What can go wrong? Update in #149

[Bluegoat]

No, that's not true. I think what people have said is that using a post-dated check for a deposit is so unusual and so common among scammers, that it is a big red flag that would keep most of us from letting them move in without a cash deposit.

 

That is not even to say not to let them move in, just to get the cash ASAP to put your mind at rest.

 

No, at least one person said that if a ll asked for post-dated cheques, it would make them think he was shady, and another considered anyone using one at all evidence the person can't pay.

[idnib]

No, I think it is about being low income.  People who are low income just don't have savings or extra cash on hand in many cases.  There is no way they can get their hands on it.  So - what do you do when you move?  Borrow maybe if you can, or go without something (what?) or often just grit your teeth and hope you can fudge it- there won't be another choice open.

 

I'm pretty sure we're all hoping this is the case, that they're low income and have a temporary cash flow problem due to deposits and expenses, and that they'll pay on time and take care of the place.

Edited February 11, 2016 by idnib

[Bluegoat]

It is a difficult position. The renters may need the deposit back from the last place to put it down on this one. I've been there. That doesn't make a landlord a morally inferior person to refuse to let random people live in their rental property for free. If these renters had been honest about it, that would give me a different impression. They said they were coming with cash and did not.

 

I didn't say it did make a wary ll morally inferior.  I said that the moral judgements that people are making in this thread about anyone who is having cash flow problems, are nasty.

 

People have to move, and they don't have money.  IN most places public housing is not easy to get, and not necessarily nice.  They might get by under normal circumstances but not when there is a crunch like moving.  Trying to juggle it probably isn't the best solution, but often people feel like all the solutions are bad. Time usually reveals which people are which, but the judgements on principle are another thing entirely.

[marbel]

It is a difficult position. The renters may need the deposit back from the last place to put it down on this one. I've been there. That doesn't make a landlord a morally inferior person to refuse to let random people live in their rental property for free. If these renters had been honest about it, that would give me a different impression. They said they were coming with cash and did not.

 

That's the difference between "low income" and "dishonest." 

 

If it's low-income/cash flow trouble, you explain that to the landlord and ask/hope for grace.  You maybe get extra references to help them feel comfortable.  Maybe you bring what money you can to the table, even if it's not everything.   And sign something saying when the money will be available, and stick to that.

 

It doesn't sound like that's what happened to the OP. 

 

[Bluegoat]

I'm pretty sure we're all hoping this is the case, that they're just low income and have a temporary cash flow problem due to deposits and expenses, and that they'll play on time and take care of the place.

Yes, I think thay is what most people are hoping.  It may not turn out that way, but that wasn't really my point.

[Tsuga]

I didn't say it did make a wary ll morally inferior.  I said that the moral judgements that people are making in this thread about anyone who is having cash flow problems, are nasty.

 

 

We don't even know they are having cash flow problems.

 

What we know is that they are lying.

 

HUGE difference.

 

Things I have said being low / very low income:

 

"His paycheck didn't go through and we'll be late. Can we pay the late fee in installments? 2008 is not a lot of fun for us."

 

"There was a problem with my student loan transfer and I can't pay the advance. Can I wait until July?"

 

"I have to drive far to get cash. Can I meet you in a week instead of tomorrow, so I can get into town?"

 

"Yes, it sounds lovely, but that's over our price range. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me about it."

 

"We were looking for something in the $700 range. What if we lock the upstairs with a double lock and you can use it as storage, and we only use the downstairs? We can save on utilities too."

 

Things I have NOT said:

 

"I know I said cash but here's a post-dated check."

 

"I'll move in on X date." And then move in earlier!

 

"We haven't paid, but can I have the key?"

 

 

Never.

 

Not having cash is a problem.

 

Lying is wrong.

[EmseB]

No, I think it is about being low income. People who are low income just don't have savings or extra cash on hand in many cases. There is no way they can get their hands on it. So - what do you do when you move? Borrow maybe if you can, or go without something (what?) or often just grit your teeth and hope you can fudge it- there won't be another choice open.

 

That doesn't make you dodgy, it makes you poor. Poor people aren't much use as money-makers so I can see why lls don't want to rent to them, but making moral judgements about their poverty is pretty nasty, and privileged.

I think you're taking things from people's comments that just aren't there.

 

For many lls, they need a reliable renter to make the mortgage payment and afford upkeep. They literally cannot afford to have someone in the property without paying because they are between a rock and a hard place. Maybe they were forced to move and have not been able to sell their house they are underwater on and are forced into renting on a thin margin. In either case, yeah, if people who pay rent are "money-makers" then those are the tenants most people need to maintain their property.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it is judgemental not to let those who can't pay a deposit or rent into their property. Well, yeah, but what's the alternative? Letting anyone in rent free because you don't want to make judgements? Not to mention, most people here are making judgements from experience of people who don't pay rent, not speculation about the morals of low income people.

Edited February 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

We don't even know they are having cash flow problems.

 

What we know is that they are lying.

 

HUGE difference.

 

Things I have said being low / very low income:

 

"His paycheck didn't go through and we'll be late. Can we pay the late fee in installments? 2008 is not a lot of fun for us."

 

"There was a problem with my student loan transfer and I can't pay the advance. Can I wait until July?"

 

"I have to drive far to get cash. Can I meet you in a week instead of tomorrow, so I can get into town?"

 

"Yes, it sounds lovely, but that's over our price range. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me about it."

 

"We were looking for something in the $700 range. What if we lock the upstairs with a double lock and you can use it as storage, and we only use the downstairs? We can save on utilities too."

 

Things I have NOT said:

 

"I know I said cash but here's a post-dated check."

 

"I'll move in on X date." And then move in earlier!

 

"We haven't paid, but can I have the key?"

 

 

Never.

 

Not having cash is a problem.

 

Lying is wrong.

