Repair costs borne by tenants in condos?

Submitted by master_brat t3_10lsexn in jerseycity

My friend is planning to rent in a condo building and had a few weird clauses specified by his landlord. Given we have only rented under management companies, we have practically no experience about these and the legal validity of the clauses.

First, the tenant has to bear repair costs that are small (under ~$100), after they are charged to the landlord by the building HOA, who would then pass it back to the tenant. Is this typical? At present, the management company handles all such requests.

Second, the tenant will bear the cost of defective appliances when moving out. This is a weird one as you really can't predict if an appliance just stops working, especially when there is no misuse. Generally, management companies get this covered too.

Third, paying move in and move out fees to the HOA. I see that there are discussion threads on the subreddit about this, so I'm guessing this is fairly common practice in JC. I want to check if this can be avoided given my friend doesn't have much stuff to move in and will buy all of it in phases as he moves in?

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gracie_jc t1_j5yqbz0 wrote

1- Yes. I am a small landlord and had to put this clause after one of my tenants called me in the middle of the night for silly things (i.e they clogged the toilet, could not change a simple light bulb, bathroom door handle was a bit loose etc). Why would the HOA charge for small repairs inside the condo though?

2- This one is weird and I would not agree to this. I have a clause where tenants are responsible for appliances ONLY if they do not report issues in a timely manner.

3- Some HOAs charge for move-in & move-out, he is just passing the charge to the tenants. I have rented in high raises and some of them do charge tenants for movein/moveout fees.

I rent below market and do not use a management company. I made this very clear to my tenants so they are aware that if they are high maintenance, I'll pass the charge along.

21

flapjack212 t1_j5ywxay wrote

on #1 i've seen some condos that allows the building maintenance staff to do work in residents' buildings for a set fee. you can choose to get a plumber, or ask the super, etc

8

imaluckyduckie t1_j5z50a5 wrote

Makes sense especially since OP says that requests go through the management company

5

HobokenJ t1_j610c9l wrote

The mgt company doesn't do the actual maintenance--if they can be bothered, they make a call to one of their vendors (who invariably gives them a cut), and the tenant is then on their own. They'll likely be paying full freight for that minor (i.e., $400) plumbing repair.

1

Able_Toe3716 t1_j5zeyi7 wrote

The appliance clause is insane and I wouldn't sign the lease because of that alone. I wonder if that's even legally enforceable because tenants are not supposed to be responsible for normal wear and tear.

16

moobycow t1_j5ync77 wrote

Sounds mostly like horseshit to me, I rented condos in the past and did not have any of this.

The appliance clause seems especially abusive.

We also now rent out an apartment in our house and we don't charge for any of this sort of thing. Granted it's not a condo, but the same general principles apply.

12

HobokenJ t1_j610g1y wrote

Yep. It's total horseshit. I'd stay far away from this listing.

1

HobokenJ t1_j5zjb7y wrote

Former landlord here. This is NOT typical. You are NOT responsible for maintenance--that is the landlord's responsibility (obviously, if you break something, you are responsible for repair costs--but not routine maintenance, and certainly not appliances (again, unless you did something to cause the issue).

They are using the Mgt Company as a buffer because they don't want have direct interaction with their tenants. Fine. But this will cause massive headaches for your friend (when it comes to maintenance requests or reporting problems with the unit).

I'd look elsewhere.

9

PrincipleOfMoments t1_j6182if wrote

There is nothing illegal about any of these clauses, so if the Landlord can find someone willing to sign those terms, they will be enforceable. Your recourse is to try to negotiate for their removal or find another place to rent.

As for the specific clauses:

The Repair Clause is uncommon, because the cost of such repairs is a write off for the landlord and they usually pay for this stuff out of pocket so it is reflected in their taxes and then they increase the rent the next year to recoup their costs from the previous year. If you really love the apartment, then I suppose you can live with it, but only if you plan on staying more than a year. Otherwise, you're paying for repairs they should be making and leaving before they would have a chance to recoup in increased rent.

The Appliance Clause is outrageous. Absent your actively breaking appliances through negligent or intentional actions, these are the landlord's responsibility (damage due to normal wear and tear can't even be taken from your security deposit). If you can't take the appliances with you when you move out, you should not pay to replace them due to normal wear and tear. If you really love the apartment, you could guard against this by conducting a video inspection before move out to document that all appliances are working, but if they break before you move out, that won't help.

The Move In/Out Fees Clause is very common, almost universal in condos. You generally can't avoid this by bringing things in piecemeal, because the condo needs to know when your first day will be and will charge the fee automatically because damages can occur even if you're just carrying boxes, TVs, etc.

Bottom line - if you don't absolutely need this apartment, these lease terms probably aren't worth it.

4

master_brat OP t1_j618ml3 wrote

Thank you so much for the detailed response. Appreciate it.

Re: appliances clause, the landlord casually mentioned that if one of the appliances doesn't work s when I'm moving out, he will deduct from the deposit, and hence the question.

1

PrincipleOfMoments t1_j61dx1f wrote

You're welcome. They can't do that unless you actively broke the appliance. I will say that even though the law is on your side, you might want to think about whether it is worth it to you to have to go to court to fight over getting back the cost of a microwave, etc. A lot of shady landlords withhold money from the security deposit that they know they shouldn't, but keep just enough so that fighting for it isn't worth your time.

3

Catarmy1 t1_j61wi3k wrote

Get a lawyer those build quick

1

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j5zemyz wrote

#2 is abusive as fuck. That also means you're paying to replace all the appliances after you move out. Because of course you are. After you move out you can't prove they still work, and who wouldn't want their old ex-tenant to replace them all.

I would avoid whatever company this is.

#1 also sounds like horse shit, but nothing compared to #2

0