# Tenants "Fighting" with each other



## KaeJS

So, one tenant gets up at 6am for work. (We'll call him Jack)

The other tenant usually doesn't get home from work until 12am. (We'll call him Bob)

The problem is that the tenant who gets home at 12am (Bob) has been watching tv or having people over until the morning hours, 2am, 4am, etc.

The other tenant (Jack) cannot sleep due to the tv/conversation noise.

Jack and Bob have talked about this, but Jack is still not happy because Bob is making too much noise. Jack suggested to Bob that maybe he could use headphones at night when watching tv. It seems like Bob doesn't care all that much. Now, I must sit down with both of them and discuss this situation like I'm a glorified baby sitter.

Jack is the better tenant, so I want to ensure that he is happy.

What are my solutions?

I am thinking the best approach would be to tell them both off (politely, and professionally, of course) and tell them that everyone must be considerate of one another and that if Bob wants to watch tv at 4am, he should get headphones, and that if Jack can't sleep due to noise, he should get earplugs.

Remember.... I want to keep Jack happy. Suggestions?


----------



## Four Pillars

Is that actually happening or is this another "hypothetical situation"?


----------



## KaeJS

This is actually happening.



> Now, I must sit down with both of them and discuss this situation like I'm a glorified baby sitter.


----------



## andrewf

I don't blame Mike for asking. Your last thread didn't make it clear.

This sounds like a failure of your tenant screening process. If you're running a rooming house (especially one you also live in), you need to do more work in ensuring the tenants are compatible. 

Dealing with the drama is a big reason I wouldn't want to do it myself.


----------



## Eder

Jack is right the problem is Bob. Bob needs a good flogging and be sent on his way.


----------



## Four Pillars

I have to agree with Andrew regarding the tenant selection process. Although I have to admit that it's 20-20 hindsight from me. I hadn't really thought of issues with tenants having different work schedules. It should work if both tenants are respectful of one another.

I think your plan to talk to them individually is good. Maybe laying down specific rules would help?

Ie no tv (without headphones) after a certain hour and no visitors (other than maybe gfriend) after 10 pm.

Bottom line is that from your post it appears that Bob is the problem. Give him a (short) chance to change and ask him to leave if he doesn't. It might not be fair that he can't do the same things after work that Jack can, but that's just the way it goes. He needs to rent in a house with people with similar schedules or rent a separate apartment.


----------



## Mattamatics

Hi KaeJS

Couple thoughts:

Is Bob watching TV/having people over in the common area (living room/rec room) or in his bedroom. If a common area, is Jack’s bedroom close to this area or is he being overly sensitive? Do you also live in this house? – Is Bob’s noise bothering you? I assume there’s not a different bedroom that Jack could switch to?

If Bob’s watching TV etc in his bedroom could you get him to switch to a different part of the house or vice versa?

If Jack’s bedroom is close to the common areas, do you plan to rent out that bedroom long term? If so have you considered taking additional steps to try to sound proof it? Additional layers of drywall (double drywall), ensuring there is insulation in the (interior) walls separating the rooms? Ensured the bedroom door is a solid (wood) door instead of a hollow particle board door? (Even just switching out the door might help improve Jack’s view of the situation (assuming it was a hollow door) since it shows that you’re taking steps to remedy the situation for him, and may incline him to be more accepting of using ear plugs as well.

You could also consider building a more sound proof wall shown here: http://siteimages.soundisolationstore.com/upload/image/staggeredstud.gif

Or you could consider using resilient channels on one side of the wall, or quiet rock.

Depending on what solution you choose (and assuming your somewhat handy) you could easily complete this in under a week.

Would having them switch rooms, or you switch rooms with one of them improve the situation/ be acceptable?

What I would do in this situation would highly depend on my long term plans, as well as how long term you expect these current tenants to be. If say Bob was close to moving out, I might try to offer him an incentive to move out early. You could also offer Jack a slight discount for having to use ear plugs.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Most folks get up at or around 6:00 am to go to work.
Jack is not the only one.

On the other hand, if Bob wants to party till 4:00 am, he needs a separate accomodation for himself.
Shared accomodation is not for him.
If he wants a lifestyle like that, he has to be willing to pay for it.

His style may not even work in an apartment (neighbors will complain).
Perhaps he needs to buy a large single detached home for $650K.


----------



## andrewf

Bob should live with students who usually have a similar schedule.


----------



## Toronto.gal

KaeJS said:


> I am thinking the best approach would be to *tell them both off *(politely, and professionally, of course)....Remember.... I want to keep Jack happy. Suggestions?


Wrong!

You want to keep Jack happy because he's *not* the inconsiderate person, so you need to just speak to Bob. 

Btw, how can you tell-off an innocent person in a polite & professional manner? LOL. :rolleyes2:

Everything that Harold said is +1. :biggrin:

Good luck!


----------



## KaeJS

Mattamatics said:


> Hi KaeJS
> 
> Couple thoughts:
> 
> Is Bob watching TV/having people over in the common area (living room/rec room) or in his bedroom. If a common area, is Jack’s bedroom close to this area or is he being overly sensitive? Do you also live in this house? – Is Bob’s noise bothering you? I assume there’s not a different bedroom that Jack could switch to?
> 
> If Bob’s watching TV etc in his bedroom could you get him to switch to a different part of the house or vice versa?
> 
> If Jack’s bedroom is close to the common areas.......
> 
> You could also offer Jack a slight discount for having to use ear plugs.


Bob is watching TV/Having people over in his room. Not in the common area. I could have him try the common area, as Jack's room is upstairs. 

Yes, I live in the house, as well. 

Nobody else notices the noise except for Jack.

There is no other room for Jack or Bob to move to.