 

I think I've said this at least twice, but I am not being clear I guess.

 

People are not just asking questions about these people, or commenting on them.  They are making general statements about people who can't pay.

 

Yes, it might be better, in this instance and in general, if people were up front.  But really - they may not have found that works for them.    People who are used to living that way will do what they can to avoid a problem.  No - it is not the most principled method.  It's also IMO a common effect of being hard up for a long time, or feeling desperate about the alternatives, or other kinds of struggle for that ma

 

It's great that your different, but judging people according to our own strengths isn't generally a good idea.

 

There should be a big fat separation between - these people seem to have money issue that could easily cause serious problems for me - and these kinds of people are dishonest scammers.

[EmseB]

No, at least one person said that if a ll asked for post-dated cheques, it would make them think he was shady, and another considered anyone using one at all evidence the person can't pay.

That, again, is the difference in most of us being taught in the U.S. that post dating checks is shady because it's not how our banking system normally works. Post dating a check here leaves some parties unprotected and I've rented from a lot of different lls, and have never been asked and qould be extremely wary of someone who asked for checks instead of allowing direct deposit. We now understand it's not the same Canada or Australia, or even with some folks here. It's just not practiced here widely and isn't the same thing as asking for a direct deposit or something like that. I have no control over my money if I write post dated checks.

Edited February 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

I think you're taking things from people's comments that just aren't there.

 

For many lls, they need a reliable renter to make the mortgage payment and afford upkeep. They literally cannot afford to have someone in the property without paying because they are between a rock and a hard place. Maybe they were forced to move and have not been able to sell their house they are underwater on and are forced into renting on a thin margin. In either case, yeah, if people who pay rent are "money-makers" then those are the tenants most people need to maintain their property.

 

You seem to be suggesting that it is judgemental not to let those who can't pay a deposit or rent into their property. Well, yeah, but what's the alternative? Letting anyone in rent free because you don't want to make judgements? Not to mention, most people here are making judgements from experience of people who don't pay rent, not speculation about the morals of low income people.

 

Well, we will have to disagree.  I've re-read the thread, and there are a number of posts which IMO take what are the circumstances of being low income and make moral judgments about them.  It absolutely isn't everyone, several people were very sensible.

 

I don't think these people realize they are doing this, but that is pretty usual.

 

People who are worried about the basic necessities of life, or even what they think are the basic necessities, behave in ways that can seem, at fist glance, dodgy.  But in many cases they are simply the coping strategies they have learned from dealing with long term poverty - if you don't see other options, or a way out, you take what seems the safest way to ensure a little security.  If you don't think anyone is going to do anything to help you, you figure you need to help yourself.  If people knowing you are poor has shut doors, you will try and keep it to yourself.

 

Landlords may not be in a position to rent to such people.  What they can do though is avoid making assumptions about them or imagining their own peers, and quite possibly themselves, would behave wildly differently in similar circumstances.

[EmseB]

Except many of us have been in a position where money was extremely tight and trying to rent a place. Either way, doing what the renters did in the OP doesn't just seem dodgy. It is dodgy. Even if it is a coping mechanism, it is dodgy. Putting the OP in the position she's in is dodgy. Moving in with no deposit and no rent, no matter the reason, is dodgy.

[Halftime Hope]

changed my mind for posting this.  sorry.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Halftime Hope

[scoutingmom]

I agree to the red flags. This looks bad to me. I hope it turns out ok.

 

But I also know that my family is one that would have a hard time renting another place.... besides the costs issue.... we have 4 kids. Red flag from some LL's. 2 cats... another flag. Bad credit (long story including bounced paycheques...). 12 years here... not sure what this LL would say.... (we could say stuff about them too).... dispute with previous LL. So we are stuck.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Tammi K]

Hugs to you.

 

Wow. Horrible. Scary stuff.   

 

How did your insurance agent happen to be there?  And how old was this kid?  Sounds like arson plus cruelty to animals if that exists as a crime where you are and generally some first degree felony type things going on. Not to mention psychopathology. So this kid is out and about now?

 

I don't want to side track the thread, but I'll briefly answer - The insurance agent's office routinely listens to the police band. My dh had just happened to contact him a day or two before about a coverage matter.  So, when the agent heard the report on the police monitor the address sounded familiar. He checked his records and realized we were his clients. So, he drove over.

 

The kid is 16.  The DA presented us with options for charges.  A trial would have required dh and I to be in Pennsylvania to testify. But, dh was scheduled to begin an overseas tour and would have to travel back from Asia at our expense and be available for the trial - which the DA assured us would be fraught with delays if the defense had any say in the matter.  In addition, I would have had to leave the youngest two in Alaska alone as they both have classes and jobs that couldn't be missed without a lot of inconvenience to their teachers/employers.

 

A plea deal was offered. We were fortunate in that he agreed to a 2nd degree felony - Causing a Catastrophe. We thought the best we could get was a 3rd degree - Criminal mischief.  

 

Currently, the kid is in New Jersey in the custody of his terminally ill grandmother. Supposedly, he is providing care for her.  Yes - you read that right. Grandma is terminally ill, and bed ridden, we've been told-  and she is supervising the arsonist.   Not sure how that happened but there it is. 

 

The sentencing is set for March 3. I do believe the kid has major mental health issues but I also believe he should be cooling his heels in a detention facility for as long as the law allows.

[Halcyon]

just checking in to see if there were any updates. HUGS to you--it stinks to be caught in a situation like this. I hope everything turns out okay for you.

[Tsuga]

Except many of us have been in a position where money was extremely tight and trying to rent a place. Either way, doing what the renters did in the OP doesn't just seem dodgy. It is dodgy. Even if it is a coping mechanism, it is dodgy. Putting the OP in the position she's in is dodgy. Moving in with no deposit and no rent, no matter the reason, is dodgy.

