Good tenant

mood

Zulu wrote: »

They asked me for a microwave, and I got them one. They broke a window and I replaced it without quibble (or deduction from deposit). I let them change the rental period and gave them a "break" from their payments in order to get their finances in order.

I didn't have to do any of that.

Am I great?

I maybe wrong but I think a landlord has to provide a microwave by law.

drumswan

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about then. In a real life situation the tradesman will give a price and the LL will either say to go ahead or not. I don't see where liability for the tenant comes into it. If there are issues you call back the plumber and get him rectify the matter. How would a tenant or a LL have a clue about what kind of fittings a plumber should use?? This is why you hire a tradesman

Ray Palmer is suggesting that the tenant approve the final cost of the work.

No idea it depends on what the plumber says. If it under the rent amount pay him in cash and get a receipt and it will be taken off the rent

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I see it as nit picking. You aren't challenging point you are challenging minute detail on points at every opportunity.

You made it clear how you feel about how you think of the way I get a tenant to organise a tradesman is against how you feel. Adding nothing at this point I disagree and tenants who do this are seen as doing above the standard. Hence saying they are above minimum standards. It seems reasonable to me and by these tenants.

As for the suggestion I am getting a line of credit, that is a jump as no mention of the time the rent was due.

The whole point is it is above the minimum and thus making both the LL easier but also making it easier on the tenant and tradesman. If a tenant didn't want to do it they have that option. I'll do no problem it just takes longer.

Give you an example. Ask tenant when they will be there for the tradesmen. They tell you they work during the day so won't be there. They don't want you or the tradesmen there without them.
Fine tradesmen do not work after 6pm but will work Saturday. Tenant says they don't want them there on one of their days off. Tenant wants to get it done at night, I refuse as I am not paying extra money for night work.
Tenant says they will take half day Friday. I arrange the appointment with the tradesman warn the tenant tradesmen rarely turn up on time due to the nature of their work.
Tradesman arrives at 6:30pm. Tenant furious they took half day and that the tradesman is so late. Tradesman says he can't fix the problem without ordering parts and it will take two days work also. Tenants completely looses the plot and insists it should be done during the week at night. The tradesman say he isn't going to do that but can come during the day. Tenant still refuses and insists I magic the way everybody works to suit them. Taking weeks to fix a problem that could be addressed within a few days.

Similar to this has happened more than once and it is why it is better to let the tenant organise the time so they understand people aren't at their beck and call.

I suppose the question here is did you pay the extra for out of hours work



TBH i think the whole premise of this thread was to troll, I believe its a back lash by you on what is a forum that tenants come for advise and i assume there are more tenants on here than landlords so you will tend to get more aggravated tenants than aggravated landlord stories.

As i said i think the premise of the thread is misguided, misjudged and possibly unrequired because i really dont see the discussion concept at all.

drumswan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Give you an example. Ask tenant when they will be there for the tradesmen. They tell you they work during the day so won't be there. They don't want you or the tradesmen there without them.
Fine tradesmen do not work after 6pm but will work Saturday. Tenant says they don't want them there on one of their days off. Tenant wants to get it done at night, I refuse as I am not paying extra money for night work.
Tenant says they will take half day Friday. I arrange the appointment with the tradesman warn the tenant tradesmen rarely turn up on time due to the nature of their work.
Tradesman arrives at 6:30pm. Tenant furious they took half day and that the tradesman is so late. Tradesman says he can't fix the problem without ordering parts and it will take two days work also. Tenants completely looses the plot and insists it should be done during the week at night. The tradesman say he isn't going to do that but can come during the day. Tenant still refuses and insists I magic the way everybody works to suit them. Taking weeks to fix a problem that could be addressed within a few days.

None of this is the tenants problem.

I pay five figures in rent a year, Im not managing vendors for my landlord.

Engage a tradesman, agree a fee, liaise with tenant to seek an appropriate time for the work to be completed, its not rocket science. Businesses all over the country do this kind of thing all day every day.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No I see it as nit picking. You aren't challenging point you are challenging minute detail on points at every opportunity.

You made it clear how you feel about how you think of the way I get a tenant to organise a tradesman is against how you feel. Adding nothing at this point I disagree and tenants who do this are seen as doing above the standard. Hence saying they are above minimum standards. It seems reasonable to me and by these tenants.

Im not disagreeing with the examples that you gave today (and the one below); that to me is common sense and how it should happen.