I could offer a slight discount for having to use ear plugs, but I feel like that is a poor solution. I lose income and Jack will probably still not be happy. But I guess it's worth a try. I rather just tell him to use ear plugs and not give a discount.


----------



## MoneyGal

Is Bob actually breaking any rules? If yes, were those rules in place before he moved in, was he made aware of them, and did he consent to them?


----------



## andrewf

As a customer, I would not tolerate being told to 'suck it up' when my reasonable enjoyment of the property is being impaired by another tenant.


----------



## Toronto.gal

MoneyGal said:


> Is Bob actually breaking any rules? If yes, were those rules in place before he moved in, was he made aware of them, and did he consent to them?


It goes without saying that a tenant has a reasonable expectation & a right to privacy in their room, but also the right to sleep & let others sleep without noise exceeding reasonable limits.

Is Jack an unreasonable light sleeper? Is Bob making noise exceeding what is considered reasonable? 

I'm sure people watch t.v. in their own homes/apartments at all hours [day & night], and without disturbing the rest of the house.


----------



## Beaver101

What happened to the chocolate-milk-loving-gal(s)-as-a-tenant? Perhaps the next ideal tenant will be "her" when the "he" moves out? :biggrin:


----------



## MoneyGal

I wasn't suggesting Bob has an unrestrained right to make noise, have guests at all hours, etc. However, he *also* has a right to occupy his space and behave in ways he chooses (entertaining guests, etc.) -- that's what he's paying for. I was curious whether the rules had been spelled out when he first rented the space - I assume that'd be a good way to screen prospective tenants: how do they react to the suggestion that they may need to curtail their behaviour due to the needs/preferences of other tenants?


----------



## Ihatetaxes

Evict both
Sell house
Move back in with mom and dad
Buy a Reit
Relax


----------



## Toronto.gal

I live in a condo. and as you know, all have the right to do whatever they like in their own unit, and at any hour, however, there are exceptions & basic rules that we must all follow. For example, no delivery/moving/noisy repairs can be made before 9 a.m. and after 5 p.m. 

If B is unfairly depriving J of sleep & unwilling to change, the end result is that one will eventually move out. I certainly could not live in a place where I was unable to get my min. 7 hour beauty sleep.

I suggest a 'mediation arbitration' before odour [like smoking or something else] becomes the next issue. :biggrin:

Maybe you want to take some tips from this article Kae:
http://www.millerthomson.com/assets...ts/issues2/MT_Lets_Talk_Condo_Spring_2012.pdf


----------



## Four Pillars

Based on your last post, Mattamatics raised a good point - is Jack overly sensitive? Will he complain about every tenant that replaces Bob? If that is the case, maybe Jack should go.


----------



## Chris L

Ask the tenant you want to leave, to leave. Find a new tenant.


----------



## marina628

No visitors between midnight and 8am is reasonable request to most people and having him watch TV in common area when he comes home from work sounds like easy compromise.


----------



## KaeJS

Ihatetaxes said:


> Evict both
> Sell house
> Move back in with mom and dad
> Buy a Reit
> Relax


If I could do that, I would. I never wanted to buy the house in the first place.

At any rate... We all talked last night and Bob said he will be leaving January 1. It was Bob's suggestion.

Now I need to find a tenant who matches Jack's (and the rest of the houses) schedule more closely. The two tenants and myself both work full time days, so Bob was the only one who was awake at night.


----------



## KaeJS

Beaver101 said:


> What happened to the chocolate-milk-loving-gal(s)-as-a-tenant? Perhaps the next ideal tenant will be "her" when the "he" moves out? :biggrin:


I wish, my friend.

Still looking high and low for that "tenant". 

:biggrin:


----------



## KaeJS

MoneyGal said:


> Is Bob actually breaking any rules? If yes, were those rules in place before he moved in, was he made aware of them, and did he consent to them?


Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

All roommates were given a "rule sheet" (terms + conditions) whatever you want to call it.

There is also one posted on the refridgerator.


----------



## Homerhomer

KaeJS said:


> *I never wanted to buy the house in the first place.*
> 
> .


As a former landlord I sympathize.
As a former tennant who had crazy neighbours who complained about noise (sometimes when we even weren't home), I can sympathize.
However I have to ask, what forces were used to make you buy home and then rent it out. I have to think there were other options for a roof over your head.


----------



## andrewf

He could have rented himself. 

Of course, if you rent a room in a house, you still have to deal with problem tenants, only you don't have the ability to 'suggest' they leave.


----------



## KaeJS

Yes.

I did not "have" to buy a house. I could have rented.

But financially, that would not make sense. As andrew indicated, as well, I would have to deal with other people's BS.


----------



## Four Pillars

andrewf said:


> He could have rented himself.
> 
> Of course, if you rent a room in a house, you still have to deal with problem tenants, only you don't have the ability to 'suggest' they leave.


He could have rented a separate apartment or house.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Could have/would have/should have.

What's done is done, no sense looking back. I don't think KaeJS thought it would be smooth sailing, but he'll learn from the experience, that's for sure. 

Good luck with the next tenant!


----------



## donald

I think the problem is you trying to fit to people into a basement suite,your basement is probably only going work with one person,family ect.....are you trying to stretch things with what you have to offer....I understand double rent but is it practical in reality.


----------



## Cal

I think I had about 4 roommates over the years. Never had a problem. Even if they had friends over late at night, it never woke anyone. Everybody was respectful of everyone else in the house.


----------



## KaeJS

donald said:


> I think the problem is you trying to fit to people into a basement suite,your basement is probably only going work with one person,family ect.....are you trying to stretch things with what you have to offer....I understand double rent but is it practical in reality.


I have 3 separated rooms upstairs on the top floor that I am trying to rent out.