 

Yeah, I'm not making assumptions about low income people. I was a low-income person. Many of us were. I was honest the whole time and I have a good credit rating because I did not make promises I couldn't keep on my income!

 

Coping by lying and being dishonest is not nice.

 

The judgments are on people who cope with low income by sneaking, that's the judgment. Not the low income itself which sucks.

 

I mean why, if you are low income, are you not scrambling for section 8, negotiating a lower rent? THAT'S low income.

 

Not renting at a higher price and then not paying according to the agreed terms. That's just plain sketchy.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Tsuga

[mamiof5]

It just sounds like such a potential mess :( I just hope it all works well for you. Reading so many horrible renting stories really makes me be thankful for what we had. We were landlords for over 5 years, and thankfully both were pleasant experiences. I wish you the very best with this!

[Carol in Cal.]

I can see that it might suggest that they will be dodgy about money, even if they are quite nice otherwise.  Or they could just be dodgy all round.  

 

I do not, however, get, or like, the way so...

 

I really dislike the implication that being low-income is synonemous with being dodgy, and I think this sort of thing is in many cases where that myth comes from - people who are having to constantly scramble to make ends meet are interpreted as being garbage people.  Protecting your own investment isn't an excuse for making that kind of judgement about people's morality without a lick of evidence. 

I'm horrified that I could have given you that impression.

I was not even remotely saying that low income people are bad.

 

What I was trying to say, and I guess totally failing to convey, is that people who can't pay the bills have a similar 'feel' to a landlord 'on the edge' as people who WON'T pay the bills.  There is a lot of stress involved either way.  That's all.  

 

I utterly entirely agree with you that making a judgment about someone's morality without evidence is entirely wrong.  (Trying to say that extremely strongly, because that's how I feel.)  

 

But, the issue here is not just whether these prospective tenants are morally wrong, but also whether things are likely to go smoothly from here on out if they are just not really able to afford the house.  They keep saying things that are not true, and that's concerning both morally and as a sign of trouble, as well.  

 

FWIW, that tenant of ours?  The one who lost his job, and they kind of stopped paying the rent?  I went and talked to them, and we worked out a deal so that we could help them out.  They signed a paper saying what they owed us in rent, and I voluntarily (over their objections, actually) waived all late charges that were in the rental agreement.  I asked them to stay in touch about their progress, and they did.  We carried them for quite a while, getting partial rents, and sometimes nothing.  In the end they paid us all the back rent, and we found out later that they went bankrupt but they still paid us, even though they could have discharged this debt, because we had treated them with dignity and kindness.  They were always marginal financially, but they were morally upright people.  It was really hard to let them slide because my husband lost his job at the same time and so we literally had NO income, but I decided to carry on for a while and to try to help them, and I have never been sorry.  God was good to us all, and we managed.

 

Whereas the only tenants we had that really screwed us over were well-employed computer programmers who flounced out of their jobs, stopped paying us rent, trashed out house, and moved away.  

 

Low income does not mean low morals.  I've been low income.  Heck, I've been *no* income.  Low income means low margin, not necessarily low morals.  But to a small holdings landlord, not paying because of low income is almost as stressful as not paying because of low morals.  That's the point I was trying to make.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

I mean why, if you are low income, are you not scrambling for section 8, negotiating a lower rent? THAT'S low income.

 

Not renting at a higher price and then not paying according to the agreed terms. That's just plain sketchy.

I don't know it is there, but where we live, the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers is 5-10 years long, and once someone is awarded a voucher, they have to find a place that will take it within a certain amount of time.  The allowable rent is lower than market rates, and the government requires a pre-inspection before they will let someone rent to a Section 8 recipient.  So there is no incentive for landlords to accept these, and even people who get them often end up losing them, unused, because they can't find a place to take them

 

Senior low income housing is easier, but typically only applies to apartments or SRO rooms, not rental houses.

[LMD]

The only time I dealt with cheques was buying property... Day to day stuff never. Even working at a supermarket in the 90's, cheques came up maybe once or twice a year. In AU

[MrsWeasley]

When we rented, our leases began on the first of the month and ended on the last day. Landlords always offered to let us move into a vacant apartment on the last weekend of the month, before the lease officially started, without charging extra. It would have been a logistical nightmare otherwise. However, we never had access before paying first and last months' rent plus a security deposit.

[Laura Corin]

At all?  Wow.

 

The place my mother rents requires all of the tenants to pay by money order.  I know it's a hassle for the tenants to go get the money order, but I understand the management's position of not wanting to run people down for bad checks.

 

We are landlords in the UK.  The tenants set up a direct monthly payment from their bank to our bank.  They could, of course, stop it at any time, but we would know fast, as we can see the money hit our account on the same day every month.

[Grover]

I'm late to this thread.  I've had multiple rental properties for a very long time, in a country significantly less uptight about many things than the US.  There is no way on earth I'd hand over keys early.  Who's paying rent and power, etc for the pre-lease "storage" time.  Whose insurance if they get burgled?  What's stopping them moving in rent free for that period.  I have so many issues with this situation.  No pay, no key... no discussion.  Gosh I hope this works out for you. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Grover

[creekland]

I didn't say it did make a wary ll morally inferior.  I said that the moral judgements that people are making in this thread about anyone who is having cash flow problems, are nasty.

 

People have to move, and they don't have money.  IN most places public housing is not easy to get, and not necessarily nice.  They might get by under normal circumstances but not when there is a crunch like moving.  Trying to juggle it probably isn't the best solution, but often people feel like all the solutions are bad. Time usually reveals which people are which, but the judgements on principle are another thing entirely.

 

I'm thinking it could be a good idea for you to invest multiple thousands of dollars in some properties - literally - the bulk of your retirement fund.  Then rent to anyone who comes along who wants to rent it.  Over time you can figure out who was worthy and helped your retirement fund and who wasn't and depleted a good chunk of it.

