# Washing machine unit in rental- tenant or owner responsibility?



## maxandrelax (Jul 11, 2012)

I am looking at an apt with a front loading washer/dryer unit. In rental agreement LL stipulates that tenant pays for repairs if unit breaks. I have a problem with this because I have no idea how previous tenants have used/abused it. In addition I am paying for my own electricity for use of the unit. The rental unit is already at market value. It's not like the dryer is being thrown in for free. 

Can I negotiate for the LL taking responsibility for this? If she says no, should I be concerned about other peculiarities? 

THanks!


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Yes, you can negotiate this with the LL.


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

If it is working at the time you take over the unit, why is it too much to ask you to restore to its previous state if it breaks while you are using it? This reminds me of kids saying all the time, 'it's not me, don't blame me; it was already almost broken when I touched it...'


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Alternative is tell landlord when/if it breaks you will buy your own and don't want to pay to repair something you do not own.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Why should it be the landlord's expense...he's not using it, and as for the electricity, he's not using that either. I've always replaced the ones in my unit, but it eventually comes back in increased rents...one way or another, the end user always pays.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I personally own many units and we bought all new appliances with our units and have yet to cover this situation but if a washer or dryer went in my homes I probably would fix it out of my pocket .I was suggesting alternative to the OP if he did not want to pay for repairs.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Seriously More Miles and JAG? It's a rental! That's why the tenant doesn't have to pay the repairs.

You know - that's the reason people rent? If you rent a car, do you take it in for an oil change and tuneup if it's running a bit rough? Lol. If the furnace dies, should he kick in with his share too?

We had a ton of problems with a particular dryer and all I can say is don't agree to that part of the rental agreement. Just look for somewhere else. 

The landlord has probably already been soaked for some repairs and figure they'll try to screw some unsuspecting tenant for the next repair.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

Yes, this is a red flag for me - usually the appliances in a unit are repaired or replaced at the landlord's discretion. If you HAVE to repair it, there is no limit to your liability.

If the landlord will not accept responsibility for repairs, ask to have it removed, and either go to the laudromat, or buy one of your own.


----------



## maxandrelax (Jul 11, 2012)

Four Pillars said:


> Seriously More Miles and JAG? It's a rental! That's why the tenant doesn't have to pay the repairs.
> 
> You know - that's the reason people rent? If you rent a car, do you take it in for an oil change and tuneup if it's running a bit rough? Lol. If the furnace dies, should he kick in with his share too?


Exactly, I was thinking that quite rich. It's too bad, I really like the apt, but this just screams red flag. I am going to write that out and ask for the additional garage rental to be included. Will see how that goes. I'm sure I know what will be said.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

maxandrelax said:


> Exactly, I was thinking that quite rich. It's too bad, I really like the apt, but this just screams red flag. I am going to write that out and ask for the additional garage rental to be included. Will see how that goes. I'm sure I know what will be said.


Forget the garage rental - I think you should ask that the landlord come and do all your laundry.  That's just as (un)reasonable as their original request. 

Seriously - there are other apartments. This landlord is a disaster and you should just go elsewhere.


----------



## Potato (Apr 3, 2009)

It is typically the LL's responsibility to keep the appliances in working condition, for what was there initially. This can be contracted out so that the LL disclaims responsibility -- if it breaks it's gone, or at the tenant's discretion to repair or replace. That's typically done for bonus small appliances that previous tenants have left behind (microwaves, coffee makers, toaster ovens, etc., and usually the reason that those are not ordinarily part of the unit is listed). I have never heard of a tenant being assigned the responsibility for repairs in other provinces, and in Ontario that's an unenforceable clause.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Being forced to repair something you don't own is bizarre. I have to agree that LL trying to slip that clause in is a red flag that they are going to be unreasonable to deal with in the future. Unprofessional landlord...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Seriously More Miles and JAG? It's a rental! That's why the tenant doesn't have to pay the repairs.
> 
> You know - that's the reason people rent? ...


I've had one of two situations when renting. The first is that the land lord provides it (including repairs) either in the unit or in a common area. The second is the connections were there and it was up to me as renter, whether I put my own in or took the laundry elsewhere.

If the landlord won't cover repairs, I'd look else where. 


Cheers


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

Would it make you feel better that the lease says all appliances are provided 'as is' and free to use but no guarantee implied. Also most mordern leases ask the tenant to pay for a deductible of $75-90 for each repair anyway. 

Can you imagine getting called at 2 am by your tenant... the light blub is broken? You need to drive in -25 oC to replace that light bulb? So a line needs to be drawn... and most landlords use about $100.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ That's not legal, in Ontario at least. So most modern (read: unenforceable) leases from unprofessional landlords.