However, this is not what you have implied with what you wrote in the initial post. If you meant to say what you have said in the example given today then fair enough, but thats not how it reads in the first post.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The whole point is it is above the minimum and thus making both the LL easier but also making it easier on the tenant and tradesman. If a tenant didn't want to do it they have that option. I'll do no problem it just takes longer.

I also dont really see how a tenant agreeing a time directly with the tradesman is above and beyond anything; its simply common sense. Its a little less awkward perhaps, and obviously its a good thing for you as it removes you from the equation, but its not like the tenant is orgainizing the whole thing from scratch themselves.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

However, this is not what you have implied with what you wrote in the initial post. .

Well all unnecessarily clarified for you now.

drumswan wrote: »

None of this is the tenants problem.

I pay five figures in rent a year, Im not managing vendors for my landlord.

Engage a tradesman, agree a fee, liaise with tenant to seek an appropriate time for the work to be completed, its not rocket science. Businesses all over the country do this kind of thing all day every day.

Actually completely the tenants problem if they can't have a shower. Has a lot less impact on me as I am not living there.

Hard to believe you read the real life example and expect me to be able organise around somebody who is inflexible. I also wonder how you expect to agree a price if the tradesman can't even get into the property and see the problem. Good luck finding a plumber who is paying tax willing to work in the evening.

I lost no time off the tenant did. I still had shower the tenant didn't. Not seeing me experience any problems but the tenant did.

Have you every tried to organise something like this?

Ray Palmer

drumswan wrote: »

Ray Palmer is suggesting that the tenant approve the final cost of the work.

No I suggested they paid that is all. I selected the plumber and trust them to not over charge.

wirelessdude01

Ray what happens if the tenant normally pays the rent at the end of the month when they get paid but this maintenance occurs during the 3rd week when they have damn all free money left? Does that mean that they become a good or bad tenant because they can't pony up to pay something that the landlord pays for? It is all fine and well saying that the tenant can pay for it and take it out of the following months rent but a lot of people get paid once a month and as outlined above they mightn't have the cash to pay that week.

drumswan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Have you every tried to organise something like this?

I work in business managing vendors, I dont hand over responsibility for managing vendors to my customer. They are paying me for a service.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Hard to believe you read the real life example and expect me to be able organise around somebody who is inflexible.

Im going to be honest, in that example the tenant was right to be annoyed. If you put me in touch with a tradesman and they cost me a half day of work for nothing (and that would have happened whether I agreed the time with him or you did) then I would be furious also. The next time he was to call it would be at a time when I was at no risk of losing further wages. Got a problem with that? Find a more reliable tradesman who shows up when they say they will.

djimi

To be honest, I think its time that I bowed out of this "discussion". The definitions have changed since you posted this thread yesterday, and you clearly have no interest in having your views on this challeneged and with having an actual discussion about it. Im not entirely sure what you hoped to gain from this thread; perhaps you have already gotten what you wanted from it.

miss no stars

I think the point about what makes a good landlord is relevant when considering what makes a good tenant simply because you won't have one without the other.

What constitutes good and bad?


My first point is that the semantics of this DO matter. So let's consider what constitutes good, exceptional and bad, in that order.

If a child does as they're told and doesn't act up they're considered a good kid, right? If a student attends their lectures, labs and tutorials, doesn't show up drunk, does the assigned work, studies for their exams and passes with acceptable grades they're a good student, right? If a person contracts a service and pays for it on time they're a good customer, right?

If you want to talk about exceptional, it would be the same as above except: the child consistently volunteers to help with extra tasks around the house and tries not to be selfish, an excellent student would do tonnes of extra work and get exceptional grades, a customer who... Who does what? They've contracted the service and paid for it on time - what else do you want of a customer?

And then bad... A 'bad' child is disobedient, disruptive, angry, violent? A bad student misses lectures, shows up still drunk from the night before, doesn't do the course work, doesn't study and doesn't pass exams. A bad customer makes providing the service difficult, then quibbles about the price afterwards and doesn't pay on time/the full amount.

So where do tenants fit in to that breakdown? Well, I suppose a tenant most appropriately fits with the customer analogy. They're paying for a service. They should pay on time and honour the contract. To honour the contract they don't damage the property (or if accidental damage does happen, they fix it in consultation with the landlord), they pay on time. In return they expect a service - the property should be maintained properly, any issues should be dealt with promptly.