 

Most of us can't afford to do that latter part with time.  We have to use our best judgment ahead of time - making snap decisions based upon background checks and little tidbits of info we get.

 

It's not "the poor" we're judging against.  A good share of our tenants would be listed as poor.  Some have previous payment issues and/or bankruptcy.  Some are just lower income in general.  (There are others who have a decent income, but who are transient or don't want to buy for one reason or another.)

 

But most of us can't afford to provide housing for free or at a lower rental rate than what we have.  Some of those poor people can't afford to live in our places, but they pretend they can.  Then we take the loss.  On top of that, some of these take revenge on us rich landlords - just because.

 

That's what we need to use judgment on ahead of time - and yes - we use stereotypes and generalizations from prior experiences to make those judgments.  We use odds.  It might not be the ideal world, but it sure helps us save our investments in the real world.

 

If you join us in the landlord world, it won't be too long before you understand - esp if you let anyone in and let time make judgments for you.

 

Yes, it might be better, in this instance and in general, if people were up front.  But really - they may not have found that works for them.    People who are used to living that way will do what they can to avoid a problem.  No - it is not the most principled method.  It's also IMO a common effect of being hard up for a long time, or feeling desperate about the alternatives, or other kinds of struggle for that ma

 

...

 

There should be a big fat separation between - these people seem to have money issue that could easily cause serious problems for me - and these kinds of people are dishonest scammers.

 

Yes, this is the problem.  People who can't afford to live in places pretend they can because they are desperate and the system can work for them once they get it down.  Some are just learning the system.  Others have it perfected from experience.  For those of us taking the risk, it doesn't matter which of your latter categories they are in at the moment.  It matters that they can't pay for our place.  We need tenants who can.

 

The OP said in her area there are options of other, less-expensive, places.  If these folks only have money flow issues, why aren't they choosing one of these?

 

There are huge red flags about whether they will be able to afford her place or not.  She's gambling with her investment.  They are not.  

 

People who are worried about the basic necessities of life, or even what they think are the basic necessities, behave in ways that can seem, at fist glance, dodgy.  But in many cases they are simply the coping strategies they have learned from dealing with long term poverty - if you don't see other options, or a way out, you take what seems the safest way to ensure a little security.  If you don't think anyone is going to do anything to help you, you figure you need to help yourself.  If people knowing you are poor has shut doors, you will try and keep it to yourself.

 

Landlords may not be in a position to rent to such people.  What they can do though is avoid making assumptions about them or imagining their own peers, and quite possibly themselves, would behave wildly differently in similar circumstances.

 

I agree completely with the first part I quoted.  I disagree with the second.  Landlords HAVE to make judgments.  We're rarely wealthy enough to provide charity housing.

 

We can feel sorry for the plight of the potential tenants, but that doesn't mean we can support them financially.  Feeling sorry for the plight of our horrid tenants is why we got taken for as much as we did.  It will NOT happen again.  I no longer feel sorry for them either considering they trashed our house.  Had they just left without causing damage, I probably would have kept some feelings for them.

 

In the future, we WILL use that experience (and tell others about it) to try to save them the $$ and hassle.

 

 Well, that's why you have insurance I guess.

 

There will always be a small element of risk. If you can't tolerate that small element of risk, or insure your property against that risk, or understand the processes by which you reduce that risk, you shouldn't be in the landlord business.

 

I'm not entirely sure that people who cannot take that small risk should be in the business of providing rentals. To do it properly takes time, knowledge and money.

 

I disagree.  This is why we use our brains to try to sort out tenants between those who are likely to pay and take care of our place and those who aren't.  As with anything else, using our brain lowers our risk.  Most tenants have been quite good and our investments are doing well.  We've only experienced one who was bad and one who was horrid.  From each, we've learned - just as we all learn about our world from life experiences.

 

Insurance is for accidents - not for failure to use wisdom.  It's hardly a small risk we're taking.

[TammyS]

I can see that it might suggest that they will be dodgy about money, even if they are quite nice otherwise.  Or they could just be dodgy all round.  I have no argument with that, and as a ll it is something to worry about.

 

I do not, however, get, or like, the way some people are saying these are surely things only someone out to cheat them would do. Mainly because it is BS.  They are things someone who is short of money at the moment would do, and the dates issue may be part of that or may be just about their pay schedule.  They may be short because moving is expensive, or it may be ongoing.

 

I really dislike the implication that being low-income is synonemous with being dodgy, and I think this sort of thing is in many cases where that myth comes from - people who are having to constantly scramble to make ends meet are interpreted as being garbage people.  Protecting your own investment isn't an excuse for making that kind of judgement about people's morality without a lick of evidence. 

 

The evidence is that they were supposed to bring money to the lease signing, and didn't.

 

Then it was going to be the 16th.

 

Now it's going to be the 19th.

 

These people know when they get paid and they would have known they wouldn't have the money before this point (particularly as he is on disability and she has a part time job, which means that their income is very fixed..low, but predictable), but they weren't upfront about it.  They just keep pushing the date back.

 

I've been low income my whole life.  I don't think these people are dodgy because they are low income, I think they are dodgy because of their behavior.

[TranquilMind]

I can see that it might suggest that they will be dodgy about money, even if they are quite nice otherwise. Or they could just be dodgy all round. I have no argument with that, and as a ll it is something to worry about.

 

I do not, however, get, or like, the way some people are saying these are surely things only someone out to cheat them would do. Mainly because it is BS. They are things someone who is short of money at the moment would do, and the dates issue may be part of that or may be just about their pay schedule. They may be short because moving is expensive, or it may be ongoing.

 

I really dislike the implication that being low-income is synonemous with being dodgy, and I think this sort of thing is in many cases where that myth comes from - people who are having to constantly scramble to make ends meet are interpreted as being garbage people. Protecting your own investment isn't an excuse for making that kind of judgement about people's morality without a lick of evidence.

