Rant Who should pay? Principles over Money? You Decide!

[CurrentlySober]

OK, prefaced to say that I'm 'Asking for a friend' as i cunt a4d to be a landlord...


EXHIBIT A) MAINBOARD - Hidden away under counter.


EXHIBIT B) Switch in question, that tenant activated.

Anyway, tenant rings up letting agent, and reports the extractor hood above the oven in the kitchen, has completely stopped working. Letting agent contacts landlord, to request permission to send a contractor out to fix problem.

Landlord says please send someone, and is more than happy to pay whatever fee is needed to replace / mend faulty equipment...

Contractor arrives a day or so later (NON Emergency Call Out) only to find that someone in the household has turned off the switch on the wall, next to the extractor hood. Contractor switches it back on, everything works perfectly, and he leaves.

Now contractor decides to charge a £49.95 ($68.00) call out fee. Letting agent doesn't even contact landlord, because there was no fault with the equipment, so passes fee onto the tenant to pay.

Now, putting the extortionate call out fee aside, (cause that's another issue) tenant refuses to pay, and here is the reason. The small switch by the hood wasn't 'clearly marked' like the one on the mainboard - However, the mainboard is hidden away from sight, under a kitchen counter, and it's not normal to have signs on switches in high(er) end kitchens in the UK.

The contractor however has to be paid - So what is fair? Please vote above:
1) Tenant: They flicked the switch, and the equipment was in no way at fault?
2) Landlord: Dunno why, but the tenant seems to think the landlord should pay...
3) Landlord and Tenant split the bill 50/50 and just chalk it up to experience?
4) Other - Please post in thread

Needless the say, landlord has instructed letting agent to never use that contractor again on any of their properties, but it's not so much the money, as much as its really a case of principles at play here. Landlord was happy to fix anything that was wrong (as he should do) but nothing WAS wrong, and it was 100% the fault of the tenant...

So what would you rule if you were 'Judge Judy'???

Like I say, just curious, and 'asking 4 a fweind' before offices reopen on Monday and the issue gets dealt with

Cheers ! Appreciate opinions

EDITED to add that the tenant has been in the property for over 9 months. Had they just moved in, my opinions would be different. Also my opinion is that 50/50 is fair.

[CurrentlySober]

Kitchen in question. (Taken when it was being let)

Certainly not the sort of kitchen that you have in a multiple occupancy home or group setting that NEEDS everything to be labeled...

[Sly]

Why never use the contractor again?

[CaptainHowdy]

Money can be a guiding principle . . .

[baddog]

Photos are irrelevant; the fee is totally reasonable.

Unless you have a contract stating otherwise I would suggest that Judge Judy would put the responsibility on the landlord and I would not disagree with her, which I do quite often.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Sly

Why never use the contractor again?

I'm guessing they want it for free

[sarettah]

Landlord should pay for the whole thing.

Landlord should have come and looked at the issue before deciding to call a contractor.

If landlord could not figure out the issue and then called the contractot then he should still pay as how can he blame the tenant if he himself could not figure it out either.

But tenant did not call the contractor so should not be out of pocket.

My opinion and it is worth every cent you paid.

.

[CurrentlySober]

Regarding the cost of the contractor, I do feel it to be very steep, going by the fact that nothing needed to be done, and that the letting agents are using them on a regular basis, feeding them a steady stream of work.

No, I wouldn't expect them to do it for free, but I do feel that the fee is excessive.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is who should be liable for it, when it was the tenants at fault and not the fault of the equipment itself.

As I said, the letting agent felt that the tenant who had turned off the switch was liable. But they are (imho) playing semantics regarding switches being labelled when they are not supposed to be.

Like I said, I think 50/50 is reasonable - The tenants appear to think otherwise.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Regarding the cost of the contractor, I do feel it to be very steep, going by the fact that nothing needed to be done, and that the letting agents are using them on a regular basis, feeding them a steady stream of work.

No, I wouldn't expect them to do it for free, but I do feel that the fee is excessive.

But that's not really the issue. The issue is who should be liable for it, when it was the tenants at fault and not the fault of the equipment itself.

As I said, the letting agent felt that the tenant who had turned off the switch was liable. But they are (imho) playing semantics regarding switches being labelled when they are not supposed to be.

Like I said, I think 50/50 is reasonable - The tenants appear to think otherwise.

Market dependent. If the renter has the power, landlord absolutely pays. If the landlord has the power, it's a crap shoot.

At this point I would probably just eat it as it's a small amount of money and too much time is being spent on it, particularly if they are a decent tenant.