But because of the nature of renting, there's quite simply just more to renting than a simple contract. A good tenant should probably be viewed on balance, just as a landlord should. For example, a tenant may have been late with rent once for whatever reason, but once they realised they were(/going to be) late with the rent they inform the landlord ASAP and have it transferred ASAP. So that might be once, in a 2 year tenancy. Are they a bad tenant? Well, that's too narrow a view to even consider it. Say they kept the place clean, didn't cause any damage, were accommodating with repairs (an appliance broke or something), didn't needlessly cause a fuss (say a microwave broke and LL dropped it up without notice, tenant doesn't cause a stink about the no notice). There might be a tiny, poorly ventilated "bathroom" that's incredibly susceptible to mould. Like in my apartment... There was mould on the ceiling and in the grouting when we moved in. I removed it and continue to keep on top of it with regular cleaning and as much ventilation as can be managed. Sure, the tenant might dry clothes indoors, but if they do so in a big room and open windows around the house and ensure airflow through the house every day it's not a problem. On balance, surely they're a good tenant?

Likewise, a good landlord keeps the place in a good state of repair. If something breaks, they liaise with the tenant about the repair. Last winter my heating broke. The LL was STRAIGHT onto it. During the summer something happened that caused all the sockets to trip meaning that the fridge and freezer weren't running. I was working very long hours that I couldn't get out of, but the landlord asked if it was okay to go in (on a Saturday) without me present. I said "sure, no problem at all, I appreciate how quickly you're dealing with this". They went in and found what had tripped the protected circuit (a few things I couldn't unplug due to their weight and not being able to move them on my own). They dealt with it immediately as they said they didn't want to see a whole fridge freezer full of food get spoiled on us for something that wasn't our fault. I appreciate that. On the other hand, they've subsequently been slow about fixing the cause of it (they did try but the fix didn't fix it so it needs a sparks out again...) and a couple of other niggly things, but they're not making the place unliveable. Another thing I find good about them is that they leave us alone. They're not up every week collecting rent or having quarterly inspections. When we renewed the lease the LL had a look at the place. It wasn't spotless or perfectly tidy (well, my areas were...) but the LL was fine and said the place looked in good condition and was happy. He could see that the place had to be lived in.

I think the point I'm making is that it can't be summarized in a checklist. How on earth could it be? A tenancy is a business arrangement, sure, a service is to be provided for a fee and certain behaviour is expected, but it's also an on-going relationship where the service provided is a home. That's why it has to be summarized on balance. People are imperfect and the property is likely to be imperfect too. So while some of it can come down to meeting the very basic requirements (don't lock tenant out, pay the rent), deciding whether a tenant or a landlord is good, bad or excellent comes down to how everything else is handled.

FWIW, I think a tenant who pays rent on time, keeps the place clean and notifies landlord of anything that goes wrong in a timely fashion is a good tenant. They're doing what they're supposed to. (See the 'good' rant above..)

I also understand where Ray Palmer is coming from with what sounds like a difficult tenant. It's a tough place to be. Sure, the tenant isn't getting peaceful enjoyment of their home, but neither are they fulfilling their requirement to not cause damage to the place without the inspections. On balance, what's he to do? He's being a good landlord by how he's dealing with a situation that has arisen. A certain amount of damage has probably already occurred. He's minimizing further damage and thereby ensuring that the tenant keeps the maximum amount of her deposit and doesn't get evicted. On the other hand, I think a blanket ban on drying clothes indoors is excessive. I mostly dry my clothes indoors. The lease specifically prohibits drying them on the balcony and it's a front of block apartment so fair enough. We have a dryer but they are expensive to run for every single load of washing. It's also not the most efficient dryer in the world, takes 2 hours on high to get a normal load of washing dry - making it even more expensive than normal. If it's very damp out I use the dryer. Otherwise the horse is set up in a big room, windows and vents are left open as much as possible during the day and if the weather is damp/cold, the heating comes on in the evenings and mornings. Never had a problem. Nor have my parents ever had a problem doing the exact same in their house (which has been re-insulated with modern windows put into) in the 25 years they've been in their house.

Victor

listermint wrote: »

As i said i think the premise of the thread is misguided, misjudged and possibly unrequired because i really dont see the discussion concept at all.

That we have reached page 7 seems to suggest otherwise.

Moderator

Victor

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I believe you are a LL but I find it had to believe that you have found a tenant.

On-topic, constructive posts only please.