This isn't about income level. These people failed to bring the money agreed at Lease signing and then took possession of the house prior to the date the Lease begins.

[TammyS]

No, I think it is about being low income.  People who are low income just don't have savings or extra cash on hand in many cases.  There is no way they can get their hands on it.  So - what do you do when you move?  Borrow maybe if you can, or go without something (what?) or often just grit your teeth and hope you can fudge it- there won't be another choice open.

 

That doesn't make you dodgy, it makes you poor.  Poor people aren't much use as money-makers so I can see why lls don't want to rent to them, but making moral judgements about their poverty is pretty nasty, and privileged.

 

They aren't making moral judgement about their poverty.  They are making moral judgements about their honesty.  When you go to a lease signing you are supposed to show up with "good as cash" payments.  To initiate contact over a lease that you know that you are not able to pay for is dishonest.

 

And as someone who has been low income their entire life, I find it your judgement about other people's judgement to "pretty nasty, privileged".

[TranquilMind]

Well, we will have to disagree. I've re-read the thread, and there are a number of posts which IMO take what are the circumstances of being low income and make moral judgments about them. It absolutely isn't everyone, several people were very sensible.

 

I don't think these people realize they are doing this, but that is pretty usual.

 

People who are worried about the basic necessities of life, or even what they think are the basic necessities, behave in ways that can seem, at fist glance, dodgy. But in many cases they are simply the coping strategies they have learned from dealing with long term poverty - if you don't see other options, or a way out, you take what seems the safest way to ensure a little security. If you don't think anyone is going to do anything to help you, you figure you need to help yourself. If people knowing you are poor has shut doors, you will try and keep it to yourself.

 

Landlords may not be in a position to rent to such people. What they can do though is avoid making assumptions about them or imagining their own peers, and quite possibly themselves, would behave wildly differently in similar circumstances.

It IS dodgy to tell a potential landlord you will have funds to put down and let the landlord show up, expecting this. It IS dodgy to provide post dated checks and push the date out even further, and then taking possession without having paid. None of that was ok. The concern is that this tenant MAY be taking advantage of a landlord who clearly is far too trusting.

 

That's a very legitimate concern to those of us with experience.

[TranquilMind]

They aren't making moral judgement about their poverty. They are making moral judgements about their honesty".

This. Exactly.

Edited February 11, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TammyS]

 

 

Yes, it might be better, in this instance and in general, if people were up front.  But really - they may not have found that works for them.    People who are used to living that way will do what they can to avoid a problem.  No - it is not the most principled method.  It's also IMO a common effect of being hard up for a long time, or feeling desperate about the alternatives, or other kinds of struggle for that ma

 

 

So it's ok to lie, because they are hard up....but not ok for others to say that lying is not ok?

 

As a low income person, this is the kind of thing that drives me bats. 

 

What you are suggesting is that low income people should be held to a lower standard, because they're low income, because they aren't good enough to meet the standard of non-low income people.

 

It's demeaning and insulting.

 

[Pink and Green Mom]

OP, please tell me you have contacted your insurance company to find out what your legal obligations are in this situation.  I would be very worried about your liability and coverage at this point.

[TranquilMind]

I think I've said this at least twice, but I am not being clear I guess.

 

People are not just asking questions about these people, or commenting on them. They are making general statements about people who can't pay.

 

Yes, it might be better, in this instance and in general, if people were up front. But really - they may not have found that works for them. People who are used to living that way will do what they can to avoid a problem. No - it is not the most principled method. It's also IMO a common effect of being hard up for a long time, or feeling desperate about the alternatives, or other kinds of struggle for that ma

 

It's great that your different, but judging people according to our own strengths isn't generally a good idea.

 

There should be a big fat separation between - these people seem to have money issue that could easily cause serious problems for me - and these kinds of people are dishonest scammers.

Are you seriously justifying lying if someone decides honesty "doesn't work for him" to obtain what he wants? Maybe I am misreading you.

 

No one said they ARE scammers. They only said that the possibility certainly exists, given the evidence.

[TranquilMind]

I didn't say it did make a wary ll morally inferior. I said that the moral judgements that people are making in this thread about anyone who is having cash flow problems, are nasty.

 

.

No one is judging people who have cash flow problems.

 

They are judging people who think it is fine to hide/lie about their cash flow problem and make that problem the landlord's problem.

[texasmama]

Our story:

 

Dh's grandmother went into a facility with Alzheimers.  She needed the income from her rental home (the home she had lived in almost 50 years) to meet her financial obligations.  The home was going to MIL in the will because it would be the only asset left.  Selling it wasn't an option.  We hired a property management company who did background checks and financial/credit checks.  We fixed up the house with paint and new carpet.  The first people who rented stayed as good renters for over two years.  Then suddenly, with no notice, they were gone.  The house was not trashed.  They kept the rules of no pets and no smoking.  Dh's grandmother's net loss of rent, paying for utilities, cleaning, and locks changed was over $2,000.  

 

Another couple rented.  Again, credit checks and background checks from the property management company.  They stayed a little over a year when they stopped paying rent.  She said that she had cancer and couldn't pay right then.  We had sympathy and did not evict.  Dh's uncle, in fact, paid two months of their rent out of  his own pocket.  The couple repaid all of this kindness by abandoning the house and illegally subletting, turning over the keys to a bunch of drug users and who were not allowed to be in the house because they were not on the original lease.  They dealt drugs out of the house, smoked constantly in every room, lived filthily, broke into the backyard shed and stole the lawn equipment, were difficult to evict, and were nasty and rude and threatening to my elderly MIL when they were finally evicted, eight months after anyone had paid rent.  There were no consequences for them.  They lived rent-free and destroyed the only asset left to my MIL, which was my dh's childhood home.  He had to help her move the people's belongings out as they cursed them and made threats.  Thousands of dollars in rent were lost (about $8,000), and the home was destroyed.  MIL had to pay to push the process through the court, and it took a very long time.