Still no luck finding a tenant to take Bob's place.


----------



## marina628

Not many people want to move in December and most students try to rent for entire school year unless they are like Bob and have to move


----------



## KaeJS

marina628 said:


> Not many people want to move in December and most students try to rent for entire school year unless they are like Bob and have to move


Anyone think I should try to make them just "get along", at least for a little while longer? Maybe ask Bob if he's _sure_ he wants to leave, that is, of course, if Jack has dropped his complaints (which he since has....)

I really don't want to lose out on $450 or $500 for the month of January..... It will add disruption to my plan to have my mortgage paid by 35. :hopelessness:


----------



## ddkay

KaeJS said:


> I really don't want to lose out on $450 or $500 for the month of January..... It will add disruption to my plan to have my mortgage paid by 35. :hopelessness:


I thought you were in a position to pay the mortgage if everyone leaves..? You shouldn't rely on their payments to make your mortgage work. What happened to "on-the-side" income? :tongue-new:


----------



## KaeJS

I can still afford the mortgage.

But I won't be able to afford the monthly $550 lump sum payments I've been making to my mortgage. :encouragement:


----------



## marina628

You can try to keep Bob but then you will lose Jack.The best for everyone is to find a person on the same shift and similar sleeping patterns.Not the end of the world if it takes you a month or two to find a good tenant ,if you take the first one to come along you will have a rotating door every month or twne thing you need to be a successful landlord is patience .


----------



## donald

Wow.You have 2 living in the basement and want 3 more upstairs also?Maybe im not catching it right but if so that sounds like a nightmare.Isnt it just a ''standard'' single family home(one entrance and 2 levels,one kitchen)It like you have a quasi rooming house/mini apartment.

No matter how you slice it,it seems like it's a shoe in to be pita.....always.

Why not rent the whole place out(for top $,instead of pieceing off rooms/having to be warden ect)than you go live on the ''cheap'' and rent a basement and then save for a second rental.The concept/way your running the rental seems odd-m.o-I dont know what the house looks like ect,so i could be in the dark.


----------



## marina628

I believe Kaejs lives in basement and renting the 3 bedrooms on top floor of a two story house


----------



## donald

Ok,that seems like a nightmare.......The 3 seperate renters will have no incentive to ''follow'' any of the others(each is giving kaejs $,and each should recieve the right to occupy there space they way they want,legally of course)

If jack wants to listen to music @ 4am he should be able to----he has by rights paid kaejs for use---doesnt matter what bob thinks.

Maybe im seeing it black and white-one entrance to a house one renter/duplex/2 renters/triplex 2 renters.....getting 3 people in a single family home(living interdependently,spells trouble)M.O


----------



## KaeJS

marina628 said:


> I believe Kaejs lives in basement and renting the 3 bedrooms on top floor of a two story house


This is correct.

donald, you are right that everyone who pays should be able to "use" their space as they please. 

But, I don't make the rules. The market makes the rules. And the market says that 3 people paying $500 a room and living in a home and being courteous to each other is common and "fair value". :biggrin:

Which means renters are more or less used to this.

I had another talk with Bob and Jack today. I may have satisfied Jack and found a way to keep Bob.

I will update you guys in the future. :encouragement:


----------



## KaeJS

donald, one more thing....

The rules change when you do not live in the same house as your tenants. As I share a bathroom/kitchen with them, the Landlord & Tenant Act does not apply (which is easier for me, as the Landlord & Tenant Act is really just the *Tenant* Act LOL)


----------



## donald

Gotcha,but the way i ''see'' it rent the entire place out for 1600.00-instead of 3x 500.00----Then you don't have to play some sort of wierd ''dad'' role with 3 adult men.

Then go back home(your own 21 right?)and start building savings again.I'm not expert but its the incentive to get everybody on the same page is what the problem is,jack,rick,bob,dale,mike doesnt matter who it is----it will always be a sh&tshow.


----------



## KaeJS

I can't go back home. If I could, I never would have bought the house to begin with.

It's hard to rent the whole home for $1600 in Cambridge. Housing is cheaper, which means you can easily get a mortgage for less than $1600. I've seen townhouses go for $1100-1200/month. My Mortgage (if I wanted) could be as low as $820/month, for example.

Even if I managed to get $1600 for the home, I would be stuck paying $500 somewhere else and then I would have to live under some landlords rules and I would be the one fighting with my own Jack, Bob, Rick, Dale and Mike.


----------



## donald

Ok.....screw the idea of guys as renters!I vote you get 3 hot uni girls in the mix......lol,wait a second......why do you have guys living with you in the first place!lol


----------



## KaeJS

I wish!!

Easier said than done my friend. :upset:

Plus... then Christine would hate Linda and Jessica for sleeping with the landlord, and Linda and Jessica would hate each other for the same reason. And who would want Christine to feel left out?

:biggrin:


----------



## Argonaut

I've heard it's better to have male tenants than female ones. Rule being that guys don't **** where they eat, but girls can bring guys over who mess things up.

The best book on real estate I ever read was "Think Like a Tycoon" by W.G. Hill, and one of his rules is don't accept sex in lieu of rent. This is what would eventually happen if you go down that road with a female tenant. Fantasies aside.


----------



## donald

Im sure kaejs would be A-ok accepting 3 ''rent'' cheques a mth in lieu of $....right kaejs lol.
Why do us guys make $ in the 1st place?kidding....sort of.....In all seriousness,half my drive in my 20's revolved around women.
Sex energy when harnessed and directed can be a good combo.....where no different than lions in the jungle(making money is the kill,or getting laid)Its all about mating(and trying to pass down genes as much as we can,@least in a hard wired way)
Highly sexed males are usually found @ the top in all companies i would undoubtly say....obvioulsy.Testostorne is underated imo-the more the better.


