, you shouldn't have things breaking often.

     I agree - we likely will jump on it at this point. I'm relatively handy so I'm somewhat confident. It's more things like the furnace and AC, which look older when I walked through the place. Also, the prior tenant reported issues with the washing machine and how it wasn't functioning well. And I noticed what appeared to be minor water damage in the area around the washing machine, so definitely things to keep an eye out for. My realtor was saying we have a few days to report any immediate issues we find upon moving in, so the plan is to run several loads of laundry through that washing machine (and the dryer). Apparently, two prior tenants ago had a TON of animals/pets and the place was filthy - this is the same washer/dryer from that tenant, and so the tenant after experienced all these issues with the machine (probably because there was all kinds of animal hair, etc clogging things up). By now, and with all the service calls made by the prior tenant, it's quite possible the place and most of its appliance are almost back to tip-top shape LOL

  • Theresa HarrisPro Member
    Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Jeremy Lee:
    Originally posted by @Theresa Harris:

    If it gets you in the right school district and is only for a year, just rent it.  Any problems with repairs that arise-if you are handy...just deal with them or pay the $75 (which seems silly and should only be paid by the tenant if it is the result of something the tenant did).  As another person said, you shouldn't have things breaking often.

     I agree - we likely will jump on it at this point. I'm relatively handy so I'm somewhat confident. It's more things like the furnace and AC, which look older when I walked through the place. Also, the prior tenant reported issues with the washing machine and how it wasn't functioning well. And I noticed what appeared to be minor water damage in the area around the washing machine, so definitely things to keep an eye out for. My realtor was saying we have a few days to report any immediate issues we find upon moving in, so the plan is to run several loads of laundry through that washing machine (and the dryer). Apparently, two prior tenants ago had a TON of animals/pets and the place was filthy - this is the same washer/dryer from that tenant, and so the tenant after experienced all these issues with the machine (probably because there was all kinds of animal hair, etc clogging things up). By now, and with all the service calls made by the prior tenant, it's quite possible the place and most of its appliance are almost back to tip-top shape LOL

     To be safe, take photos when you move in and do a walk through with the manager documenting everything.

  • Rental Property Investor · Portland OR · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y

    Life is short. Dont rent from these folks. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    @Jeremy Lee yea they will be a bit of a pain and having the tenant pay the copay for the home warranty is absolute bull@#$t. Landlord is paying for that service to protect his assets and save his time. If he wanted to go a different route and not pay a co-pay he could. It would be like you asking him to pay your deductible on your renters insurance.

    If it was me I’d either say strike that from the lease or have at least 3 service calls on the landlord or split the co-pay. I wonder if the clause is even legal in your state. Just because the lease says it....

    But if the place is in decent enough shape and you are staying there for a year it’s likely to be fine with only occasional annoyance. We all deal with poorly performing vendors!

  • Rental Property Investor · Boston, Massachusetts (MA) · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    6y

    @Jeremy Lee actually why don’t you ask him to exempt furnace and AC from that silly policy?

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y

    My agent is already on it to amend the contract with something more along the lines of

    "Tenant shall call AHS Warranty for any repairs and landlord will pay the co-pay. In accordance with 11A, if determined by AHS warranty that damages were caused by the tenant, the landlord will bill the tenant the cost of the co-pay or deduct it from the security deposit." 

    I'm even hesitant to keep that second line in there. Just keep it short and sweet like "Tenant shall call AHS Warranty for any repairs and landlord will cover the cost of co-pay unless the damage was caused by the tenant" - the problem is that AHS makes you pay up-front before they send someone out. So if you know you did something wrong then yea I guess you should call and pay. However, if it's a wear and tear issue that the landlord should be paying then I'm not sure how that would work (unless you have the option to bill it to them hahaha). Either that, or the provision states "Tenant pays co-pays but if the repair was due to normal wear and tear, landlord shall credit tenant and deduct the equivalent co-pay amount from the following month's rent" - I don't know... these home warranty programs just sound like a headache to deal with and actually more complicated than just finding a good handyman that you trust and have a good relationship with who can just take care of a majority of issues. 