 

That is what happened to our family when we showed compassion.  My MIL and dh both stated that they will never go back there again.  Insurance will not even touch the damage, the loss of rent, and the destruction of their family home.  This is not a class war.   MIL is low income herself.  This was her only asset.  We did all we could to rent it responsibly.  It will now be sold as is, and MIL's only asset was devalued grossly by people who took advantage, not just the squatters but the original renters, to whom we showed compassion.  

[elegantlion]

The other aspect is that most people are generally well-intentioned, but some lack discipline in the follow through. I've seen this play out in rental situations. They don't have to evil scammers, they could very well be on hard times and looking for a break. Their actions on the 16th and the 19th will speak about the actions/follow-through. 

 

My concern is that they are attempting to call the shots with post-dated checks and it has already created a dynamic where they know the OPs dh will be flexible. So people will breath a sigh of relief and do everything they can to pay on time, some will use it (even unintentionally) to make rent a lower priority than other necessities and depend upon his flexibility to get the rent to  them on their convenience. 

 

I've been the broke renter, It's not fun. I've also seen the ugly side of it when it goes bad, this relationship is already starting on shaking ground and does not bode well. I do hope it's a blip and they'll be pay on time from here on out. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by elegantlion

[shawthorne44]

No, I think it is about being low income.  People who are low income just don't have savings or extra cash on hand in many cases.  There is no way they can get their hands on it.  So - what do you do when you move?  Borrow maybe if you can, or go without something (what?) or often just grit your teeth and hope you can fudge it- there won't be another choice open.

 

That doesn't make you dodgy, it makes you poor.  Poor people aren't much use as money-makers so I can see why lls don't want to rent to them, but making moral judgements about their poverty is pretty nasty, and privileged.

 

Well, the tenants could have gone with other place that cost a lot less a month.  Therefore, they can't be that poor.  They are renting a house.   I've been poor, renting a house was unthinkable.  These people either aren't that poor, or are scammers.  

[TammyS]

Well, the tenants could have gone with other place that cost a lot less a month.  Therefore, they can't be that poor.  They are renting a house.   I've been poor, renting a house was unthinkable.  These people either aren't that poor, or are scammers.  

 

I think that varies. Where I live rents are outrageous.  And, ironically, apartments are more expensive.  You can rent a older, modest house, in a not-great part of town for around $7-800/mth.  You could probably rent from on of the slum lords for $600 for part of a duplex, or a chopped up house.  An apartment will cost you $1k-$1400/mth.

 

Of course, the apartments are all new (within about 10 years) because apartments were not common here until recently. So I'm sure that's part of the difference, and they generally come with amenities (pool, gym, etc).

 

Nice houses cost $1500+

[Bluegoat]

I'm horrified that I could have given you that impression.

I was not even remotely saying that low income people are bad.

 

What I was trying to say, and I guess totally failing to convey, is that people who can't pay the bills have a similar 'feel' to a landlord 'on the edge' as people who WON'T pay the bills.  There is a lot of stress involved either way.  That's all.  

 

I utterly entirely agree with you that making a judgment about someone's morality without evidence is entirely wrong.  (Trying to say that extremely strongly, because that's how I feel.)  

 

But, the issue here is not just whether these prospective tenants are morally wrong, but also whether things are likely to go smoothly from here on out if they are just not really able to afford the house.  They keep saying things that are not true, and that's concerning both morally and as a sign of trouble, as well.  

 

FWIW, that tenant of ours?  The one who lost his job, and they kind of stopped paying the rent?  I went and talked to them, and we worked out a deal so that we could help them out.  They signed a paper saying what they owed us in rent, and I voluntarily (over their objections, actually) waived all late charges that were in the rental agreement.  I asked them to stay in touch about their progress, and they did.  We carried them for quite a while, getting partial rents, and sometimes nothing.  In the end they paid us all the back rent, and we found out later that they went bankrupt but they still paid us, even though they could have discharged this debt, because we had treated them with dignity and kindness.  They were always marginal financially, but they were morally upright people.  It was really hard to let them slide because my husband lost his job at the same time and so we literally had NO income, but I decided to carry on for a while and to try to help them, and I have never been sorry.  God was good to us all, and we managed.

 

Whereas the only tenants we had that really screwed us over were well-employed computer programmers who flounced out of their jobs, stopped paying us rent, trashed out house, and moved away.  

 

Low income does not mean low morals.  I've been low income.  Heck, I've been *no* income.  Low income means low margin, not necessarily low morals.  But to a small holdings landlord, not paying because of low income is almost as stressful as not paying because of low morals.  That's the point I was trying to make.

 

You never gave me the impression you thought that way, it certainly hasn't been everyone.  And I don't think someone who is renting a property is wrong to be very careful if a tenant might not be able to pay, for any reason.  Most people are not in a financial position to subsidize another persons rent regularly, even if they would like to.

 

I think it would be better for someone in a fix to try and work things out in a straightforward way, morally.  I also think that systematically, we don't support people enough with regard to housing.  No one thinks it is weird for some Dickensian character to steal food when he is in danger of starving, despite the fact that it is stolen from a particular person who feels the loss and may not in fact be some evil capitalist scum but just a regular business owner.  It's rightly seen as a larger systematic issue.  I don't see housing as any different. 

[marbel]

I think that varies. Where I live rents are outrageous.  And, ironically, apartments are more expensive.  You can rent a older, modest house, in a not-great part of town for around $7-800/mth.  You could probably rent from on of the slum lords for $600 for part of a duplex, or a chopped up house.  An apartment will cost you $1k-$1400/mth.

 

Of course, the apartments are all new (within about 10 years) because apartments were not common here until recently. So I'm sure that's part of the difference, and they generally come with amenities (pool, gym, etc).