Frankly I think the "call fee" is a pretty good deal. It's not the contractors fault that nothing needed to be done. They took the time to drive to the location, check out the issue and then leave to the next job. That time could have been spent working on a different job. Opportunity cost. Getting any kind of contractor to do anything for less then $100 is not too shabby. And if they are a regular contractor, as mentioned, I would not be screwing around with them. Good contractors are hard to find, and somebody that comes out the next day? Shit.

Pay the contractor. Update your lease moving forward to address issues like this if you desire.

[dcortez]

If the construction was built to all applicable standards and codes (which often, at least in my country, explicitly demand switches in specific places/orientations), then it's a matter of the tenant not understanding how to operate their built in appliances.

If the switching is "funky", then the landlord's agent should have either in presenting the rental or orienting the renter explained all that - or the building manager.

The contractor should get paid whatever their call-out fee is - especially if the fee schedule is known and accepted by landlord/agent.

It seems that it was premature to call a contractor though. The agent should assume that responsibility.

Is there a building manager on-site? This is who we usually call, to help out with issues - including pre-screening whether or not expensive help needs to be contracted.

A building manager should have been able to resolve the issue immediately.

If there is no building manager and the agent does not actively support tenant's needs/issues, then the agent or landlord should eat the expense.

[baddog]

Starting to think CS or his mum is the landlord. This is a no-brainer mate.

At least on this side of the pond.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Sly

Market dependent. If the renter has the power, landlord absolutely pays. If the landlord has the power, it's a crap shoot.

At this point I would probably just eat it as it's a small amount of money and too much time is being spent on it, particularly if they are a decent tenant.

Frankly I think the "call fee" is a pretty good deal. It's not the contractors fault that nothing needed to be done. They took the time to drive to the location, check out the issue and then leave to the next job. That time could have been spent working on a different job. Opportunity cost. Getting any kind of contractor to do anything for less then $100 is not too shabby. And if they are a regular contractor, as mentioned, I would not be screwing around with them. Good contractors are hard to find, and somebody that comes out the next day? Shit.

Pay the contractor. Update your lease moving forward to address issues like this if you desire.

Precisely.

[$5 submissions]

What does the contract say?

[Tasty1]

Landlord pays and in the end find some damage that will be collected from the deposit when they end the rent.

[digitalfantasies]

I voted tenant, what can i win?

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Landlord should pay for the whole thing.

Landlord should have come and looked at the issue before deciding to call a contractor.

If landlord could not figure out the issue and then called the contractot then he should still pay as how can he blame the tenant if he himself could not figure it out either.

But tenant did not call the contractor so should not be out of pocket.

My opinion and it is worth every cent you paid.

.

Agreed.

The contractor took time to do the visit, it's cool if they don't charge but it's normal to charge a fee.

I assumed an electrician was called and their fee will be higher than some others.



Last but not least : If I have a tenant who pays rent on time, then I'm not fucking with them over $68. No fucking way!

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by digitalfantasies

I voted tenant, what can i win?

Yo mamma!

[lock]

I would have thought there would have been a fart button.

[BaldBastard]

Tenants problem for being a moron. I'd be calling the tradie back and rehiring, £49.95 is seems cheap for a call out.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Last but not least : If I have a tenant who pays rent on time, then I'm not fucking with them over $68. No fucking way!

Even yo momma would have to agree.

[baddog]

Put it this way, when I ran my own telephone repair service 15+ years ago, I would have charged you that much to show up.

[NALEM]

Originally Posted by Sly

Market dependent. If the renter has the power, landlord absolutely pays. If the landlord has the power, it's a crap shoot.

At this point I would probably just eat it as it's a small amount of money and too much time is being spent on it, particularly if they are a decent tenant.

Frankly I think the "call fee" is a pretty good deal. It's not the contractors fault that nothing needed to be done. They took the time to drive to the location, check out the issue and then leave to the next job. That time could have been spent working on a different job. Opportunity cost. Getting any kind of contractor to do anything for less then $100 is not too shabby. And if they are a regular contractor, as mentioned, I would not be screwing around with them. Good contractors are hard to find, and somebody that comes out the next day? Shit.

Pay the contractor. Update your lease moving forward to address issues like this if you desire.

Absolutely this ^^^

[ZTT]

Short answer, in this first sentence, is the letting agency should pay it, since their job, at the very least, should involve showing the tenants around the property and knowing and explaining how everything works and where everything is.

Instead the tenant calls them and they go "hurrr durrr how are we supposed to know how the properties we manage work", call another business they're in bed with to overcharge for nothing and expect someone else to pay for it?

They 220% knew what the problem was, and no way is this the first time it happened; they simply went the usual route of calling out their mate with a white van.

