Inspecting Landlords Structures?

[pfalcon]

... This mtg is where the city is starting to require inspections on rental units. ...

Just an added note to this; the Board of Health in most communities has the right of inspection already. Further if the tenant requests an inspection the landlord has no right of refusal. The tenant has "possession" of the property so if they want someone to come inside and critique it, officially or not, that is their choice.

The inspection your town is promoting is most likely a tax on the landlords. It will be disquised as helping tenants. In reality any finding is likely to result in the tenant being evicted as most are "pigsty" issues. A poorly trained cousin of a town board member will levy fines against the landlord for issues that are "in his opinion" unacceptable. The landlord will take the fine to the township court; evict the tenant; transfer the fine to the tenant; clean the place up; and then rent to someone else.

 

[kkwong]

Many cities have already adopted rental inspection programs. Usually the city's building dept carries out the inspection, though it can be done by code enforcement or any other agency that "has the training".

pfalcon-the issue in all the cities that I know of is "unsafe conditions". Very rarely (that I know of) will a fine be levied right off the bat; there may be an inspection charge, but not a fine. Usually the landlord has time to make the necessary corrections; if corrections are not made, fines and/or leins can ensue (depending all on how the ordinance is written and the type of city-general law or chartered).

Depending on the violation (building, nussiance etc) the landlord may seek compensation for the penalty from the tenant.

 

[iwire]

The NEC is an installation code, not a maintenance code.

Personally I would be most upset if the local inspectors came out to my 1925 home and told me I have to bring it entirely up to current code.

 

[kkwong]

The NEC is an installation code, not a maintenance code.

Personally I would be most upset if the local inspectors came out to my 1925 home and told me I have to bring it entirely up to current code.

Some do when you sell the home or remodel, service upgrade...anything like that.

From what I understand, these inspections have more to do with the basics, working heating and air, plumbing etc. I guess it keeps the honest folks honest and the slum lords clean.

 

[iwire]

Yes we have a few rules here that are in the Health codes that rental units have to meet. GFCIs in the bathrooms for one thing.

From what I understand, these inspections have more to do with the basics, working heating and air, plumbing etc. I guess it keeps the honest folks honest and the slum lords clean.

It sure is fun to call them slum loads but many times the tenants are worse then the landlords. Destroying the property with no sense of self responsibility. Just a sense of self entitlement even though they are paying low rent that may be subsidized or paid for by the rest of us.

FWIW I am not and never have been a landlord.

 

[cowboyjwc]

From what I understand, you wouldn't have to bring your house up to current codes. It would simply be a check to make sure that everything is still working and in a safe condition, like insulation still on the K&T, the foundation isn't crumbling, termites haven't eaten away the floor joists, things like that.

Hey ken, I was just thinking of emailing you today since I hadn't seen you on in awhile. Everything good?:smile:

 

[Mule]

Is there anything really wrong with that? It is their property to take care of in whatever way they see fit. (1) As long as they do not deliberately put others at risk, I just don't see it as a big issue. (2)And not having AFCIs is not a risk IMO.

If there are definable issues that put their tenants at substantial risk, that is something that needs to be dealt with.

(1) I agree with that point.....As long as its safe, I dont care how much money they make....

(2) You mis read my coment about AFCI's.....just comparing the new codes enforcment to the old structures safety....questioning the priorities

 

[Mule]

I dont know what this has to do with 'Electrical', but I do have a good view of this issue. The problem with those 'inspections' is that there is wayyy too much abuse of power. Also it would not be dealt with fairly on these issues.

Ive helped managed some places for a company, and the way the laws are written for our area, its already more so to protect tenants. if you require this type of government interference, it would price people out of a home as someone stated.

No imagine this Being done to YOUR place, would you like that??!!

Not, if I was in the wrong, and not keeping a safe structure for the tennants.

Your right part of this discussion is not electrical, but some of it is.....I think in truth my area is real conservative and have not had any property managent enforcement in reguard to Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC...Only on new installation....but if the K&T insulation falls off, or the meter loop is falling off of the wall, the "lower income class" tennant may not really know the hazzards involved, and there is a large portion of landlords that are not going to do anything to fix it.......

 

[boboelectric]

Is This "would you like To Swing on a Star". or would be a Mule?????

 

[Mule]

Is This "would you like To Swing on a Star". or would be a Mule?????

Ok,You lost me there?

 

[cowboyjwc]

Ok,You lost me there?

"A mule is an animal with long floppy ears......." I think Bing Crosby sang it, along with others.

 

[pfalcon]

Many cities have already adopted rental inspection programs. Usually the city's building dept carries out the inspection, though it can be done by code enforcement or any other agency that "has the training".

pfalcon-the issue in all the cities that I know of is "unsafe conditions". Very rarely (that I know of) will a fine be levied right off the bat; there may be an inspection charge, but not a fine. Usually the landlord has time to make the necessary corrections; if corrections are not made, fines and/or leins can ensue (depending all on how the ordinance is written and the type of city-general law or chartered).

