Tell Your Rental Inspection Horror Story

Randall Dunning · 06-22-2006, 09:34 PM

This thread is for those who have a

RENTAL INSPECTION HORROR STORY

. Please Leave this thread for those seeking to share their story. There will be a Rental Inspection Discussion thread for discussing these posts. Thanks!

MainStreet · 06-22-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall Dunning

This thread is for those who have a

RENTAL INSPECTION HORROR STORY

. Please Leave this thread for those seeking to share their story. There will be a Rental Inspection Discussion thread for discussing these posts. Thanks!

Ohhhh ... Hmmm ... Gosh ... I'm not sure where to start!

There are just so many to choose from!

Of course my experience comes from the Multifamily side of the equation instead of the Residential Single Family rental side. Along with some of the nutty

stories, there are some rather comical

moments I must admit.
I've got to collect my thoughts on this in order to deliver a great story or two!

Robert

jerryandkathyare · 06-24-2006, 01:20 PM

Tenants have no idea of when an inspector could be at the door. Although the procedure was suppose to involve the inspector contacting the property manager and then the property manager contacting the tenant this has not been the case in our experience. We have a tenant who had a note left on his door saying that an inspector would be back within 24 hours to inspect their home. This to us is an invasion of the tenants’ rights. Why is garland discriminating against tenants? Do tenants have fewer rights than homeowners in garland? It surprises us that tenants of Garland have not come together and filed a lawsuit for discrimination against renters in the City of Garland. We have 10 residential properties and 4 commercial properties, a tenant’s privacy is very important to us. Once a tenant signs the lease and is given the key we never enter their home again without an invitation. When a property needs a repair then tenant contacts us, the property owner. We then immediately schedule a time that is convenient for the tenant to have a licensed service technician complete the repair. Rental properties are a major investment. We put a lot of time and money into our investments. They are our retirement/savings plan for our future and the future of our children. No one would want to lose money or let an investment deteriorate. There are previously existing codes that all homes must follow in the City of Garland to ensure a quality standard of living. The idea of a roster of all the rental properties in Garland is a good idea. As well as, placing a Garland Certification of Registration in each rental property for tenants to have a place to make comments/complaints. However, we don’t think that paying a fee of 65.00 per property for an inspector to invade a tenant’s privacy is justified.
-Jerry and Kathy Vanciel

Claudia Shugart · 06-26-2006, 03:35 PM

Thanks for the post. We are hoping our new City Council we be able to "see" what we were concerned about last year when this was being passed.
Tks
Claudia

metro9724 · 06-27-2006, 05:17 PM

The City of Garland passed an ordinance that the staff was not trained to deal with all the problems arising from this ordinance. Some of the staff members were flashing badges and scaring landlord and tenants about health and safety voilations. More than 70% of the alleged voilations does not have anything to do with health and safety. Tenants were scared out of their wits with inspectors flashing badges and demanding to inspect homes without the landlord knowledge and consent. In 1 instance the inspector requested that the tenant get rid of the pet smell in the house and if it was not done by a certain time(5 days), then the tenant will be issued a ticket. The tenant disappeared overnight leaving the landlord to deal with the city.

The city staff is under the impression that the average rent for a single family home is $1250. Maybe the city staff needs a real rental survey done because only the newer and large homes over 2000 sq ft would rent for $1250 and above. In most instances the rents bearly cover the mortgage and the rental expenses so most landlords use the rentals for tax reasons.

Besides in the city of Garland, we have more owner occupied homes in disrepair and going into forclosure than rental properties. Granted that not all landlords lake pride in their investment and some are slum lords, then why don't the city punish and force the people whose properties needs repairs to do the repairs. Why should landlords be treated any different from the home owners. Home owners seems to be able to get away with anything to do with repairs on properties but the city can strangle the landlord.

Chapter 32 needs to be reapealed. The city is running away the investors that come in and buy the delapidated homes and restore them. We need a level playing field where everyone has the same rights and no one should be punished becuase he wants to do investments. The same rules should apply for all single family homes regardless.