Having said that (correct answer)...

If I was the landlord, I'd eat the fee because who cares, I'm a parasitic bloodsucker who is too busy playing golf on the Costa Del Crime to worry about flat #87 of my 2500 property portfolio, most of which lies empty as thousands die homeless and get priced out of areas of their own country. Or, depending on the price and location of this British property, I'm a Russian, Chinese or Arabic "businessman".

If I was the tenant I'd eat the fee, because I'm too much of a dummy to just type "extractor hood suddenly not working" into Google and resolve the problem in five seconds.

And if I was the contractor I would definitely charge $70 for the 10 cents in gas I had to use.

I was scratching my balls and sniffing my fingers while liking right-wing posts on Facebook when I got the call, but I could have been curing cancer, couldn't I?

It's not like being called out is a basic aspect of the motherfucking job I chose to do and I don't already factor in the cost (times ten) when I'm actually required to do some work.

I'm sure computer programmers charge for 'pressing the power button on the PC' and 'clicking the desktop icon' too.

And sure I could have just asked the tenant over the phone to try what I did when I got there, to rule out the simple/obvious stuff, but how would that have made me a lazy, piece of shit shyster?

Obviously it makes more sense to lose future work by being a greedy asshole than have a customer feel like they owe me one, because, like a firefighter under Chernobyl, I carried out the arduous task of depressing a plastic button in a kitchen at no extra charge.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by ZTT

Short answer, in this first sentence, is the letting agency should pay it, since their job, at the very least, should involve showing the tenants around the property and knowing and explaining how everything works and where everything is.

Instead the tenant calls them and they go "hurrr durrr how are we supposed to know how the properties we manage work", call another business they're in bed with to overcharge for nothing and expect someone else to pay for it?

They 220% knew what the problem was, and no way is this the first time it happened; they simply went the usual route of calling out their mate with a white van.

Having said that (correct answer)...

If I was the landlord, I'd eat the fee because who cares, I'm a parasitic bloodsucker who is too busy playing golf on the Costa Del Crime to worry about flat #87 of my 2500 property portfolio, most of which lies empty as thousands die homeless and get priced out of areas of their own country. Or, depending on the price and location of this British property, I'm a Russian, Chinese or Arabic "businessman".

If I was the tenant I'd eat the fee, because I'm too much of a dummy to just type "extractor hood suddenly not working" into Google and resolve the problem in five seconds.

And if I was the contractor I would definitely charge $70 for the 10 cents in gas I had to use.

I was scratching my balls and sniffing my fingers while liking right-wing posts on Facebook when I got the call, but I could have been curing cancer, couldn't I?

It's not like being called out is a basic aspect of the motherfucking job I chose to do and I don't already factor in the cost (times ten) when I'm actually required to do some work.

I'm sure computer programmers charge for 'pressing the power button on the PC' and 'clicking the desktop icon' too.

And sure I could have just asked the tenant over the phone to try what I did when I got there, to rule out the simple/obvious stuff, but how would that have made me a lazy, piece of shit shyster?

Obviously it makes more sense to lose future work by being a greedy asshole than have a customer feel like they owe me one, because, like a firefighter under Chernobyl, I carried out the arduous task of depressing a plastic button in a kitchen at no extra charge.

[CurrentlySober]

Just thought Id update you.

Spoke to the Landlord today and he says the Tenants agreed to split it with him.

I think that was fair, as its what I voted for myself. Interestingly enough, 4 People Voted Landlord should pay, and 4 people voted Tenant should pay, (ie Half and Half) so it kinda worked itself out really, at 50/50

Anyway, thats all really. Only updating cause I hate it myself when you don't get to hear the resolution to stuff you have talked about on GFY

[AmeliaG]

Sounds like a good resolution.

I'd add that the property manager is paid to make smart decisions about calling in contractors and should maybe be replaced.

Once the contractor has shown up, it's normal to pay them, at least in the US. Not the contractor's fault the tenant and property manager made an error. They did flip the switch and honestly tell you that is what they did. They could have said they made a major repair with parts and clearly your property manager would have had no idea.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by AmeliaG

They could have said they made a major repair with parts and clearly your property manager would have had no idea.

[ZTT]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Anyway, thats all really. Only updating cause I hate it myself when you don't get to hear the resolution to stuff you have talked about on GFY

This just triggered PTSD about tech forums where someone would have the problem you currently had, you'd read a bunch nice but ultimately useless suggested solutions, and the OP would finally update the thread with just "Thanks everyone, I found the solution". Death penalty is not nearly enough sometimes.