Am I out of line to complain?

[BridgeRunner]

Sorry, has nothing to do with fair or unfair.  It's also not a "blanket perception".  It's reality, one created by the renters themselves.  It's been my experience that the vast majority, at least 7 or 8 out of every 10, are riddled with an entitlement mentality and a seeming pathological need to lay claim to something that was never theirs in order to generally trash the place through willful neglect.  It's amazing, really... they will give the "I pay rent so it's my home" line when they don't want the owner seeing what a sty the place has become, but it becomes "hey, it's your property so it's not my problem" when they move out and leave a couple thou in damages not covered by the security deposit (imagine their surprise when the small claims court judgement against them indicates the error of their misperception).

If you're one of the few who IS a good renter, you are to be congratulated.  Unfortunately you are the minority and your fellow renters are doing you no favors by their actions.

Maybe this is a west TX phenomenon? I did small claims mediations for two years and got about a hundred or so rental cases. In the majority of cases that went to the magistrate, the landlord lost, usually for bs like charging moved-out tenants for a carpet they'd "destroyed"--when said carpet had been substantially destroyed before they moved in; trying to collect damages for tenants' failure to do what was clearly the landlord's responsibility, like failing to fix major, known plumbing issues. Charges outrageously excessive damages against a sec. dep. was a popular one.  $600 to clean a fridge, for example--that wasn't all that shockingly bad to begin with.

Perhaps that's a function of the plethora of amateur landlords in the Lansing area. However, that can be quibbled back and forth endlessly.

What cannot be defended, at least not if you look it up in any legal dictionary, is that leasehold is the purchase of an interest in property, not a "privilege." That appears to be your invention insofar as I can tell.

And yeah, your blanket perception of renters merely because they rent (and around here aboutthe only people not upside down in a mortgage) is ludicrous. You are aware I trust, that demographics vary? That in urban areas lifelong renting is a common decision because it, y'know, tends to make good financial sense? Some of us just don't like having to sell stuff. Best way to avoid it is to not buy stuff.

[AZRedhawk44]

No, you're not out of line to complain.

But the landlord is not out of line for obeying the terms of the lease and maintaining his property.


This is capitalism... you're not pleased with the situation and a small adjustment in interpersonal relations with the landlord will yield a satisfied customer likely to renew his lease. 

So, talk it over constructively.  You'll probably get your way.  You're not asking for that much.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I'm gonna agree with AZ here.

Is it inconvenient?  Yes.  Is it rude?  Maybe.......  But as a former renter, I experienced a lot of what you're experiencing now.  I was also a slob, but my wife has pretty much cured me of that (for the most part).  However, when I was single and worked nights, yeah, it sucked to have maintenance notices posted for the next day.  So I did what others here have suggested.  I approached the management, and asked that inasmuch as possible, we could try to coordinate either afternoon hours for maintenance being done on my apartment, or do it on my days off, so that I wasn't gonna be severely messed up by lack of sleep.  And you know what?  They agreed.  There were still times when it just wasn't practical for them, but for the most part we worked things out schedule wise.  There were still times when they'd stick a note on the door at 0800 for 0800 the next day, and I wouldn't get that notice until later in the day, but those were very few and far between.

Which does bring up a point.  Posting the notice on the door is (typically) all the law requires to consider notice served.  It doesn't matter when you *get* the notice, so long as they posted it within the legally required times (be it 24 hours or whatever).  I'm pretty much willing to bet there's also some provision in your lease agreement to that effect, that "serving notice of intent to enter" is as simple as posting the notice on your door (or hanging it from your doorknob, etc).

[Brad Johnson]

Maybe this is a west TX phenomenon? I did small claims mediations for two years and got about a hundred or so rental cases. In the majority of cases that went to the magistrate, the landlord lost, usually for bs like charging moved-out tenants for a carpet they'd "destroyed"--when said carpet had been substantially destroyed before they moved in; trying to collect damages for tenants' failure to do what was clearly the landlord's responsibility, like failing to fix major, known plumbing issues. Charges outrageously excessive damages against a sec. dep. was a popular one.  $600 to clean a fridge, for example--that wasn't all that shockingly bad to begin with.

