Good tenant

listermint

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

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.

Which is why i question the original premise to the thread.

The are intrinsic specifically when 'landlords' in this country for a bulk part have some emotional or personal vested interest in the properties themselves so its less of a 'business' type transaction. to speak in general terms, there are alot of landlords who would prefer not to be a landlord.

So why was the thread opened if is purpose was to heavily remove a key part of the discussion.

Ray Palmer

Potatoeman wrote: »

Ill post this again.

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

No, I want to talk about tenants.

You don't like the parameters of the thread and want to discuss something else then set up your own thread with the topic you want.

If you find the topic too restrictive that is your issue and not a problem elsewhere.

Now I have clarified this at least 3 times. Nothing more to discuss on the topic of the thread. Why you asked again is a mystery to me

Ray Palmer

@miss no stars
I suggest you go back read what the mods already said. Then go read the charter. I am just keeping the thread on topic when questioned on it.
Attack the post not the poster so I suggest editing your post too

miss no stars

Ray Palmer wrote: »

@miss no stars
I suggest you go back read what the mods already said. Then go read the charter. I am just keeping the thread on topic when questioned on it.
Attack the post not the poster so I suggest editing your post too

I'd argue that it's still on topic when talking about what makes a good landlord in the context of what makes a good tenant. Like for instance, there was a thread here recently about a LL who wasn't acting on a broken shower that was damaging the apartment below. Bad landlord. Nobody would doubt that. What about the tenant? Are they bad for not arranging a plumber themselves? With all that risk? Yet by the standards outlined in your original post they're not a good tenant. People aren't trying to bring the thread off-topic, all that's being said is that to have a full discussion you need to talk about good/bad tenants in the context of the full LL-tenant relationship - which includes what makes a good/bad landlord. That's not off topic. That's just getting a proper, full view of the issue at hand.

Also, I don't believe I attacked you. I attacked your refusal to engage with the flip side of the same coin. Landlords and tenants, you can't have one without the other. It's like trying to decide whether a landlord is good without looking at the property they're letting out - you can't. They're too intrinsically linked. In fact, I went so far as to say that I think you're generally sensible but your avoidance of interaction within this thread, plus some not-properly-explained examples may have contributed to the amount of heat you're getting.

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No, I want to talk about tenants.

You don't like the parameters of the thread and want to discuss something else then set up your own thread with the topic you want.

If you find the topic too restrictive that is your issue and not a problem elsewhere.

Now I have clarified this at least 3 times. Nothing more to discuss on the topic of the thread. Why you asked again is a mystery to me

Ray its quite clear that you are upset what the majority of the responses you have received on this indicate that the 'parameters' you have set out on the discussion really do not suit the original topic.

The fact that you limited the so called parameters in your original opening statement indicates that you knew full well that respondents would seek to offer up discussion on both sides of the coin (which is what discussion is about)

You're narrowing down of the subject matter and getting mods involved shows that the thread was setup to bait people. (in my opinion) and you have chosen not to respond to me at all on this.

Im sure someone will be along in due course to give me a warning on this, but its astounding that a thread with these so called attributes was allowed to be opened when most respondents on it questioned its very nature.

Victor

miss no stars wrote: »

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.



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.

As the person who started the thread, I think Ray Palmer has certain rights. However, you post seems very close to telling people what they can or can't discuss, while you don't seem to be discussing the topic.

On-topic, constructive posts only, please.

Moderator

Victor

Thread closed for 24 hours.

Moderator