Billy the Hat · 06-27-2006, 11:26 PM

Metro 9724 your are exactly right. All laws should be equally and justly applied. That was the intent and the purpose of the founding fathers who were experience quite the opposite. One investor I work for,I am in the repair business, receive three offer this year from not only out the area but out of state investors. Does anyone believe that these people will care what the house now or ever look like? All they know is that compare to their area our housing market is cheap. And by the way this house is over2100 sqft and rents for 1295.

momof2 · 06-28-2006, 01:48 PM

There is a house available to lease in our neighborhood that is over 6000 sq ft and they are asking $8K. If they get that my house will be up for rent and I will find somewhere else to live.

Billy & Metro, my mom is a realtor and she has sold a guy in Hawaii several houses that he has never even visited. None of them were on the "upper" end of the spectrum but more of in the middle of the road as far as price and size. He is buying the as an investment and income and that is it.

John Willis · 06-29-2006, 09:17 AM

I'll share. We had an inspection on April 13, 2006. We got the first (and so far the only) communication from the inspector in the form of a form letter and report dated May 28, 2006.

In another inspection on a property owned by a different person, there was mention made about the height of the drain on the water heater, and the specific code was mentioned. This is in reference to the boiler drain at the bottom of the heater used to drain all the water from the unit. This is not in reference to the T&P valve or any other aspect of the heater. The violation cited is the drain valve is less than eight inches from the floor. The specific code referenced clearly states that valve is to be between six and eight inches from the floor. There only way to make these two requirements agree ("Drain lower than eight inches from floor" and "the line shall terminate not less than six (6) inches nor more than eight (8) inches from the floor.") is to require all to be exactly eight inches from the floor. Which is correct? Who can say??? They certainly don't say the same thing.

One more story to share...

Back in February John Teel and other members of the Health Department staff held a public meeting in which landlords and tenants were invited to learn more about the inspection program. At one point Mr. Teel was pressed about the window screen requirement just for single family rental properties. One of his responses was that window screens are what separate the US from third world countries (he was meaning in regard to disease spread by insects) and, more interestingly, he mentioned why this requirement was applied only to rent houses instead of all houses. Because one specific council member who owns a two story house didn't want it applied to his house. This was said in a public meeting attended by many people. This statement, more than any other, screamed selective enforcement of minimum housing standards-enforcement that specifically targets renters and landlords as being incompetent to decide how to maintain a house or how to live in it.

Or, as the saying goes, if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Billy the Hat · 07-02-2006, 03:58 PM

Momof2 and John thank you for your input. My point about out of town owners was not so much that they did not maintain their invest but rather that a in town owner who lives and works here is more likely to maintain their properties in excellent or way above average conditions. That is because thay feel a greater need to do this to help maintain the price of their homestead. I know of several horror stories that I hope will be posted here soon. if not I plan to relay these stories. They are on homes I have work on. The owners are currently afraid of reprisal by the code dept. I donot think this is an issue under the new council. Do you?

John Willis · 07-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Heard another story just a couple of days ago. An inspection of a pretty well maintained home with a very good, long term tenant. Everything seemed to be going well and the inspection was, for all intents and purposes, over, when the inspector noticed the second car in the driveway, which is registered and insured, had an inspection sticker that was out of date. This is a secondary vehicle and not driven daily, but it is kept up, in good running condition, all tires aired up and on the car, in short, a decent second, older but well kept vehicle. The inspector told the tenant that he must get the vehicle inspected immediately or they could come onto the property, seize his car and tow it off and have it crushed.

It is my understanding that the inspector pretty much told the tenant he would do this and soon if the car was not inspected.

What was the need of this? This fellow is a good citizen who has a good manufacturing job in Garland at a company that has been here for decades. He keeps a tidy house inside and out. He has a second car he has had for a long time, which does not even need a paint job-it is dent free, running and drivable, but he does not drive it often. It is registered and insured. Why did this inspector feel the need to try to intimidate this person?