Perhaps that's a function of the plethora of amateur landlords in the Lansing area. However, that can be quibbled back and forth endlessly.

What cannot be defended, at least not if you look it up in any legal dictionary, is that leasehold is the purchase of an interest in property, not a "privilege." That appears to be your invention insofar as I can tell.

And yeah, your blanket perception of renters merely because they rent (and around here aboutthe only people not upside down in a mortgage) is ludicrous. You are aware I trust, that demographics vary? That in urban areas lifelong renting is a common decision because it, y'know, tends to make good financial sense? Some of us just don't like having to sell stuff. Best way to avoid it is to not buy stuff.

Sorry, but my 12+ years in real estate and property management trump your two years in mediation.  Also, my "blanket perception of renters" has nothing to do with the fact that they choose to rent.  That's their prerogative, and there are certainly stellar renters out there (I have a couple right now going on 10 years in the same house and wouldn't trade them for the world.  Pay on time, keep the place clean, and let me know when something has failed so I can get to it before it gets any worse.  They also pick up the bill on anything they cause/break because they are, you know, responsible adults.)  My perception of renters is based on real-world experience with actual renters who, unfortunately, tend to adopt the mentality that "I'm paying rent so I can do whatever I want with/to the property and you should just butt out."  It is, unfortunately, the majority opinion when it comes to tenants.  Sorry you don't agree but that's called "Life".  Reality sometimes sucks and this is one of those times if you happen to be that minority of renters who fall outside the PITA category.

Certainly the owner has a responsibility to keep the property safe and habitable, and to abide by the lease terms.  But the tenant also has the responsibility to abide by that same lease, which they often conveniently forget when faced with a problem of their own making.  This is especially true if it involves money.  Want to see a judge give a tenant the stink-eye over a carpet damage dispute?  Just show him the lease where the tenant checked the "I have no animals" box, then give him the sworn statements from the HVAC guy who had to reschedule a service call because the dog the tenants "didn't have" wouldn't let him in the back yard.  Yet in this same instance the tenants will swear up and down that they never, ever, not in a million years had an animal in the house.  (Never mind that the urine odor was so overpowering you could smell it even before you reached the door.)  You should know that the situation I just described was neither made up as an example nor and isolated case.  It happened over, and over, and over.

You mentioned demographics so I will make an interesting observation based on my experience.  Renters who have owned a home and are renting as a temp solution for something like a job transfer, or who are on a plan to own a home in the future, tend to be very good renters.  (Enough single professionals also fall into this category that I will mention them, too, but only conditionally as the younger bunch can be just as problematic as more mainstream tenants.)  They have a sense of responsibility that carries over to the tenant/owner relationship and they treat the property as the valuable asset it is, not as a consumable they can use up at their leisure.  Unfortunately those good renters are far outweighed by the number of people who never seem to grasp that they are living in someone else's property under the legally binding terms of a written lease, opting instead to do with the property as they please without regard to common courtesy or respect for other people's investment.

Sorry to be so long winded and I'm not meaning to bust your chops but my experience (as well as the experience of other rent property owners on the forum, judging by the responses) is that majority of renters will, if given the slightest opportunity, figure out a way to make life problematic for the owner/landlord.  And they will do so the result of an entitlement mentality that presumes "Big Owner/Landlord" is in-the-money and taking advantage of them is somehow magically okay.  It's even more unfortunate because the good renters, which we in the business appreciate to no end, are automatically presumed to fall into the "typical renter" category until they prove otherwise.  No, it isn't fair.  It is, however, reality.

Brad

[erictank]

A) What are you "normal" hours of sleep?
B) Have you went and talked to the management team and tell them as such.  Say something along the lines of, "Hey you left this notice on my door, do you have an approx. time that they might be at my apartment.  If possible can they come to my apartment at y time because I am normally sleeping at these time a-b because of my schedule."  If not unreasonable most will work with you.
C) That is why I have a house and not an apartment.