----------



## Sherlock

Mind if I ask how you're able to find people to rent rooms at all in Cambridge, considering there are no universities nearby? Who are these guys and what do they do? I assume they're not students since there are no post-secondary institutions in Cambridge but it wouldn't make sense that they're employed adults either because then they could easily afford an apartment without roommates.

I'm not too familiar with Cambridge but I lived in Waterloo for a few years. I was paying $450 for a room in a newer house in Waterloo in 2007, 15 minute walk from the university, later moved into a 1 bedroom apartment for $700/month.

Anyways my own personal opinion is that it's very inconsiderate to watch TV or make any noise at 4 am if there are other people nearby trying to sleep. Some people can sleep through an artillery barrage but most cannot. So I'm on Jack's side, Bob should get headphones for his TV and not have any people over after midnight (except on weekends I guess it's ok cause Jack presumably doesn't have to get up at 6 am for work on sat/sun). Ear plugs dont' really work, tried em myself when I had noisy people living above me, they keep falling out of your ear while you roll aroudn in bed, and even when they're in they still don't block out all the sound, maybe only 50%.


----------



## Four Pillars

KaeJS said:


> Plus... then Christine would hate Linda and Jessica for sleeping with the landlord, and Linda and Jessica would hate each other for the same reason. And who would want Christine to feel left out?:biggrin:


Lol. I think your plan is coming together. Make it happen and worry about the potential downsides in another life.


----------



## HaroldCrump

KaeJS said:


> Plus... then Christine would hate Linda and Jessica for sleeping with the landlord, and Linda and Jessica would hate each other for the same reason. And who would want Christine to feel left out?


There is no need to leave any of them out.
Your motto should be - no tenant left behind.
As long as she drinks chocolate milk.


----------



## KaeJS

Argonaut said:


> I've heard it's better to have male tenants than female ones. Rule being that guys don't **** where they eat, but girls can bring guys over who mess things up.


Actually - This is the reason why I _didn't_ want females. Plus, not to mention that females are sometimes catty. If two guys get in a disagreement, they usually just go their separate ways. Women are sometimes devious and sneaky. They'd end up fighting over bathroom space or something.



donald said:


> Testostorne is underated imo-the more the better.


You got that right.



Sherlock said:


> Mind if I ask how you're able to find people to rent rooms at all in Cambridge, considering there are no universities nearby? Who are these guys and what do they do?.


They are people that work full time. Maybe they have bad credit or can't afford the extra few hundred for an apartment. Maybe they don't want an apartment. Some people are lonely and would prefer to save a few hundred a month and be with "strangers". I think Jack (for example) has a wife overseas. Maybe he needs all the money he can get in order to get his wife to Canada. Who knows. People have varying situations.

And there are two college campuses relatively close to my home in Cambridge. (well, close if you drive, about a 10 minute drive).



HaroldCrump said:


> As long as she drinks chocolate milk.


:biggrin::encouragement:


----------



## Barwelle

Sherlock said:


> Who are these guys and what do they do? I assume they're not students since there are no post-secondary institutions in Cambridge but it wouldn't make sense that they're employed adults either because then they could easily afford an apartment without roommates.
> 
> ... I was paying $450 for a room in a newer house in Waterloo in 2007, 15 minute walk from the university, later moved into a 1 bedroom apartment for $700/month.


It makes sense to me. That $250 difference in rent you mention is $3,000/year. That's like getting a $4,000+ bonus at work. For some, especially those starting out in their careers / low income earners / thrifty people / people clawing their way out of a debt abyss / good savers ... it's worth it.

Plus, roommates aren't all bad.


----------



## peterk

KaeJS said:


> Actually - This is the reason why I _didn't_ want females. Plus, not to mention that females are sometimes catty. If two guys get in a disagreement, they usually just go their separate ways. Women are sometimes devious and sneaky. They'd end up fighting over bathroom space or something.


If you do take on women tenants make sure you get them to sign an extra document saying you aren't in a relationship. A "sneaky" one could claim you've been dating, and after a year living together, take your house in a common-law separation! :O


----------



## MoneyGal

Now that's crazy talk. Do you know how hard it is for (actual) common-law spouses to get access to the assets of a person to whom they are not legally married? Never mind a "spouse" who has a signed tenancy agreement. This is like a myth that never dies around here.


----------



## Toronto.gal

peterk said:


> If you do take on women tenants make sure you get them to sign an extra document saying you aren't in a relationship.


Lol, but couldn't men come up with a made-up story as well, that they were in a relationship with the landlord? [regardless of gender].

*KaeJS:* men are also capable of being devious and sneaky [you may soon find out]. 

*Mgal:* what do you think, is it also a myth that women are the more develish/sneakier ones?


----------



## MoneyGal

Toronto.gal said:


> Lol, but couldn't men come up with a made-up story as well, that they were in a relationship with the landlord? [regardless of gender].
> 
> *KaeJS:* men are also capable of being devious and sneaky [you may soon find out].
> 
> *Mgal:* what do you think, *is it also a myth that women are the more develish/sneakier ones?*


I think it is true that this is an active stereotype around these parts, but that's as far as I'll go with that.:02.47-tranquillity:


----------



## Spidey

I think with the type of tenants you are choosing - multiple young singles - you are asking for problems. When I had such an arrangement I would look for a either young working couple, with no kids or a single person that could afford the entire rent. I allowed a small dog but I charged a little extra per month to compensate for wear and tear on the carpets. Allowing a dog initially went a little against the grain, but it seemed that some of the most quality tenants wanted to have one.


----------



## KaeJS

Ideally, you are right, Spidey.