That said, I've always paid for and replaced my own lightbulbs.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Seriously
> You know - that's the reason people rent? If you rent a car, do you take it in for an oil change and tuneup if it's running a bit rough?


Well if its a leased car, you are responsible under the lease agreement to pay for all oil changes, tuneups, and wear and tear and any repairs to the body.

However, I would think that a washer/dryer combo provided with the apartment is at the LL discretion for the tenants convenience, and
the tenant could chose to use a commercial laundry instead of using the appliances, and risk having having them break down and have to pay for repairs. 

It all depends on what is stated in the lease. I rented an apt for one year with a stacked washer/dryer and it was stated that any repairs to it would
be borne by the tenant because they are the ones using it. I chose to do my laundry at a coin operated laundromat...unless it was severe winter weather
of course, and it was too much hassle to drive there.


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

My point, Carverman, is that if the rubber seals on the washer (under city pressure) degraded and leaked, by the terms of the lease you would still be on the hook for repairs. No matter how seldom you used it.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I look at appliances as being a potential liability as well so in our best interest to make sure they are in working order.


----------



## Sasquatch (Jan 28, 2012)

I'd look for another apartment !


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

If landlord won't agree to delete the clause, walk away from this rental. Appliance repairs are expensive (if parts are even available); and the life span of appliances keeps getting shorter (our price-driven NA market is not willing to pay for durability). And for all you know the landlord picked it up at somebody's curb last week. 

Landlord owns the appliance; is able to write both purchase price & repairs off as expenses against rental income; but is trying to get tenants to pay for it anyway. If apartment comes with stove, fridge, and/or dishwasher, would you expect to repair them too?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I had one tenant once who in a year, managed to break, sorry have fail, the washer, the dryer, the stove, the dishwasher, the fridge, the furnace and finally the toilet. Now, all of the appliances (except the furnace) were under 5 years old, the fridge was just over a year, and I'd never seen a toilet break in my life (we're not talking a leaky flapper either) this was statistically impossible to happen all at once. I replaced all the items at my expense...but I also got rid of the tenant.

Now, why should such a tenant not be responsible for repairs?


----------



## maxandrelax (Jul 11, 2012)

OhGreatGuru said:


> If landlord won't agree to delete the clause, walk away from this rental. Appliance repairs are expensive (if parts are even available); and the life span of appliances keeps getting shorter (our price-driven NA market is not willing to pay for durability). And for all you know the landlord picked it up at somebody's curb last week.
> 
> Landlord owns the appliance; is able to write both purchase price & repairs off as expenses against rental income; but is trying to get tenants to pay for it anyway. If apartment comes with stove, fridge, and/or dishwasher, would you expect to repair them too?


The deal is dead. Thanks guys, twas a harbinger of weirdness to come. Pitty really liked the space, but there will be others. In better news, will stay in current place an save 5 grand waiting it out until a summer move.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> I had one tenant once who in a year, managed to break, sorry have fail, the washer, the dryer, the stove, the dishwasher, the fridge, the furnace and finally the toilet. Now, all of the appliances (except the furnace) were under 5 years old, the fridge was just over a year, and I'd never seen a toilet break in my life (we're not talking a leaky flapper either) this was statistically impossible to happen all at once. I replaced all the items at my expense...but I also got rid of the tenant.
> 
> Now, why should such a tenant not be responsible for repairs?


You're welcome to try and take him to small claims if you think he is intentionally damaging your property. It doesn't change the fact that landlords are responsible for normal maintenance of the property. If you don't like it, consider commercial real estate instead. Alternately, offer the rental excluding all appliances.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Now, why should such a tenant not be responsible for repairs?


I agree...the way I see it..if the appliances are supplied, "if you break it"..."you fix it"....however, where does that leave a fridge that stops working on it's
own, or washer or dryer if the failures are due to just use and not abuse?


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

All major appliances are my responsibility. Washer, dryer, air conditioner, furnace, fridge, dishwasher, microwave, water heater. These are typically out of the control of the Tennant and typically don't break from inappropriate misuse.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

wendi1 said:


> My point, Carverman, is that if the rubber seals on the washer (under city pressure) degraded and leaked, by the terms of the lease you would still be on the hook for repairs. No matter how seldom you used it.


Rubber seals, belts, and other parts do wear out in time. Most of the new appliances are made so bad that you are lucky to get 5 years out of them without some kind of maintenance issue, and as most people know, if you have to call an appliance repair person, it can run into hundreds of dollars to repair the appliance. 