Disagree with B).  I lived in an apartment complex in Fredericksburg from 98-2K, and received several notices of the sort HForrest describes. Usually >24 hours given, but not always, and by God they were *NOT* going to deviate from their stated schedule unless the place burned down, regardless of the impact on me. One particularly-glaring example was when they posted that they were going to be painting doors in my building for about a 1-week period, starting the last 2 days of my scheduled night shifts (and thus they'd be painting and leaving the door open while I was in the apartment sleeping.  I was not too keen on the idea, and immediately sent a note into the office requesting that they schedule my apartment late in the painting period so they wouldn't be leaving the door open while I slept - never received a reply.  About 2-3 days later, during my second-to-last night shift, I woke up in the afternoon to find my freshly-painted door blocked wide open, and still wet (tacky) by the time I needed to leave for work.  I closed and locked it as I left, of course, and left a civilly-nastygram for the office stating why.

They also entered the apartment during the day (sleeping during the day again, naturally) to change out ventilation filters, having provided ~12 hours notice - they placed the notice mid-to-late afternoon, and came in the next morning.  Bastards were loud enough to trigger a startled awakening and a reach for my handgun before I realized who it was.

No consideration was *EVER* given to my desires, let alone needs. When I moved to Louisa in 2000, the townhouse owners were FAR more considerate - and charged a little less per month to boot.  And now I live in a single-family home in NoVA, which is better still.

[wmenorr67]

Notice I said most.  I never had a problem when I lived in apartments or town homes.

And now I'm in my own single family home myself, I don't worry either.

[BridgeRunner]

Sorry, but my 12+ years in real estate and property management trump your two years in mediation.

Well, damn Brad, if I knew we were comparing dick sizes, I woulda' strapped mine on.  Also, you totally missed my point. 

Or am I not allowed to have one?  After all, I rent.

[De Selby]

I understand that. My "rights" comments were directed to deselby.


If he gave you 12 hours notice, he's breaching the lease and you have grounds to deny access, I'd imagine.

As per the courtesy aspect... yeah... you have a valid complaint. It's kinda rude.

A lease is a contract to sell property rights for a limited time - that is why it is a "rights" rather than a "contract" issue.  Don't sign a lease as an owner if you don't want people taking over the place and denying you entry; it's very simple.  Wanting a right of access whenever is a breach of that contractual arrange,ent.

There are other contracts for occupancy available to landlords - home owners should use those instead of a lease so that it is indeed only a contract issue.  Those instruments are not as secure or profitable as a lease, which is the trade off.

[Tuco]

Well, damn Brad, if I knew we were comparing dick sizes, I woulda' strapped mine on.

 
Thread win.

[RevDisk]

Wow, some fun y'all are. Forget I said anything.

Wow, some other folks here are uncommonly rude in this thread.

Check your lease.  See what it specifies.
Check the law. Yea, it'll suck, but it varies state by state.  I don't mean google or wikipedia, except to maybe find the law in question.

12 hours notice is very uncommon.  I've lived in apartments for years, and normally get two visits a year for maintenance.  Half the time, I could duck those by changing my own filters.

[MrsSmith]

Wow. I've read posts over this past 4+ months in which people bitched about their sex lives, their spouses, their bosses, their jobs in general, family, pets, houses, roommates (yep, that was me!), you name it, we've all bitched about something. And many of us have asked for the collective advice. And yep, there've been times when "the truth hurt" and some of you called it as you saw it, painful or not. But geesh, this guy makes a perfectly legitimate post, stating the issue he's having with his landlord (short notice for entry which would annoy the crap out of me too), asking if he would be out of line in saying something about it, and even acknowledging, right up front, that the problem is HIS with regard to his messiness. And y'all throw out responses like, "Don't like it buy a house!"
Like THAT'S a legitimate solution to his problem? You have no idea what his circumstances are and how can you assume that buying a house is right for him while he's in school and obviously in the middle of a lease? "If you don't like it, buy a house/move" is about as constructive and useful as "not happy, get a divorce."