Usually, though, those tenants are hard to come by and the profit is less. I would love to rent out to a couple and give a bit of a discount, for example.

I just find it's a lot harder. Plus, the fact that I don't have any more parking spaces available makes it a bit tough.

I have found a way to reduce my expenses by $300/month, so I am a lot less stressed/desperate now. It took some hard work, but hey, that's what we are all about on this forum, right? Reducing/eliminating wastage is the biggest factor in any money making scenario.


----------



## KaeJS

So, a prospective boarder came to see the room on Wednesday afternoon and said he would take the room and come back tomorrow (Thursday) with a deposit at 6:30pm.

I specifically made sure I was home for 6:30pm yesterday, and the guy never showed. I contacted him at 7:00pm and there was no response.

Then I get an email at 3:30am this morning from him saying he got a money order for me. I _specifically_ mentioned I wanted cash, at least 3 times, in person, when he was viewing the room.

He's starting to sound like a bad apple, and December is coming to a close.

Should I accept the money order?

Obviously, a money order is not my preferred method at all. They can be counterfeit and they can also be tracked by government and banks.

Suggestions?


----------



## kcowan

I would be more favourably deposed toward him if he had called at 6:30 to explain why he was delayed and why he was using a money order. I would take a pass on this one.


----------



## Spudd

What's the issue with being tracked? I presume you are declaring the income from your rental so who cares if the govt and banks know you got this money?

As to counterfeit, I would take it and let the guy know that if it doesn't clear, he can't move in. Take it to the bank/PO as soon as you get it, so that by Jan 1 you will know if it was real or not.

The not showing up doesn't speak well to his reliability, though - I might turn him down just based on that. But it depends on how desperate you are.


----------



## Barwelle

If he's already being sketchy now, how do you think he's gonna be when he's actually moved in?


----------



## KaeJS

Barwelle said:


> If he's already being sketchy now, how do you think he's gonna be when he's actually moved in?


That's the thing....

Spudd, your "presumption" is incorrect. Of course I do not want a money order... Cash only. I will accept the money order only one time. Never twice.

He called me this morning and said he left his phone at home and got stuck downtown (he doesn't drive). The weather was sort of bad last night. He apologized and said he is willing to come drop off the money order today...


----------



## Toronto.gal

KaeJS said:


> He's starting to sound like a bad apple.....


There is your answer; no need to think it further. A simple phone call to cancel the 6:30 appt. would not have been difficult to make [he was probably checking other places]. 

IMO, you're rushing things. You need to screen your potential tenants properly, or you will be doing this again soon.


----------



## Toronto.gal

KaeJS said:


> He called me this morning and said he left his phone at home and got stuck downtown.......


He could not call when he got home then, or was he stuck until 3:30 a.m. the next morning? :rolleyes2:


----------



## KaeJS

I have no idea.

IMO, 95% of renters are discounted. They are renters for a reason. They are the scum of the population. I would spend months trying to find the "perfect tenant".

I rather deal with some garbage and get paid right away.

I have declined some people, but this guy seemed like a nice guy when I met him. I'm just concerned about the Money Order.


----------



## Homerhomer

KaeJS said:


> I have no idea.
> 
> IMO, 95% of renters are discounted. They are renters for a reason. They are the scum of the population.


Just a question, are you talking about poeple who rent in general or about poeple in your area you are dealing with?


KaeJS said:


> Obviously, a money order is not my preferred method at all. They can be counterfeit and *they can also be tracked by government and banks.*
> ?


Why is this a concern?


----------



## Sampson

When I search for tenants, any missed appointments, delays etc are no nos. What happens if he is late with the rent?

This is business relationship, there is no room for working outside of the contract guidelines.


----------



## Sampson

KaeJS said:


> IMO, 95% of renters are discounted. They are renters for a reason. They are the scum of the population. I would spend months trying to find the "perfect tenant".


This notion is ridiculous. It seems you have so little experience in this game, yet your opinions are so strong. Perhaps your unit is simply not attractive to perspective good tenants.

I have had a tonne of terrific tenants and prospects that earned near 6 figures. They often have just moved to the city, are paying off debt, or are saving money to buy a home.

Waiting for a perfect tenant is unnecessary, but waiting for a tenant who does not raise red flags or questions marks (as this one has) just takes fortitude and patience. I will screen as many as it take, leave the unit vacant for months rather than risk a tenant who misses rent, causes problems or damage, or other unforseen issues. The $300 you are leaving on the table is peanuts compared to 15 minutes worth of damage a bad tenant can cause.


----------



## KaeJS

Homerhomer said:


> Just a question, are you talking about poeple who rent in general or about poeple in your area you are dealing with?
> 
> Why is this a concern?


People who rent in general.

It's a concern because I don't want to be tracked and I don't want to deal with paper. I do not want to go to the bank all the time. Cash is King.



Sampson said:


> When I search for tenants, any missed appointments, delays etc are no nos. What happens if he is late with the rent?
> 
> This is business relationship, there is no room for working outside of the contract guidelines.


I usually follow these guidelines as well, but December is almost over, and I don't want a vacant room.

If he is late with the rent, then I throw him out. He is a boarder/roommate.



Sampson said:


> This notion is ridiculous. It seems you have so little experience in this game, yet your opinions are so strong.


I don't think that notion is ridiculous. Have you not heard of the saying "_Stereotypes save time_"?

Of course, not all renters are scum, but I never said all of them were in the first place. I said 95%.


----------



## Homerhomer

KaeJS said:


> People who rent in general.



It's an idiotic statement offending alot of poeple.