Moderator

Mrs OBumble

drumswan wrote: »

The landlord organises the tradesman, clears times of visits with the tenant etc, its called property management. If you dont want to do it pay an agent to do it.

When I worked for a property management company, we made the intial contact with the tradesperson, gave them the phone number of the tenant, and told them to call the tenant (with their phone set to suppress the called ID) and organise a time.

Even with the large proportion of social housing type tenants we had, this approach worked well probably 90% of the time.

We also trained the tradespeople that if they accepted any jbs directly from the tenant without getting our approval first, they would not get paid.

_Kaiser_

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Ray what happens if the tenant normally pays the rent at the end of the month when they get paid but this maintenance occurs during the 3rd week when they have damn all free money left? Does that mean that they become a good or bad tenant because they can't pony up to pay something that the landlord pays for? It is all fine and well saying that the tenant can pay for it and take it out of the following months rent but a lot of people get paid once a month and as outlined above they mightn't have the cash to pay that week.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read Ray's example earlier.

I consider myself a "good tenant" - the rent is paid on time every month without fail, the place is clean and tidy (basically treated as if it was my own), no noise, no parties, and I think the only time I had to call the LL for something in my current place was when the boiler was acting up last year.

In that instance I had no problem taking the time off for the plumber to show as I have the option of working from home if I want/need to, but this should not be taken as a given by a LL. Many people can't easily just take a (half) day off during the week - although I'd agree that a tenant then complaining about a tradesman being there on their day off is a bit rich.

I've always dealt direct with LL's (probably cause most of my rentals were down the country) and can't say I relish the idea of (eventually) having to deal with one of these management companies/estate agencies which are so popular in Dublin. I only really had problems with one LL (and that was more down to his GF sticking her nose in initially) but in the end we actually got on fine. I'm generally a very easy-going accommodating type of guy, but that said I have a very low tolerance level for bull**** or poor service and don't accept it.

Alas the window for me owning my own house has probably closed (late 30s) but I really would love to see a system where a long-term lease on a place was an option as is the norm in most countries - this nonsense in Ireland of having to move every year or two and dealing with some of the cr@p and hovels that I read about on this forum before finding a decent place can be very frustrating.

Clive

Witht the exeption of some improvements which can be mutually beneficial, most landlord-tenant interactions are zero sum games. If the tenant is going above and beyond requirements, the landlord is not meeting the requirements and vice versa.

Take the recent example under discussion, let's say the washing machine breaks down.

1. Tenant calls landlord as required
2. Landlord calls their preferred tradesman and passes on the tenant's contact details.
3. Tradesman calls tenant, arranges a time and calls out.
4. Problem solved - if the job is bigger than initially thought the tradesman can ring the landlord who has contracted him to do the work and the tenant will be aware of the situation.

So one phone call each, maybe two from the tradesman. Landlord gets to use preferred tradesperson, tenant isn't out of pocket, and the tradesman firms his reputation with the landlord. That's the common approach and it's fair to everyone.

If you want to class a "good" tenant as someone who would take this on themselves then
1. Tenant rings landlord, landlord gives them contact details or tells them to find their own tradesman and deduct the cost from the rent.
2. Tenant calls tradesman and arranges a time for the call out.
3. If the job is bigger than expected the tenant has to ring the landlord whi may not be contactable or assume it's okay to let the tradesman complete the job.
4. Tenant pays tradesman.

In this scenario the tenant is making all the calls, effectively loaning the landlord money until the next rent is due, and leaves themselves open to to problems if the landlord is not happy with the work, cost etc.

That may be a "good" tenant for some, but that makes their landlord a poor one.

Ray Palmer

Clive wrote: »

In this scenario the tenant is making all the calls, effectively loaning the landlord money until the next rent is due, and leaves themselves open to to problems if the landlord is not happy with the work, cost etc.

That may be a "good" tenant for some, but that makes their landlord a poor one.

No it doesn't and already clarified.

If there was no rent due I would just say get the tradesman to contact me.

If I was unhappy with the work I would call the tradesman and would not hold the tenant responsible.


It seems people are looking for ways to accuse me of being a bad LL on assumptions on very specific elements of procedures and insist everything is spelt out. If it isn't spelt out there are massive assumptions made where the LL is the bad guy.

It amazes me people can't keep their train of thought to look at just tenants and are about point scoring.

miss no stars

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It seems people are looking for ways to accuse me of being a bad LL on assumptions on very specific elements of procedures and insist everything is spelt out. If it isn't spelt out there are massive assumptions made where the LL is the bad guy.