What the *expletive deleted* is the problem here lately? If you think what this person is complaining about/asking/sharing is just so ludicrous as to deserve an uncaring general statement that makes you sound like a pompous ass, maybe it would be best to just skip that thread.

Yeah, maybe we're all here because of our common ground/shared belief in liberty and freedom. And we're all free to say and do what we want. But we're also all here because we do NOT believe it's right to impose our opinions or our views/beliefs on anyone else and none of us appreciate having other's opinions shoved down our throats. So what if the guy's a slob. He didn't ask for your opinion about his slobishness. He asked if he was out of line to be miffed about his landlord coming into the space HE PAYS RENT TO LIVE IN on short notice. Instead of doing what we USUALLY do for each other, which is offer a sympathetic shoulder and realistic reminders (your lease says it's ok), this came across sounding an awful lot like a bandwagon of unsympathetic witch-hunters.

Well he may be a witch but he's our witch. So cut him the hell down and play nice. Or don't play.

[Brad Johnson]

Well, damn Brad, if I knew we were comparing dick sizes, I woulda' strapped mine on.

You brought up the subject of your time/experience.  I merely replied with mine.

At one time I was a renter too.  Three years with a landlord I thought was evil incarnate.  It was only much later I realized he was just following the lease and it was me who was the dummy, having the very entitlement mentality I've mentioned several times.  It was someone figuratively smacking me between the eyes with reality, forcing me to set aside my rightous indignation and take and objective view of things.

I'm not pulling information out of my behind, nor am I using third-party or anecdotal information.  I'm speaking from a position of direct and extensive experience in three seperate aspects involved in the issue - renter, owner, and property manager.  I'm sorry if it upsets you but I can't un-experience those things.  None of my replies were directed as a denegration of your renter status and should not be taken that way.

Brad

[MillCreek]

Well he may be a witch but he's our witch. So cut him the hell down and play nice. Or don't play.

He turned me into a newt.

[Brad Johnson]

He turned me into a newt.

Is he lighter than a duck?

Brad

[RevDisk]

At one time I was a renter too.  Three years with a landlord I thought was evil incarnate.  It was only much later I realized he was just following the lease and it was me who was the dummy, having the very entitlement mentality I've mentioned several times.  It was someone figuratively smacking me between the eyes with reality, forcing me to set aside my rightous indignation and take and objective view of things.

My old apartment, the company that owned the property were not nice folks. Certainly not evil incarnate. Just not nice people. They pulled plenty of entirely legal, but not nice activities. For instance, they played what I thought would be the standard game. You use the "company recommended" cleaners that gave kickbacks to whomever, and you got cleared on the carpets. Mind you, I cleaned them myself to as well as could be done with cheap carpeting after normal usage patterns for X years. AFTER getting the kickback, they still required me to replace the carpet. They tried the same game with paint and a few other things. I finally just told them to come up with a number and bill me. I'm not falling for the same scam three or four times. The lady I was going through was deeply apologetic, and all but acknowledged I was getting scammed. 

So I did go looking for a new place to live. The lady that showed me the apartments at this complex used to work for said previous company, and basically agreed with my assessment. They're a heck of a lot nicer folks, and the lease terms are not wildly different. I get plenty of notice (and not many of them) and the staff treat me like a human being. Though I'm relatively quiet and never gave cause for any problems.

Do research on anyone you intend to rent from. I have no problems with them following the lease. I can still have the option that a landlord or leasing company has unpleasant policies or is rude. Some folks are just rude.

Worst case, you may want to consider a different landlord if you can afford it. It'll pay for itself with your sanity, even if it absolutely sucks short term.

[De Selby]

Expecting to receive what you pay for (a secure home) is not an "entitlement mentality" - it is entirely fair and reasonable.

