Posted by Tim on November 28, 2007 at 09:39:18:
I didn’t know that your stringent selection process was vastly superior to my fly by night, no credit check, we approve everyone that can fog a mirror type operation. I also didn’t know that people that rent trailers in your area keep sufficient cash reserves to cover any contingency. In my area those people buy homes.
GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Joe-Ga.
Posted by Joe-Ga. on November 25, 2007 at 09:20:10:
Anyone got any singlewide homes on govt. assist living? I have several in my area…looking at possibly doing this with them .
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Paul - GA
Posted by Paul - GA on November 27, 2007 at 04:05:26:
Joe,
Like Tony I have a couple of section 8 folks in my park in Brunswick. You screen them like any other tenant. The ones I have are 2 older single females that are great. One needs a little pampering so she is always calling with minor issues, but it is very much worth the guaranteed monthly check in my name. The only draw back is the local Housing Authority inspector that will come out to inspect the mobile home. They sometimes can be too picky in my opinion. Consequently, some of my older homes I do not allow section 8 on.
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on November 25, 2007 at 17:36:35:
I have a number of singlewides with section 8 tenants, social security tenants and disability tenants.
Nothing says happy landlord like timely rent payments.
Tony
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Sailor
Posted by Sailor on November 25, 2007 at 10:05:09:
I have 2 tenants in SWs on disability. One is on a L/O & is a pain in the patoot. The other caused trouble in the beginning, but now that we know each other pretty well all runs smoothly & he pays like clockwork. In return I keep his rent under mkt & dod not charge him for water.
I would definitely take on more tenants on disability, though you also have to figure that there is more wear & tear on the property because they are home all the time. They also have more time on their hands to think up ways to aggravate me or others.
I also have a HUD tenant on a L/H. She has been a royal pain, but I get my check every single month, & it is high mkt.
I didn’t get into this type of housing expecting perfect tenants. I do, however, expect perfect payment records. Tenants w/regular monthly checks are able, pretty much, to provide that. I like being able to get to know my tenants over the long term & to develop relationships (note: these are not friendships). I like it when we finally reach the point of mutual respect & tolerance. Doesn’t always happen, but kinda nice when it does.
Tye
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on November 27, 2007 at 08:06:24:
Hey Paul,
The inspectors can get picky from time to time, I defn agree with that. Most times I find that the repairs requested on tenants already living in the home are minor in nature. If not, the tenant would need to move.
I don’t mind making these repairs too much for a couple of reasons. One, in many cases these items may have become deferred maintenance, in other cases they are just down right nit picky. One of the greatest liability concerns we as landlords face each day stems from the condition of the property or claims that it is unsafe. If we go the extra mile to fix nit picky stuff that the section 8 inspector request we also know and have documentation that the home was found to be safe, we corrected even the most minor problems quickly and a 3rd party from the gov’t has witnessed it.
As some will recall, Scott had a parent leave her younger kids alone for days while she went off on her own. During that time a fire started in the home, it is now believed one of the kids may have fallen asleep smoking, and the home went up in flames quickly.
One child died in this fire. The older teen (18) who may have been the cause of the fire went on tv making all kinds of claims, everything from the smoke detectors were always shooting sparks (he later learned they were battery operated) and that electrical outlets were hanging out of the walls. He said every terrible thing he could to defer the blame from himself to the landlord. Long story short he fled the arson investigation team when the confronted him about his story not matching the scene or the fire’s origination.
The reason I mention this was that this was the mom was on section 8. This was one of the first section 8 tenants Scott had worked with and obviously the screening was not perfect. But he did not know mom was going away for a long weekend and going to leave kids alone. (Even the fire marshall could not find her for days to tell her of the loss of her son).
Scott was never sued. The boy’s long lost father hired an attorney briefly but the attorney dropped the client shortly after looking at the facts.
What the hero teen did not know was that only a few months prior, section 8 had inspected the home including all the outlets and smoke detectors. There were not outlets not working properly or hanging out of the wall. You know what they inspector did find? One window screen needed to be repaired. Scott did that quickly and the inspector came back out and signed off on the home. The fire occured after this second inspection.
I now look at that nit picky repair is little more than a small insurance premium.
Tony
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by shawn
Posted by shawn on November 26, 2007 at 13:41:17:
I was attempting to fill empty lots in my MHP and signed up with 5 sec. 8 tennants, overall, they were not too bad to deal with(I screened them) but I sure got the drift from my other residents that they were concerned about the sec.8 neighbors. Then, one day something occured to me, I had required each resident to sign a lease agreement that stated that they (tennant) would be financially responsible for any damages to the house. If their financial situation was such as to qualify them for sec.8, I was requiring them to lie. If they had off the record income, then they were just a liar and welfare cheat; either way, I didn’t want to deal with them. I did not renew and have not regretted my decission.