 

Nice houses cost $1500+

 

The OP noted that the renters could have gone someplace cheaper:

 

 

No, it is not on the lease. They signed the lease for the price we advertised. While they could have easily rented an apartment, of slightly poorer quality for $500 less, or an equivalent for $100 less.

 

Maybe they did not rent a less-expensive option because they didn't like those places as much as the OP's house, or maybe because they could not get a lease without having money up front.

[TammyS]

  No one thinks it is weird for some Dickensian character to steal food when he is in danger of starving, despite the fact that it is stolen from a particular person who feels the loss and may not in fact be some evil capitalist scum but just a regular business owner.  It's rightly seen as a larger systematic issue.  I don't see housing as any different. 

 

If you think it's ok to steal housing then you should advertise yours available for free.  And get rid of your locks.

 

[creekland]

No one thinks it is weird for some Dickensian character to steal food when he is in danger of starving, despite the fact that it is stolen from a particular person who feels the loss and may not in fact be some evil capitalist scum but just a regular business owner.   

 

The values we are talking about are extremely different here.

 

And those stealing food generally don't trash the store/restaurant/house they are stealing from adding to the cost.

 

ETA:  Most will also direct to food banks, etc, rather than saying stealing is ok even with the lower value.

Edited February 11, 2016 by creekland

[Valley Girl]

Our story:

 

Dh's grandmother went into a facility with Alzheimers.  She needed the income from her rental home (the home she had lived in almost 50 years) to meet her financial obligations.  The home was going to MIL in the will because it would be the only asset left.  Selling it wasn't an option.  We hired a property management company who did background checks and financial/credit checks.  We fixed up the house with paint and new carpet.  The first people who rented stayed as good renters for over two years.  Then suddenly, with no notice, they were gone.  The house was not trashed.  They kept the rules of no pets and no smoking.  Dh's grandmother's net loss of rent, paying for utilities, cleaning, and locks changed was over $2,000.  

 

Another couple rented.  Again, credit checks and background checks from the property management company.  They stayed a little over a year when they stopped paying rent.  She said that she had cancer and couldn't pay right then.  We had sympathy and did not evict.  Dh's uncle, in fact, paid two months of their rent out of  his own pocket.  The couple repaid all of this kindness by abandoning the house and illegally subletting, turning over the keys to a bunch of drug users and who were not allowed to be in the house because they were not on the original lease.  They dealt drugs out of the house, smoked constantly in every room, lived filthily, broke into the backyard shed and stole the lawn equipment, were difficult to evict, and were nasty and rude and threatening to my elderly MIL when they were finally evicted, eight months after anyone had paid rent.  There were no consequences for them.  They lived rent-free and destroyed the only asset left to my MIL, which was my dh's childhood home.  He had to help her move the people's belongings out as they cursed them and made threats.  Thousands of dollars in rent were lost (about $8,000), and the home was destroyed.  MIL had to pay to push the process through the court, and it took a very long time.

 

That is what happened to our family when we showed compassion.  My MIL and dh both stated that they will never go back there again.  Insurance will not even touch the damage, the loss of rent, and the destruction of their family home.  This is not a class war.   MIL is low income herself.  This was her only asset.  We did all we could to rent it responsibly.  It will now be sold as is, and MIL's only asset was devalued grossly by people who took advantage, not just the squatters but the original renters, to whom we showed compassion.  

 

How awful. How could there not be legal consequences for the people who caused the damage? If they weren't on the lease and were living there illegally, why didn't the court hold them responsible? Especially if they were conducting illegal activity on the premises as well. It's heartbreaking to hear about good landlords who try to work with tenants who run into hard times and end up repaid with such trouble. No wonder people on this board who ARE good tenants and have unique situations run into so much difficulty finding a decent place to live. That's not fair either. The bad tenants destroy the trust for everyone. It's stories like these as well as the experiences of family members who rented out property that will forever keep us from wanting to be landlords. (For the record, the tenants my family members dealt with were NOT low income. They were, however, low lifes who broke major terms of the lease, repeatedly didn't pay on time despite some grace, and left damage in their wake.)

 

[TammyS]

How awful. How could there not be legal consequences for the people who caused the damage? If they weren't on the lease and were living there illegally, why didn't the court hold them responsible? Especially if they were conducting illegal activity on the premises as well. It's heartbreaking to hear about good landlords who try to work with tenants who run into hard times and end up repaid with such trouble. No wonder people on this board who ARE good tenants and have unique situations run into so much difficulty finding a decent place to live. That's not fair either. The bad tenants destroy the trust for everyone. It's stories like these as well as the experiences of family members who rented out property that will forever keep us from wanting to be landlords. (For the record, the tenants my family members dealt with were NOT low income. They were, however, low lifes who broke major terms of the lease, repeatedly didn't pay on time despite some grace, and left damage in their wake.)

 

 

It's also the bad tenants who make rents so expensive for everyone, because the landlords have to distribute those costs over the good tenants, to make up for it.  Just as those who steal from stores drive up costs for everyone, because the stores distribute that cost over all their products.

 

[SquirrellyMama]

Since I'm the one that thinks all post-dated checks are suspect, I'll say that I don't think it is a low income thing. We were not low income growing up, but I know my parents lied about money to creditors. I don't know if they did post-dated checks, but I do know they floated a lot of checks. So, to me, this is not an income thing.

 

Why do I think all post-dated checks are suspect? That's what I grew up learning working in retail, and as an adult doing daycare. Retail and daycare are generally not favorable to post-dated checks.

 

Yes, you have to have money in your account when that date rolls around, but it does happen that they don't.

 

I asked my dh what he thought about post-dated checks, thinking maybe my experience was unusual, but he said the same thing I did. I'm learning from this thread that there are legitimate uses, but like I said before, there has to be trust in the relationship. This relationship has not started out with any trust.