[BridgeRunner]

You brought up the subject of your time/experience.  I merely replied with mine.

At one time I was a renter too.  Three years with a landlord I thought was evil incarnate.  It was only much later I realized he was just following the lease and it was me who was the dummy, having the very entitlement mentality I've mentioned several times.  It was someone figuratively smacking me between the eyes with reality, forcing me to set aside my rightous indignation and take and objective view of things.

I'm not pulling information out of my behind, nor am I using third-party or anecdotal information.  I'm speaking from a position of direct and extensive experience in three seperate aspects involved in the issue - renter, owner, and property manager.  I'm sorry if it upsets you but I can't un-experience those things.  None of my replies were directed as a denegration of your renter status and should not be taken that way.

Um, Brad, see, you kind of ignored what I was actually saying about my experience.  Because it wasn't to compete with yours.  It was to make an informed, intelligent comment that blew right over your head. 

It's like this: You're wrong. 

Your entire understanding of what a lease is bears no resemblance to reality.  I'm not sure why this is, probably something to do with pomposity and a failure to notice that other people may also know what we're talking about, but I pretty much stopped caring about your bizarre and incorrect ideas about leases about the time you started sounding like a devout AA-er talking about casual social drinkers.

Hence the cute comment about dick sizes.   

[Brad Johnson]

Bridge, we're going to have to disagree because our viewpoints are obviously polar opposites.

Expecting to receive what you pay for (a secure home) is not an "entitlement mentality" - it is entirely fair and reasonable.

In that we agree... expecting a secure home is not an entitlement mentality.  You have every right to expect the owner to provide a safe and habitable dwelling.  However, expecting that you can treat it as your own personal property to do with (or destroy) as you wish is an entitlement mentality.  It's not your property.  Treat it as such.  It's not only legally required of a tenant, it's common courtesy.

Brad

[De Selby]

Wait a second there brad - it is the tenants property.  Hforrest is entitled to wear the place down and not repair everything; normal wear and tear is one of the rights a tenant enjoys, alongside security in the home.

A rental is the property of a tenant.  For the period of the lease, in many ways, it is more the property of the tenant than the landlord.  Every home owner should know this, yet they sign these leases and then whine like children when their tenants go about as if they own the places.  

[MicroBalrog]

Wait a second there brad - it is the tenants property.  Hforrest is entitled to wear the place down and not repair everything; normal wear and tear is one of the rights a tenant enjoys, alongside security in the home.

A rental is the property of a tenant.  For the period of the lease, in many ways, it is more the property of the tenant than the landlord.  Every home owner should know this, yet they sign these leases and then whine like children when their tenants go about as if they own the places.  

This is where you should start quoting chapter and verse. IS there a legal precedent for this?

[BridgeRunner]

This is where you should start quoting chapter and verse. IS there a legal precedent for this?

Micro, there are thousands. Don't have cites handy though.

[BridgeRunner]

Bridge, we're going to have to disagree because our viewpoints are obviously polar opposites.

That's fine, I don't mind you continuing to be wrong, if that's what floats your boat.

[De Selby]

This is where you should start quoting chapter and verse. IS there a legal precedent for this?

Yeah, it's not just precedent - it's what defines a lease.   You cant have a lease by definition unless an estate in land is transferred.  It's so fundamental to American property law that I can say without looking that it applies in all jurisdictions.

[Brad Johnson]

Yeah, it's not just precedent - it's what defines a lease.   You cant have a lease by definition unless an estate in land is transferred.  It's so fundamental to American property law that I can say without looking that it applies in all jurisdictions.

Precedent, please.

Brad

[AmbulanceDriver]

Brad said it a little more delicately (I think).

But I read Selby's argument as "I know I'm right, and I am so sure I'm right, that I'm not gonna even bother to look it up, just in case I'm not right."

Or, alternatively, I read it as:  "I'm sure I'm right.  Because I have to be right.  But my statement is vague enough so that when I *am* proved wrong, I can then claim that I meant something else entirely."