It amazes me people can't keep their train of thought to look at just tenants and are about point scoring.

In fairness, you did start a thread without clarifying several things... Then you get defensive when people want them clarified or ask for the specifics. The devil is in the detail.

As for keeping to tenants, I myself commented on that to the effect of it takes two to tango (LL and tenant) and Clive above summarized it a whole lot more eloquently.

Ray Palmer

djimi wrote: »

Im going to be honest, in that example the tenant was right to be annoyed. If you put me in touch with a tradesman and they cost me a half day of work for nothing (and that would have happened whether I agreed the time with him or you did) then I would be furious also. The next time he was to call it would be at a time when I was at no risk of losing further wages. Got a problem with that? Find a more reliable tradesman who shows up when they say they will.

So you didn't read it. The tenant was not in touch with the tradesman until much organising of the time to come down. They were warned tradesmen don't turn up and time and made it near impossible to get them in to the place.

I am subject to the nature of tradesmen in this country and have no extra control over them than anyone else. In fact I tend to get them quicker than most as I use them regularly so it is a little better.

fussyonion

I kinda know what Ray Palmer means.

When I was renting privately, my Landlord didn't have to lift a finger.
If the washing machine broken down, we repaired it and billed him. If the window broke, we repaired it etc etc.

We didn't always bill him for stuff..things like a toilet seat or a pair of curtains I would buy myself, but we maintained the property to the standard we wanted to keep it at.

We paid our rent on time, every month, and gave the place a lick of paint every year.

We cleaned the windows and kept the garden area clean..because WE wanted it to look nice.

listermint

Victor wrote: »

That we have reached page 7 seems to suggest otherwise.

Moderator

Its my opinion that the original premise wasnt designed to open discussion. Its an opinions board, i expressed it.

The theme of the responses backs up my assumption.

wirelessdude01

fussyonion wrote: »

When I was renting privately, my Landlord didn't have to lift a finger.
If the washing machine broken down, we repaired it and billed him. If the window broke, we repaired it etc etc.

What if the LL kicked up a fuss over a bill being too high etc? What would you do then?

Malari

I think this depends a lot on the LL, as well as the tenant. Our LL is nothing like Ray here One time on informing LL that the roof was leaking (badly) we were told that we did get new carpets last year, so can't be spending too much money on the place :rolleyes: but eventually saw the requirement for the expenditure.

We do almost everything ourselves, from organising tradesmen to minor (and some reasonably major) fixes around the house, and bill the LL, that's the way we want it. And that's the way the LL wants it too - as little involvement as possible.

Now, we treat the place as our home, but not every tenant would have the same ideas. When we got the new carpet (long overdue) we started removing shoes at the door, etc but a friend of mine asked me why I was worried about getting the "landlord's carpet" dirty :rolleyes: I may not own the house, but it's MY HOME! Of course I want to keep it clean. I guess some people don't see the value in that with a short term rental.

Potatoeman

fussyonion wrote: »

I kinda know what Ray Palmer means.

When I was renting privately, my Landlord didn't have to lift a finger.
If the washing machine broken down, we repaired it and billed him. If the window broke, we repaired it etc etc.

We didn't always bill him for stuff..things like a toilet seat or a pair of curtains I would buy myself, but we maintained the property to the standard we wanted to keep it at.

We paid our rent on time, every month, and gave the place a lick of paint every year.

We cleaned the windows and kept the garden area clean..because WE wanted it to look nice.

The problem with that is that they are now your curtains. If he decided to cancel the lease would you leave them? The same goes for the toilet seat. If its cheap its not going to last but if its solid you shouldnt break it.

Ray Palmer

miss no stars wrote: »

In fairness, you did start a thread without clarifying several things... Then you get defensive when people want them clarified or ask for the specifics. The devil is in the detail.

As for keeping to tenants, I myself commented on that to the effect of it takes two to tango (LL and tenant) and Clive above summarized it a whole lot more eloquently.

Amazingly you don't start anything clarified it comes from needing to clarified from questions. Clarification have not come from questions but accusations. Mostly stated as fact on what I am doing. I see you think there wasn't enough information but it seems mostly pointless and others understood no problem. Given that, is that a problem with the message or a problem understanding?

No surprise I am going to be defensive against such false accusations. That is with things already having been clarified showing the accusations are false.