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Paul - GA
Posted by Paul - GA on November 29, 2007 at 17:24:10:
Tony,
That is spot on. I’ve never thought of it as insurance, but will from now on.
Re: GOVT HOUSING - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on November 26, 2007 at 16:38:18:
Isn’t that what their security deposit is for, to cover damages?
These deposits are security deposits, not rent deposits.
If you expect a tenant to pay for damages in excess of the security deposit you are still going to have to sue and receive a judgement regardless of the tenant’s financial situation.
Some section 8 tenants do have income and could pay so in essence it reads to me like you are unfairly choosing not to consider section 8 tenants. You are not requiring them to lie.
The way section 8 works in my area (I suspect this may be nationwide but cannot say for certain) is if the tenant decides to move they must obtain a letter from the landlord stating that the tenant is in good standing before the tenant is allowed to move into a new place with their section 8 voucher. This has kept my properties from being left vacant in a midnight move out as well as kept damages very low. My damages (though not often) have come from regular tenants and not section 8 tenants.
Many of my section 8 tenants use charities to help with deposits from security deposits to utility deposits, all with the knowledge of section 8.
Don’t get me wrong. It makes no difference to me if you do or do not rent to section 8 tenants. I just want to be clear that your post reads more like a weak justification as to why you have decided not to. Again, your choice. No right or wrong.
Tony
“unfairly choosing” - Posted by Anne_ND
Posted by Anne_ND on November 27, 2007 at 06:23:54:
Tony,
For the edification of others, I just want to point out that Section 8 tenants are not a protected class.
There’s nothing unfair about deciding, capriciously or otherwise, that you don’t want to rent to section 8.
I know that Section 8 can be a great program. In my experience, in small town ND and MN, it was a nightmare, because the people who administer it ran it like their personal fiefdom.
I ran into two different section 8 counselors who told me (one in each state) that I was breaking the law by not accepting section 8, and who threatened me with legal action, until I told them I knew that was not true. So my only reason for pointing this out is to help anyone else out there who might get the same kind of crap from a HUD representative.
You CAN decide not to accept section 8 for any reason or no reason. Section 8 tenants are not a protected class. You should check out your local office and decide for yourself if this program will work for you. It works for lots of people.
been there, done that, and have the $6000 bill from the fabulous experience…
Anne
Yes - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on November 27, 2007 at 07:51:02:
I do believe it unfair, but I did not say it was illegal Anne.
I did not state or imply that he was commiting an equal housing violation.
His post read to me like the section 8 tenants themselves was positive. They were not bad and neither was the program in his area. He was not experiencing the strife that you apparently ran into.
He only changed his mind because of a hint of ego from other tenants in the park. From what I read, it did not have anything to do with the section 8 tenants acting out.
I did not get from his post that the other tenants came to him saying the individual section 8 tenants were causing problems. It read to me that the only complaint was that they were poor. What if his response was, “tell me what they are doing and I will address it immediately.” What would they have said?
Section 8 tenants need to be screened just like any other tenant. It sounds as if the original poster did this quite well and had good section 8 tenants. My point was that by justifying a way to exclude them he may have been unfair to good tenants and honestly to himself. If they are good tenants then I say give them a chance. You won’t have to chase the rent money as much which alone is a huge bonus for a landlord.
You wrote that section 8 got you for $6,000. I would ask how? Did you screen the tenant or just take the first section 8 voucher who somehow burned you only for you to find out section 8 would not help you out?
Did you act swiftly to address the problems just as if this were any other tenant? Could a traditional tenant have gotten you for $6,000 or would there have been a way for you to stop it sooner?
That’s a lot of money and it would seem that it would take time for money due to accrue that high. If this is damages then again I would say screening may have been less than normal (hey, I have done it too). But we could just about rebuild an entire mobile home for $6k. The added benefit (here) with section 8 is that a tenant that moves out early or does damage cannot rent again without a letter from the landlord stating they are in good standing. It may not be that way in your area but it would be worth it for others to find out. Section 8 tenants have been my least cause of property damage by far.
But this is way off topic. I just feel that section 8 horror stories get passed on like bad rumors until good landlords are too scared to try it. I know I was until I got more facts and gave it a try. I use section 8 quite a bit and like it quite well. It is not the be all, end all by any means but it is a great source or rental payments and tenants for low income housing (mobile homes).