I wonder if this inspector is aware that there is a way to register a vehicle in Texas that does not require a yearly inspection of any sort, hence no sticker at all?

06-22-2006, 09:34 PM	#1
Randall Dunning Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 589	Tell Your Rental Inspection Horror Story This thread is for those who have a RENTAL INSPECTION HORROR STORY. Please Leave this thread for those seeking to share their story. There will be a Rental Inspection Discussion thread for discussing these posts. Thanks! __________________ *History is a vast early warning system.* - Norman Cousins Last edited by Randall Dunning; 06-22-2006 at 09:38 PM.

06-24-2006, 01:20 PM	#3
jerryandkathyare Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1	Chapter 32 Tenants have no idea of when an inspector could be at the door. Although the procedure was suppose to involve the inspector contacting the property manager and then the property manager contacting the tenant this has not been the case in our experience. We have a tenant who had a note left on his door saying that an inspector would be back within 24 hours to inspect their home. This to us is an invasion of the tenants’ rights. Why is garland discriminating against tenants? Do tenants have fewer rights than homeowners in garland? It surprises us that tenants of Garland have not come together and filed a lawsuit for discrimination against renters in the City of Garland. We have 10 residential properties and 4 commercial properties, a tenant’s privacy is very important to us. Once a tenant signs the lease and is given the key we never enter their home again without an invitation. When a property needs a repair then tenant contacts us, the property owner. We then immediately schedule a time that is convenient for the tenant to have a licensed service technician complete the repair. Rental properties are a major investment. We put a lot of time and money into our investments. They are our retirement/savings plan for our future and the future of our children. No one would want to lose money or let an investment deteriorate. There are previously existing codes that all homes must follow in the City of Garland to ensure a quality standard of living. The idea of a roster of all the rental properties in Garland is a good idea. As well as, placing a Garland Certification of Registration in each rental property for tenants to have a place to make comments/complaints. However, we don’t think that paying a fee of 65.00 per property for an inspector to invade a tenant’s privacy is justified. -Jerry and Kathy Vanciel

06-27-2006, 05:17 PM	#5
metro9724 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1	Chapter 32 The City of Garland passed an ordinance that the staff was not trained to deal with all the problems arising from this ordinance. Some of the staff members were flashing badges and scaring landlord and tenants about health and safety voilations. More than 70% of the alleged voilations does not have anything to do with health and safety. Tenants were scared out of their wits with inspectors flashing badges and demanding to inspect homes without the landlord knowledge and consent. In 1 instance the inspector requested that the tenant get rid of the pet smell in the house and if it was not done by a certain time(5 days), then the tenant will be issued a ticket. The tenant disappeared overnight leaving the landlord to deal with the city. The city staff is under the impression that the average rent for a single family home is $1250. Maybe the city staff needs a real rental survey done because only the newer and large homes over 2000 sq ft would rent for $1250 and above. In most instances the rents bearly cover the mortgage and the rental expenses so most landlords use the rentals for tax reasons. Besides in the city of Garland, we have more owner occupied homes in disrepair and going into forclosure than rental properties. Granted that not all landlords lake pride in their investment and some are slum lords, then why don't the city punish and force the people whose properties needs repairs to do the repairs. Why should landlords be treated any different from the home owners. Home owners seems to be able to get away with anything to do with repairs on properties but the city can strangle the landlord. Chapter 32 needs to be reapealed. The city is running away the investors that come in and buy the delapidated homes and restore them. We need a level playing field where everyone has the same rights and no one should be punished becuase he wants to do investments. The same rules should apply for all single family homes regardless.

06-26-2006, 03:35 PM	#4
Claudia Shugart Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 9	Thanks for the post. We are hoping our new City Council we be able to "see" what we were concerned about last year when this was being passed. Tks Claudia

06-27-2006, 11:26 PM	#6
Billy the Hat Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11	Metro 9724 your are exactly right. All laws should be equally and justly applied. That was the intent and the purpose of the founding fathers who were experience quite the opposite. One investor I work for,I am in the repair business, receive three offer this year from not only out the area but out of state investors. Does anyone believe that these people will care what the house now or ever look like? All they know is that compare to their area our housing market is cheap. And by the way this house is over2100 sqft and rents for 1295.