There are many reasons poeple rent, I have rented for many years, for some it's simply a choice, for others it's a transition time after they finish school and before they settle, for poeple migrating from other provinces or countries needing time to save before they buy, others simply can't afford to buy and continue renting, after divorse and so on and are not scumbugs like you describe them.



KaeJS said:


> If you can't take care of yourself, why should anyone else take care of you?
> 
> Darwin>Survival of the Fittest>Always a Bigger Fish
> 
> yadda yadda...
> 
> .


You try to sound like a roaring lion king, but all I hear is a little simba, why you are crying about your pittly rent issues, survival of the fittest remember, don't return found money even if you know who it belongs to, remember....


----------



## Charlie

you're going to have a stressful time as a landlord if you think most renters are scum.

and I don't get the cash thing....I think you're asking for trouble by demanding cash. Your (scummmy) tenants will think there's lots of cash in the house, and you may get reported to CRA by an unhappy tenant since they may reasonably think you're dodging tax.

But good luck.


----------



## KaeJS

Homerhomer said:


> It's an idiotic statement offending alot of poeple.


In Canada; everyone is offended about _something_.

I belong in the United States.

In any case, I still stand by my Survival of the Fittest. I am not crying. I am asking for suggestions (which is what the forum is for).

If you took offence to my 95% of renters are scum (which is true), then maybe you are insecure. If you are a good tenant, and you know you are a good tenant, then you should have no problem with that statement.


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> I have no idea.
> 
> IMO, 95% of renters are discounted. They are renters for a reason. They are the scum of the population. I would spend months trying to find the "perfect tenant".
> 
> *I rather deal with some garbage and get paid right away.*
> I have declined some people, but this guy seemed like a nice guy when I met him. I'm just concerned about the Money Order.


I think you have answered your own question... who cares... get the money, and worry about the results after... since money is all that matters to you, then you are okay to deal with the headaches and time wasting of bad tenants. 

It is also comments like these that make people think it's better to buy all the time. 




Sampson said:


> This notion is ridiculous. It seems you have so little experience in this game, yet your opinions are so strong. Perhaps your unit is simply not attractive to perspective good tenants.
> 
> I have had a tonne of terrific tenants and prospects that earned near 6 figures. They often have just moved to the city, are paying off debt, or are saving money to buy a home.
> 
> Waiting for a perfect tenant is unnecessary, but waiting for a tenant who does not raise red flags or questions marks (as this one has) just takes fortitude and patience. I will screen as many as it take, leave the unit vacant for months rather than risk a tenant who misses rent, causes problems or damage, or other unforseen issues. The $300 you are leaving on the table is peanuts compared to 15 minutes worth of damage a bad tenant can cause.


Totally agree... the one and only time I did not go through my vigorous screening, and had doubts, I had problem tenants. 





KaeJS said:


> People who rent in general.
> 
> It's a concern because I don't want to be tracked and I don't want to deal with paper. I do not want to go to the bank all the time. Cash is King.
> 
> 
> 
> I usually follow these guidelines as well, but December is almost over, and I don't want a vacant room.
> 
> If he is late with the rent, then I throw him out. He is a boarder/roommate.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that notion is ridiculous. Have you not heard of the saying "_Stereotypes save time_"?
> 
> Of course, not all renters are scum, but I never said all of them were in the first place. I said 95%.


I would say 95% of the renters I have had have been good. Honestly, I have found if you treat people like number or a dollar figure... that's all they will be. If you treat them human, most often they will return sentiment. My family has been doing rentals for close to 40 years, and has had very few issues over the time. 

I say if your time is not as important as the $300, and you don't mind the aggrevation, then that's fine. 
Based on your posts, I think that you may be testing out if you are truly the 'fittest to survive'.


----------



## kcowan

You have been advised to skip this guy and move on. Now you are trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong. Plus you are demonstrating attitude that makes us think you are a bad landlord...


----------



## KaeJS

Charlie said:


> and I don't get the cash thing....I think you're asking for trouble by demanding cash.


Cheques bounce.

e-transfers are nice, though.


----------



## KaeJS

kcowan said:


> You have been advised to skip this guy and move on. Now you are trying to convince us that you are right and we are wrong. Plus you are demonstrating attitude that makes us think you are a bad landlord...


Not trying to convince anybody. Just updating folks on the situation that he called me in the morning on my way to work.


----------



## BlackThursday

KaeJS said:


> People who rent in general.
> 
> It's a concern because I don't want to be tracked and I don't want to deal with paper. I do not want to go to the bank all the time. Cash is King.


Tax evasion on rental income?
I think they prosecute that in the United States too


----------



## hboy43

KaeJS said:


> IMO, 95% of renters are discounted. They are renters for a reason. They are the scum of the population. I would spend months trying to find the "perfect tenant".


Wow.

Why would someone choose to involve themselves with a subset of the population they consider "scum"? Seems to me you ought to be doing something else rather than being a landlord.

With your attitude, likely the rest of us ought to be doing something other than giving you advice.

hboy43


----------



## Sampson

Cash is certainly not king here.

I only accept personal cheques, post-dated for the duration of the lease. I have even had people give me 2 years worth at once. The amount of time and hassle saved is priceless. Never had a cheque bounce, but I am confident since all my previous tenants have had credit scores above 720.

Do yourself a favor KaeJS, don't accept anyone that gives you any inkling of concern. Several prominent CMF landlords have already chipped in with their opinions. Borrow from this wealth of experience. In fact, you never see any of them start threads about their rentals, that's because we typically don't run into problems. The worst problem I have had in many years was a tenant that would not replace the O-ring in the kitchen sink faucet. By the time they called and had me there, they easily could have been trouble free. Minor annoyance compared to loud, fighting tenants, and ones that don't respect you enough to call ahead when they will miss an appointment.