    I doubt he'll want to amend the contract to exempt stuff like the furnace and AC since presumably those are covered under warranty. But the general/overarching provision indicating damages caused by the tenant shall be paid by the tenant should be enough to cover stuff like that I'd think. I believe this extra line they added is just them trying to cut their costs as much as possibly, justifying the fact that they're having to pay for the home warranty service and out of pocket when the cost exceeds their deductible... as if it's some sort of "amenity" to the tenant to not have to call the landlord and deal directly with the home warranty rep LOL.

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y

    We did another walkthrough of the place tonight and there are a number of things not right. The dryer seems broke and missing the lint screen, in addition to a faint smell of gas. Microwave vent fan filter is old, dirty, bent and needs to be changed. A few bulbs burnt out. And two of the shower head fixtures have so much calcium build-up that they don't freely move as well as one of the tub redirect switches doesn't fully work to redirect water to the shower head. 

    I mean, are these the types of things that are reasonable to expect to be working/replaced upon a tenant moving in?  

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y

    We drafted an addendum to the lease to remove the language they inserted on the tenant being responsible for co-pays as well as maintenance of landscaping (the attorney who I retained to review the lease quickly looked over it and pointed this out, in personal amazement that a landlord would have the tenant be responsible for landscaping in a condo unit situation). Landlords won't budge on either thing. Considering the things I pointed out that aren't even right off the bat, it sounds like he wants us to go through the trouble of contacting home warranty to get everything fixed. Uhhh, no thanks. If he wanted passive he should have just hired property management. This landlord sounds unreasonable definitely for a year. I think this is a hard pass. We'll figure out how to make it work but I don't feel like we're passing up a great opportunity here at all. 

  • Chandler, AZ · Member since 2020 · 295 posts · 272 votes
    6y

    I lived in San Francisco for 10 years. Lots of people from different cultures there. Some landlords would rather let their property deteriorate and fall to the ground over investing a penny into keeping it in good shape and they may also have a very different understanding of what is morally right and wrong all while sitting on millions of dollars of equity. They likewise nickel and dimed for ridiculous items. It’s not unique to your situation. They don't even realize it and may very well have come from a very tough situation in another country and this is all they know. The word here is slum lord. If the deal is good, it may be worth the risk but understand you will get little cooperation from the landlords on anything financially related and may need to fight to get any deposit back.

  • Laguna Niguel, CA · Member since 2017 · 125 posts · 7 votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Chris B.:

    I lived in San Francisco for 10 years. Lots of people from different cultures there. Some landlords would rather let their property deteriorate and fall to the ground over investing a penny into keeping it in good shape and they may also have a very different understanding of what is morally right and wrong all while sitting on millions of dollars of equity. They likewise nickel and dimed for ridiculous items. It’s not unique to your situation. They don't even realize it and may very well have come from a very tough situation in another country and this is all they know. The word here is slum lord. If the deal is good, it may be worth the risk but understand you will get little cooperation from the landlords on anything financially related and may need to fight to get any deposit back.

    Thanks @Chris B. This is the feeling I get - I'm not even sure I'd say it's that great of a deal that we negotiated down. It's more of a 'fair' deal IMHO. We would have paid less than the prior tenant, but they totally nickel and dimed her after speaking with her and realizing the things that are broken and that she had to deal with. It's already a telltale sign that they are all defensive about that in addition to not wanting to budge on *any* of what we wrote up on the addendum. If they were one ounce reasonable, they'd at a minimum have said "ok we'll cover the copay and take care of the major broken items before you move in like dryer and faucet" but not even that. I feel so bad for the tenant that signs their lease - the idea my agent got was that they were really looking forward to finally getting a good tenant in. I'm not so sure the issue is with their tenant selection as it is with them....

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.