 

Kelly

Edited February 11, 2016 by SquirrellyMama

[Bluegoat]

If you think it's ok to steal housing then you should advertise yours available for free.  And get rid of your locks.

 

 

 

The values we are talking about are extremely different here.

 

And those stealing food generally don't trash the store/restaurant/house they are stealing from adding to the cost.

 

ETA:  Most will also direct to food banks, etc, rather than saying stealing is ok even with the lower value.

 

Sort of why don't you go to the workhouse, then.

 

Who said anything about it being ok to trash places? 

 

I think you guys are totally missing the fact that we are talking about making unwarranted generalizations, and systematic problems with housing and low incomes.  Those are exactly the attitudes that lead people to conclude that people reacting to systematic paradoxes are immoral.

[Bluegoat]

Since I'm the one that thinks all post-dated checks are suspect, I'll say that I don't think it is a low income thing. We were not low income growing up, but I know my parents lied about money to creditors. I don't know if they did post-dated checks, but I do know they floated a lot of checks. So, to me, this is not an income thing.

 

Why do I think all post-dated checks are suspect? That's what I grew up learning working in retail, and as an adult doing daycare. Retail and daycare are generally not favorable to post-dated checks.

 

Yes, you have to have money in your account when that date rolls around, but it does happen that they don't.

 

I asked my dh what he thought about post-dated checks, thinking maybe my experience was unusual, but he said the same thing I did. I'm learning from this thread that there are legitimate uses, but like I said before, there has to be trust in the relationship. This relationship has not started out with any trust.

 

Kelly

 

But if you set up a monthly debit, it is also possible that the money won't be there.  Heck, if you write a check on the day, the it may be the money won't be there and no one will realize it for a few days.

 

Using cheques in the way you are speaking of, to cover the fact that you don't have money at the time, is bad in the same way using a credit card that way is bad.  You are just trying to stay one step ahead but you will keep getting in deepera dn deeper.  IN the end though it will crash on someone with a cheque rather than the CC company, but I don't know that it is a huge difference really, the CC company may be able to absorb it better of course but it is still not paying money you owe.  And both are bad for the person trying to get by. 

 

That kind of thing can be about trying to scam people, but often it is people who for some reason can't control their finances - they don't know how, they don't have the self-discipline, or in some cases they just don't have enough to cover the basics.

 

But I don't see many people saying that it is dodgy to use credit cards, (though some do, for sure) most just think it needs to be done properly.

 

I agree that this relationship so far does not have trust, there hasn't been a chance to develop it.  But I think the worry is more about changing the date than post-dated cheques, if the agreement had been a later date or they had wanted to negotiate that for administrative reasons, a post-dated cheque might make sense. 

[eternalsummer]

While I am sure there are unscrupulous poor people (and these people may be them), the same as there are unscrupulous rich people, I don't know for certain that these particular poor people, or poor people acting in this way (so far) are necessarily unscrupulous.

 

Here is how this exact scenario could have gone down while I was very poor and renting:

 

I find this great house that I can just barely afford, apply for it, and the landlord checks my (admittedly not great) references and says okay.  Yay!  She says in the email to bring cash or a money order for the deposit but I won't have the deposit until I get mine back from the last place, or until payday or something, so I bring post-dated checks to the lease signing and hope for the best.  If the landlord says no, that won't work, I plan to go find another place, but they seemed nice so I am hoping.  I will have the $ in the account for the date on the checks, and it is when the lease officially starts, so I am not planning to scam anyone.  While meeting the landlord, I ask when it will be available to move stuff in, and he says he'll just give me the keys now and I can move stuff in and etc. for the next week before the lease starts.  Great!  This is a big help since I have to be out of the old place on the 16th or whatever and I was worried about doing it all in one day, or whatever.  So I move stuff in.

 

 

Now, is it the best way to do things?  Not really.  When I was super broke I honestly cared not a whit for insurance or whatever; I operated honestly (I wouldn't have trashed the place and then blamed it on a previous tenant if there were a period between inhabitation and inspection) and I never bothered carrying renter's insurance, as the value of my goods was never worth it to me.  If I'd found a landlord willing to bend the rules a bit to make things easier for me, especially when it didn't cost the landlord anything, I wouldn't feel bad about bending the rules.

 

Now if the checks don't clear or they don't pay or they sublet it to drug dealers that is another thing.

 

But so far it is something I can see happening in my own life, with no nefarious or scammy intentions, and everything working out okay :)  There is hope.

[KathyBC]

Now I'm curious whether Americans have stale-dated cheques. Here it used to be stale-dated at a year old, now it's 6 months.

[Valley Girl]

Sort of why don't you go to the workhouse, then.

 

Who said anything about it being ok to trash places? 

 

I think you guys are totally missing the fact that we are talking about making unwarranted generalizations, and systematic problems with housing and low incomes.  Those are exactly the attitudes that lead people to conclude that people reacting to systematic paradoxes are immoral.

 

Not being snarky here. I wonder, though, if a discussion of the systemic issues might not work better as a separate discussion. This one is more focused on a very specific situation and the specific situations that others have had. For an individual landlord putting his or her property and own financial future on the line, often general behaviors or red flags have to be used as a guide since they can't see into the individual tenant's soul to determine if that particular person is going to play fair or not. They have to look at the available information of which showing up for the lease signing with proper payment in hand is one factor. But seriously, there are enough people here with both good and bad experiences as tenants and landlords that you could probably get a good discussion of the overall systemic issues going.

[Pink and Green Mom]

Now I'm curious whether Americans have stale-dated cheques. Here it used to be stale-dated at a year old, now it's 6 months.

 

If by stale-dated you mean a bank will no longer accept a check that was written some time ago, then yes, at our bank in Florida that date is 6 months.  I have never heard the term stale-dated before but now I know what to call it. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Pink and Green Mom