----------



## ddkay

I would never bring people under my roof I couldn't trust, let alone think their cheques would bounce. :hopelessness:

Take post dated cheques, keep a paper trail, you are raising all sorts of suspicious by taking cash only.


----------



## humble_pie

readers could turn this latest episode from the neverending soap around & view it from the tenant's perspective.

would-be tenant visits premises, meets hostile neophyte landlord who offers no receipt or written documentation or even traceable financial transaction, instead demands a fistful of cash while treating him like 95% scum.

alarmed, tenant makes an excuse in order to gain overnight distance. He has enough brains on the spot to refuse the cash holdup. He might have still been stringing kae along this am, but it seems unlikely that he'll ever return.

can anyone imagine these 2 sharing bathroom & kitchen.

btw is that a legal rooming house ? doesn't seem to have the mandatory fittings like upstairs fire escapes w fireproof doors equipped with crash bar handles & battery-operated red exit lights that most municipalities' fire codes require ...


----------



## Plugging Along

^lol... humble, that would be a horrible soap... too close to home for some I would guess.

I stand by my thought that most tenants and landlords are good (at least the ones I know)... and them there is the 5% of bad tenants, or landlords, I believe it's karma that the 'scum' find the scumlords, or it's reap what you sow. 

I thought that if a house was in a room mate situation, then it doesn't have the same regulations


----------



## Berubeland

I'd say that bad tenants and landlords are in the same ratio. The rest are on a spectrum... 

Good tenants would not deal with KaejS. Asking for cash is a big red flag. Too lazy to go to the bank... Really? 

I was at one of the properties I manage today and collected a year's worth of post dated checks. It's the way to go. I have 3 tenants in that place it's really nice and all the tenants get along. 

Tenants are the landlord's customer, and it's not hard to envision why people would do anything to "pay their own mortgage".


----------



## jcgd

I'm a renter and I have to say a landlord would be darn lucky to have my gf and me. Never a bounced cheque, so never a late payment either. We tell our landlords (who are very approachable/ borderline friends) about any issues we have, or any issues they need to know about. We treat our place like it's our house. But we rent because I don't want to be cash poor, as we would be in the current local market.

I would walk if someone asked for cash. It screams sketchy. I want a paper trail to protect myself. A receipt for my damage deposit and receipts or cashed cheques for all our monthly payments. The only thing I don't like about post dated cheques is getting any extras back when you move out. While we were waiting on one cheque they cashed it and it was a pain to get our money back.

Kae, I think you are too smart to be doing things the way you are currently doing them. If anyone else was doing these things you'd be ripping them to shreds. I'm not judging your opinions towards renters because I don't really care about them, but I think you should step back and re-evaluate your gig. :encouragement:


----------



## Toronto.gal

KaeJS said:


> IMO, 95% of renters are discounted.


I think it's the frustration & stress talking here, and/or you're too cynical [as in negative] for your own good; you haven't lived long enough to have this attitude IMO.

How many people that you know, were able to skip the renting stage in their lives? The fact of the matter is that most people need to save first before they can buy, no? And just because they rent, does not make them perpetual renters/bad people [generally speaking]. And then, there are those that have to sell for all kinds of reasons, as others have already mentioned. Change is the only constant thing in life after all, whether it's convenient or not, and whether we like it or not.

It's more responsible/sensible to rent than buy when you can't afford to buy, period! 

As the smart/young 22 year old that you are, you could understand why most young people [and others in between], may at first prefer the flexibility that renting offers. For example, you might have/want to move locations for a potential job; you might not want to start out with a high debt/responsibility; might not like current overpriced markets; unknown costs, etc., etc.

Cheer up and good luck.


----------



## andrewf

My landlord once deposited a stack of post-dated cheques (by 'mistake'). Thankfully I had the cash in my account, but now I only give a couple of months at a time.

You cannot reasonably insist on getting postdated cheques in advance. Banks will clear them before the date, so anyone writing a post dated cheque should assume they will all be immediately deposited.


----------



## jcgd

But, if the bank cashes a cheque that is post dated than you should be able to recoup any fees associated with NSF with no issues.


----------



## Sampson

andrewf said:


> You cannot reasonably insist on getting postdated cheques in advance.


Certainly you can. This is a relationship built on trust. How much is the unit you are renting worth? and how much potential damage can be done. I make this type of relationship known and clear with any potential tenants, and never have thought about breaking any aspect of the agreement (which would include cashing the whole stack of cheques).


----------



## kcowan

Whose problem is it when a bank cashes a post-dated cheque early? I assumed it was the bank's error.

My brother forgot to sign a cheque for utilities and it was cleared no problem. After that he treated his chequebook like cash.


----------



## m3s

Yes cheques are very antiquated. Anyone could scribble a signature on one and cash it, same with credit card purchases really. It shouldn't be hard to prove it's not your signature though, so it's the bank's problem really. The problem is people can write cheques when they don't have the money and how can you know or do much about it... my rent has to be paid electronically on the first every month

At least for KaeJS this guy is open to moving. From my understanding it's next to impossible to evict someone in Ontario if they want to be difficult. Guess you just have to have a keen sense of character. My father is a landlord and he always asks for references. He also spends most of his time on the rare nightmare tenant even after trying to screen them out


----------



## Berubeland

I got to insisting on post dated checks once I managed too many properties to feasibly pick up the rent. I manage properties from Oshawa to Mississauga. If you consider that people are mostly home from 6pm onwards, that only gives you about 3-4 hours of collecting rents per day. I suspect it would take me 6-7 days to physically go to each site if I made appointments to collect. Driving time is considerable. 