Who pays for it when the tenant doesn't actually own it? The tenant would try and stick the landlord with the repair,because they don't feel responsible to fix the landlords appliances...just use them.

It's a difficult call...even if the LL states in the lease that the fridge/stove/dishwasher/washer/dryer are provided on a "as is basis" with no guarantees. 
If a fridge that is by the landlord breaks down, you can't expect the tenant to buy a new fridge for the landlord, and then leave it behind when they move. 

So the only other option is to rent the apartment (or house), without any appliances, but then the LL may limit themselves in the rental market. 
I'm sure most renters don't have 3 thousand to 4 thousand extra to buy 5 appliances and then have to come up with first and last months rent at the same time.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> It's a difficult call...


I honestly don't see why it is. The appliances are part of the rental unit and the LL pays for them.

The idea that the 'tenant is the one who uses them' doesn't make sense. The tenant uses the whole apartment and will likely cause wear and tear over time. 

That's part of the cost of owning a rental unit and should be factored into the rental rate or the decision about whether to continue to own that rental unit.


----------



## MoreMiles (Apr 20, 2011)

Yeah that with rent control makes it ridiculous to be a landlord in Ontario. Without capital appreciation, the landlords are making like 3%. You might as well get GIC. If you are a tenant trying to say how being landlord is so easy with expenses that can be written off, try to be one then and you will see. 

With our real estate prices in GTA these days, it should cost $2000 to rent a 1 BR. Anything lower is simply a waste of time...


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

MoreMiles said:


> ...ridiculous to be a landlord in Ontario..


Agreed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This being the reason why I rent rather than rent out property.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> With our real estate prices in GTA these days, it should cost $2000 to rent a 1 BR. Anything lower is simply a waste of time...


I think you have that inverted. Given how much a 1 BR rents for, houses should be selling for half as much. Rents aren't magically going to rise because houses are expensive. Houses will fall in value, at least in real terms.


----------



## maxandrelax (Jul 11, 2012)

andrewf said:


> This being the reason why I rent rather than rent out property.


Reason why I rent and invest in REITS. 

There definitely is a grey area between the bare-bones rentals (without washers etc.) and the nicer units that have them. You either pay less to rent or pay much more to get these luxuries that the LL should cover. It is tough to find something in the middle in Toronto.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> Without capital appreciation, the landlords are making like 3%. You might as well get GIC.


Most GICs don't even pay 3%.


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

MoreMiles said:


> Yeah that with rent control makes it ridiculous to be a landlord in Ontario.


Add the LTB, and it's like the whole deck is stacked against you. 
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/03/20/tenants_from_hell_avoid_rent_leave_trail_of_debt.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/05/05/tenant_from_hell_leaves_string_of_landlord_victims.html


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Here are some stories form both sides: http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/your-very-worst-rental-horror-stories/


----------



## Xoron (Jun 22, 2010)

none said:


> Here are some stories form both sides: http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/your-very-worst-rental-horror-stories/


Sure, there are good and bad on both sides. At least tenants with bad landlords have the option to leave. What recourse does a landlord have to get rid of a bad tenant? The LTB, which takes at least 3 months, sometimes much longer (and likely receiving no rent from the tenant). 

The way I see it, less and less small time landlords are getting into (and staying in) the business. The LTB is just one more reason a good landlord wants out of the landlording business. Couple that with low and controlled rent, skyrocketing valuations (at least in the GTA) = less good landlords.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

^ yup, I can agree with that.

I really don't see how anyone can make decent rental income from places at 2014 prices. At least not enough money to justify risk, hassle etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I agree there are a bunch of the protections for bad tenants should be removed, and it should be possible to evict someone in 30 days (so that last month's rent covers rental costs) with cause. 'Professional tenants' don't only hurt landlords, they also hurt other tenants. On the other hand, there are many appalling landlords with no regard for the law. They should not be in the business. It's a business, not a hobby.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> I had one tenant once who in a year, managed to break, sorry have fail, the washer, the dryer, the stove, the dishwasher, the fridge, the furnace and finally the toilet. Now, all of the appliances (except the furnace) were under 5 years old, the fridge was just over a year, and I'd never seen a toilet break in my life (we're not talking a leaky flapper either) this was statistically impossible to happen all at once. I replaced all the items at my expense...but I also got rid of the tenant.
> 
> Now, why should such a tenant not be responsible for repairs?


Cost of doing business. Can't have your cake and eat it too. That's the downside to being a landlord.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

* Can't eat your cake and have it too.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Never said it was a downside, just a reason why my rents aren't cheap.

In real estate, the professional landlord never pays, he may loan, but never pay. These people only hurt other renters.


----------