Tony
Re: Yes - Posted by shawn
Posted by shawn on November 27, 2007 at 08:54:09:
Tony,a security deposit from a benevolent organization drives home the point that a tennant poor enough to qualify for sec 8 is not able to be financially responsible for damages (above deposit amount) So,my requirement that tennant sign a lease that states that tennant will promptly pay for any damages that they or their guests create is less than honest on their part and mine. Again, I’m not saying that sec 8 won’t work, I know others who make it the cornerstone of their operation.
I agree with Tim - Posted by Tony Colella
Posted by Tony Colella on November 27, 2007 at 15:13:32:
Shawn, let’s face facts, any money not held by you will not be collected by you if your tenants causes damage in excess of the security deposit.
The clause you came up with is little more than smoke and mirrors.
Let’s think this through. Tenants causes excess damage and moves out in the middle of the night. You will be lucky if you could find them to remind them of the clause. Mailing them a letter isn’t going to make them do anything. So you go to court. The only thing your clause says is that they must pay promptly. Well that’s not going to happen if they trashed the place and left.
You are no better off than any other landlord who might choose to sue a tenant for damages, clause or no clause. If for example damages are $1,000 and you have a security deposit of $600, what’s to stop any landlord for suing for excessive damages?
Next, we can all agree that you cannot get blood from any stone. Your deadbeat trashed the place and fled to parts unknown. My section 8 tenant wants to stay on the voucher system so they find a way to come up with that $400 in order to get a letter saying that they are leaving in good standing.
Scenario #2. Your tenant trashes the place but does not move out in the middle of the night. You are going to evict them right? So they move out and you face scenario #1 with a judgment in hand. See the part above about bleeding stones.
Scenario #3. You leave the tenant in place and expect them to pay for the damages. Ok, what if they don’t pay? Then you are back to scenario #2.
After all is said and done you are left with a smoking mirror, a judgement for blood from a stone and one clause that did nothing more than any other landlord and tenant scenario faced.
Again, it makes no difference to me if you rent to section 8 or not. I do care, for you sake, if you are allowing yourself to believe some clause in a lease will protect you when in reality it does not.
Tenants come and go and most will never see their deposits because they always believe that deposit will be applied to the passed due rent.
So you are right, there will likely be a balanced owed if there any damages but if they could not pay the rent, they surely cannot pay you for damages.
Shawn, I am not saying you are wrong to refuse to rent to section 8 tenants, many landlords do that. People come to this site for insight into ways to do things better or differently and in some cases for a different (even if drasticly) perspective. No offense intended by any means.
Tony
Re: Yes - Posted by Tim
Posted by Tim on November 27, 2007 at 12:06:29:
I’m not trying to be nit picky here, & I’m sure you know your area & tenants better than I do. That being said, in my area the majority of tenants live paycheck to paycheck. I have a damage clause in my lease, but I don’t actually believe that my tenants are able to be financially responsible for damages. I might get something out of them through the court system, but the majority of them aren’t going to immediately cut a check for damages.
Re: I agree with Tim - Posted by SHAWN
Posted by SHAWN on November 28, 2007 at 06:57:35:
Tony,Tim, I appreciate your feedback on this matter. I don’t approve everyone that applies to rent from me. I check their credit report for the purpose of avoiding problems-If they have not kept agreements with their creditors, they probably won’t keep their agreements with me (financial, or otherwise).
I check their budget,employment history, criminal, call previous landlords, all for the purpose of selecting tennants that are apt to keep their obligations, thereby reducing turnover, repairs, resident relation issues, and strife in general, all of which helps the bottom line of the P&L. The drift I get from your comments are that none of your tennants will keep their agreements of their own free will. If that were the customer base I had to deal with, I too would prefer sec 8.for the reasons that you have described. Truly good tennants are out there, but the selection process can make you weary.
Re: Yes - Posted by Paul - GA
Posted by Paul - GA on November 29, 2007 at 17:53:53:
Tim, in my life I have found that not only my tenants live pay check to pay check, but most of my friends as well. I agree with you and Tony that I do not expect a tenant that I am evicting, for any reason, to pony up for damages. That being said I’ve never had more than holes in the walls, stained carpet, and a whole lot of filth and trash. All of which I can repair within a week and have my unit back on line. I take a bad tenant very personally, because to me, it means I failed myself and other tenants in my parks. So, when I get them out I’m usually in a good mood and enjoy the prospect of a new tenant and seeing if I can test the market with a $25.00 increase on that unit.