06-28-2006, 01:48 PM	#7
momof2 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 416	There is a house available to lease in our neighborhood that is over 6000 sq ft and they are asking $8K. If they get that my house will be up for rent and I will find somewhere else to live. Billy & Metro, my mom is a realtor and she has sold a guy in Hawaii several houses that he has never even visited. None of them were on the "upper" end of the spectrum but more of in the middle of the road as far as price and size. He is buying the as an investment and income and that is it.

06-29-2006, 09:17 AM	#8
John Willis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,087	I'll share. We had an inspection on April 13, 2006. We got the first (and so far the only) communication from the inspector in the form of a form letter and report dated May 28, 2006. In another inspection on a property owned by a different person, there was mention made about the height of the drain on the water heater, and the specific code was mentioned. This is in reference to the boiler drain at the bottom of the heater used to drain all the water from the unit. This is not in reference to the T&P valve or any other aspect of the heater. The violation cited is the drain valve is less than eight inches from the floor. The specific code referenced clearly states that valve is to be between six and eight inches from the floor. There only way to make these two requirements agree ("Drain lower than eight inches from floor" and "the line shall terminate not less than six (6) inches nor more than eight (8) inches from the floor.") is to require all to be exactly eight inches from the floor. Which is correct? Who can say??? They certainly don't say the same thing. One more story to share... Back in February John Teel and other members of the Health Department staff held a public meeting in which landlords and tenants were invited to learn more about the inspection program. At one point Mr. Teel was pressed about the window screen requirement just for single family rental properties. One of his responses was that window screens are what separate the US from third world countries (he was meaning in regard to disease spread by insects) and, more interestingly, he mentioned why this requirement was applied only to rent houses instead of all houses. Because one specific council member who owns a two story house didn't want it applied to his house. This was said in a public meeting attended by many people. This statement, more than any other, screamed selective enforcement of minimum housing standards-enforcement that specifically targets renters and landlords as being incompetent to decide how to maintain a house or how to live in it. Or, as the saying goes, if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

07-02-2006, 03:58 PM	#9
Billy the Hat Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 11	Momof2 and John thank you for your input. My point about out of town owners was not so much that they did not maintain their invest but rather that a in town owner who lives and works here is more likely to maintain their properties in excellent or way above average conditions. That is because thay feel a greater need to do this to help maintain the price of their homestead. I know of several horror stories that I hope will be posted here soon. if not I plan to relay these stories. They are on homes I have work on. The owners are currently afraid of reprisal by the code dept. I donot think this is an issue under the new council. Do you?

07-02-2006, 04:52 PM	#10
John Willis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,087	Heard another story just a couple of days ago. An inspection of a pretty well maintained home with a very good, long term tenant. Everything seemed to be going well and the inspection was, for all intents and purposes, over, when the inspector noticed the second car in the driveway, which is registered and insured, had an inspection sticker that was out of date. This is a secondary vehicle and not driven daily, but it is kept up, in good running condition, all tires aired up and on the car, in short, a decent second, older but well kept vehicle. The inspector told the tenant that he must get the vehicle inspected immediately or they could come onto the property, seize his car and tow it off and have it crushed. It is my understanding that the inspector pretty much told the tenant he would do this and soon if the car was not inspected. What was the need of this? This fellow is a good citizen who has a good manufacturing job in Garland at a company that has been here for decades. He keeps a tidy house inside and out. He has a second car he has had for a long time, which does not even need a paint job-it is dent free, running and drivable, but he does not drive it often. It is registered and insured. Why did this inspector feel the need to try to intimidate this person? I wonder if this inspector is aware that there is a way to register a vehicle in Texas that does not require a yearly inspection of any sort, hence no sticker at all?