There is no need to discuss LL in the same manner on this thread. Completely separate, already clarified. If you don't see the point don't get involved. The parameters are set.

Pawwed Rig

miss no stars wrote: »

In fairness, you did start a thread without clarifying several things... Then you get defensive when people want them clarified or ask for the specifics. The devil is in the detail.

That is a high burden for any thread. Were everything to be clarified in detail to the extent that some have required in this thread the opening post would read like an act of legislation. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed if the post was taken in the manner it was meant and it was perfectly clear what the point was, rather it was those who were looking to point score and turn the argument to what defines a good landlord rather than the topic in the OP that needed to have every single point explained to their satisfaction before any discussion was allowed to take place.

For some the LL is always the bad guy unless he proves himself otherwise whereas the tenant is always given the benefit of the doubt. Funnily enough this is also exactly how the PRTB operate

Potatoeman

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Amazingly you don't start anything clarified it comes from needing to clarified from questions. Clarification have not come from questions but accusations. Mostly stated as fact on what I am doing. I see you think there wasn't enough information but it seems mostly pointless and others understood no problem. Given that, is that a problem with the message or a problem understanding?

No surprise I am going to be defensive against such false accusations. That is with things already having been clarified showing the accusations are false.


There is no need to discuss LL in the same manner on this thread. Completely separate, already clarified. If you don't see the point don't get involved. The parameters are set.

Ill post this again.

You are talking about customers and want to rule out discussion of the service provided.

wirelessdude01

Personally I think a good tenant and a good LL are somewhat similar but then again some on this thread don't seem to want to acknowledge that there is any link there at all.

miss no stars

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is a high burden for any thread. Were everything to be clarified in detail to the extent that some have required in this thread the opening post would read like an act of legislation. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed if the post was taken in the manner it was meant and it was perfectly clear what the point was, rather it was those who were looking to point score and turn the argument to what defines a good landlord rather than the topic in the OP that needed to have every single point explained to their satisfaction before any discussion was allowed to take place.

For some the LL is always the bad guy unless he proves himself otherwise whereas the tenant is always given the benefit of the doubt. Funnily enough this is also exactly how the PRTB operate

I wasn't referring to clarification, I was more talking about the fact that he's getting upset about being asked to clarify. Start a thread, expect debate, expect to have your viewpoint questioned and to have to clarify it.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Amazingly you don't start anything clarified it comes from needing to clarified from questions. Clarification have not come from questions but accusations. Mostly stated as fact on what I am doing. I see you think there wasn't enough information but it seems mostly pointless and others understood no problem. Given that, is that a problem with the message or a problem understanding?

No surprise I am going to be defensive against such false accusations. That is with things already having been clarified showing the accusations are false.


There is no need to discuss LL in the same manner on this thread. Completely separate, already clarified. If you don't see the point don't get involved. The parameters are set.

1. If only some posters have enough information then you should expect to have to clarify further.

2. If you think people are seriously accusing you of things then you need to step away from the keyboard and go outside. It's a discussion forum. People discuss things. If you fail to clarify adequately (see 1. above) then people will make assumptions and state things based on these assumptions. That's not false accusations - that's the product of declining to make your POV adequately clear.

3. The thread does not "belong" to you. Just because you started it doesn't mean you get to figuratively stomp your foot and say "it's my thread and I ONLY want to talk about good and bad TENANTS with absolutely NO mention of landlords and I am NOT open to my view of what constitutes a good tenant being challenged." But for the fact that I've seen you post reasonably sensible things elsewhere I'd otherwise think you very immature. Were I to then make an assumption on how you'd behave as a landlord, along with unclear statements from you along the lines of "get the tenant to pay for repairs and deduct from rent" rather than the true "if there's rent due soon, then I would want them to pay directly and deduct from rent, in all other circumstances I would pay directly" added into the mix... Then my assumptions might not be favourable. But if you look at my previous post, I did say that I thought you were in a really hard place with the difficult tenant.

4. Given that you don't own the thread, it is entirely up to the posters within it to decide whether landlords feature in it. It's quite obvious that a lot of people DO think the issue of good vs bad landlord traits are relevant. Instead of stomping your foot and refusing to answer, you could have answered in 1 post, clarified in another and not been here almost 8 pages in still having to defend your position. Besides, as I said, you can't have a LL-tenant relationship without both a tenant AND a landlord. It's like asking if a building is safe and looking only at the loads in it without looking at the strength of it.