You can write on your lease that the tenants need to pay the rent to you. I offer them many different options. They can give me post dated checks, they can pay by email money transfer, they can mail a check or money order. What I can not do is pick up the rent from the site. I have banking to do on those days as well.

I figure for every single bill out there it is the person's responsibility to pay it, cable, phone, hydro etc. Why should the landlord be any different? Furthermore lots of tenants live paycheck to paycheck to paycheck, so they duck you until they get the dough together. Meanwhile you're the idiot spending gas chasing them around. No thanks.


----------



## KaeJS

I way rather get cash up front and provide receipts than deal with cheques. I don't think that makes me a "sketchy" or a bad landlord. It means that I am making life easier for myself.

Obviously with cheques, they can bounce. I don't want to find out a couple days later that my deposit isn't going to go through after I've already banked on that money being there. It's a huge headache and hassle that can be avoided, especially since I work 40 minutes away from the house. Usually, I spend 50% of my time in another city. If a cheque were to bounce, I may not be able to get my money for another week or so. That means I'm paying more interest on my mortgage. It's just a hassle.

As for post dated cheques, the bank is not on the hook for anything. It's a myth. I work for a bank. If you give out a post dated cheque - that's your problem. They can be cashed at any time (since a cheque is supposed to be the same as cash). The bank is not liable for anything, and this includes NSF's. Some banks may credit fees back to you, some may not. Some may do it only once. Who knows.

In any case, my other two tenants have no problem paying cash - they actually prefer it - and they are both good tenants.

Just because I have said that most renters are "scum" does not mean I treat my tenants or potential roomies like garbage. I am a very nice and understanding landlord. These are just feelings I have on the inside. Everyone gets the same chance and the same first impression. In fact, I am probably more leniant than most landlords. I actually bought my one room mate his own vacuum the day he moved in. Why? Just as a gift and because he asked if I had one he could use.

I am in no way a demanding or unfair landlord. I say renters are scum with the same tone and meaning as people always say "People can't drive".

It's true. Most people _can't_ drive. And _most_ renters are a pain.

As T.Gal mentioned, you do get tenants who just need to save, need a place temporarily, or rent for other reasons and they are fantastic people (I know, I've got two of them). But more often than not when I do my screening process, I find I go through 10-15 bad ones before I find a decent one.

jcgd, I'm sure you and your girlfriend are wonderful tenants. I am sure Homerhomer is, too. But we have to take into consideration that we are on a Money Forum. Everyone here is financially in check, and thus, probably more stable than most people. We aren't the people who have 163% Debt to Income ratio's, so it is biased and unfair for us to judge within this forum. Why? Because _95% of renters are not on this forum_. 

With that being said, I hope I don't offend anyone else, but statistics are statistics. If you take a second to think about it, deep down you know that most renters are not as financially secure, and some renters simply rent because they have made bad choices and have nowhere to go. Some make good choices. Some make bad ones. But, when you have nothing to lose, you tend to care less. That is the mentality (either consciously or subconsciously) of some renters.


----------



## Sampson

@ mode, you are in Europe though correct? e-banking has been prevalent and fully accepted for so much longer there.

Thanks for the tip though, I think I will insist on e-transfers in the future, although keeping my own accounts anonymous may be troublesome. Perhaps a single account only for transferring the rent into, then immediately out of.


----------



## Homerhomer

When I was a tennant I used to give them 12 cheques each year, when I was a landlord I insisted on 12 postdated cheques each year, never had a problem.

Sampson, if you insist on etranfers you may still be dealing with a hassle of dealing with tennants who may want to delay the payment, if you have postaded cheques that hassle is gone, also I don't there is anymore issue with keeping the account anonymous, you just give them your email address, and there isn;t anymore trace than it shows on the back of cashed cheque.

Banks are responsible for screening the cheques they cash, regardless if they are postdated, staledated, unsigned and so on, despite the fact that at times it may seem like their only responsibility is to collect fees and interest.

There is also a huge difference between being finacially less secure and being a scumbag.


----------



## marina628

We have multiple rentals and we get post dated cheques for a year with every signed lease.Never had any issues yet and my daughter rents but she goes into office to pay via debit or credit card once a month.She finds it a pain to have to do that but her building don't accept cheques at all.Kaejs has boarders so probably don't have to claim the income as he is sharing the house with them.The renters I know are good people usually saving to buy their own homes or rather rent and save the extra $500-$600 a month owning would cost them.


----------



## colossk

Homerhomer said:


> Banks are responsible for screening the cheques they cash, regardless if they are postdated, staledated, unsigned and so on, despite the fact that at times it may seem like their only responsibility is to collect fees and interest.


No, they are not. They are treated the same as cash. Banks are not responsible for someone depositing a cheque early, or unsigned. It's a widely thought misconception. They may do something as a gesture of good will, but basically you are SOL if they take a stand. Cheques were never meant to be post dated, it just occured and the practice took off. Banks do not screen the cheques the vast majority of the time. I discovered this about 8 years ago after getting into a huge dispute with my bank when my landlord cashed two $11k cheques for rent for one of my stores at the same time. As a "test" to see how often cheques were looked at I started signing all my cheques, Daffy Duck & Micky Mouse in different colour pen to see how closely they screened cheques. I signed about 18 of them that way and they never came back before I stopped


----------



## Dmoney

I don't know the actual legality, but I know when I worked as a teller, we were supposed to verify all cheques weren't post dated, and all names/signatures matched.
I was under the impression that this was because the bank would be on the hook if we made any mistakes.


----------



## KaeJS

The bank is not on the hook.


----------



## kcowan

colossk said:


> I signed about 18 of them that way and they never came back before I stopped


Cheques are processed by machine. The MICR line determines handling. While an image of them can be used to verify the content, that is only done if the MICR sort fails.


----------