Depending on the violation (building, nussiance etc) the landlord may seek compensation for the penalty from the tenant.

I've been a landlord with property in both a large city and a small town for quite some time with quite a few units.

In the big city the inspection must be triggered by a complaint. An actual building inspector is supposed to then come out to inspect the property. Our local experience is that they park out front, fill out the forms, and find against the landlord. The landlord then has X days to correct the problem or be fined. Usually it's easier to pay a tradesman the $50 to walk through the place doing his own inspection and then filing with the board that the non-existent condition was "fixed". It usually takes over 10 hours of phone calls and several weeks to get the inspector to meet the landlord at the property to verify there was no violation so the $50 is cheap by comparison. I don't complain about this type of inspection because I know there are slumlords out there. I pay my tax a.k.a. service charge and am done with it. See my sig block.

In the small town the inspection may be triggered by a complaint or the code enforcement officer may be driving by or it may be the "rental inspection" a lot of small towns are throwing into the fray. An untrained person who is both 2nd and 3rd cousin to a council member walks into the place, declares fines for all the pizza boxes, and drops the notice into USPS to the residence that was inspected. Presuming the tenant tells us as soon as they get the notice a week later we are already 5 days past the 2 day notice. We pay a $50 fine that can be appealed for $100 and win or lose we also pay the "inspection charge". This tax a.k.a. inspection charge is the one the landlords are objecting. The real inspections are still bumped to the county seat because the town code enforcement officer is unqualified to testify to a real problem.

No inspection has the force to require us to upgrade to the current code cycle. The "grandfather clause" is the "ex post facto" of the constitution. It still prevails as most states have a similar clause in their constitutions. Upgrades are only required when "substantial" remodeling occurs.

 

[charlietuna]

I had a call from an owner of a strip store building with 10 stores. I met the guy, about 80 years old and he explained and showed me a copy of a letter from the city requiring him to hire an electrical contractor to inspect and bring up to code each store. Well, this was the first time i had heard of it and it would require permiting so i told him i would go to the city and see just how far they wanted to take this! The chief sat me down and explained this was new - and called "THE 30 YEAR INSPECTION". It was actually designed to rid the city of old buildings and replace them with new???? He told me my job was to inspect the entire electrical installation and bring it up to today's code. Just thinking of the one store i looked at with the owner, a laundrymat, i realized it would be cheaper to knock the building down and rebuild it! When i explained that to the cheif his comment was "EXACTLY"!! I needed the work at the time but i didn't need that much and politely went back and explained to the old man that he was facing some major costs and that i didn't have that much time to consider the job. But that really is the only way cities can rid themselves of many firetraps.............

 

[kkwong]

No inspection has the force to require us to upgrade to the current code cycle. The "grandfather clause" is the "ex post facto" of the constitution. It still prevails as most states have a similar clause in their constitutions. Upgrades are only required when "substantial" remodeling occurs.

The problem with "substantial" is who defines it? Does the addition of an exterior lighting/convienance recep circt qualify? I've had it happen...and I will say this...small town known for independant thinking and selective enforcement.

Every city is different. I know in mine it is an annual program that the city insitituted due to substandard housing issues and the irresponsible absentee land lord. While I do not contend that most of these inspections are "pencil whipped" or complaint generated, what I am saying is that some cities have adopted a formal inspection process while others simply do whatever they do.

Iwire-I used the term "slumlord" to conjure the image of multiple units of substandard housing with no regard of the tenants. I do realize that eight to nine times out of ten it is the tenant that causes the problems and the landlord is a responsible individual.

 

[aftershock]

IMO The age of a structure does not determine the state of the condition of the systems within it.

My house was built in 1946 and everything within the structure is still intact and safe.
Where the condition of the systems starts to be in question is when it is disturbed and or tampered with by adding or taking away from.
The system in question I will refer to is electrical since it is my field of work and the main topic of this forum.
I have seen alot of unsafe conditions of electrical wiring on rental properties that landlords will only have anything done after it has caused a problem.
Example: Receptacle circuit not working. After tracing it from the panel into the attic I find where someone had cut the NM and spliced into it to add a receptacle for the furnace.
Considering that the fridge , bathroom and the receptacles in 2 bedrooms were already using this circuit, installing a receptacle for the furnace from this circuit was in itself wrong.
The manner in which the splice was done was unsafe and a fire hazzard. If you cut into a piece of NM to add another piece of NM you most always need to install 2 JBs since the wire is not long enough to splice back together. Since this was not done in this case, the splices failed and literaly fried themselves apart under the load of the fridge, furnace and 2 space heaters using this circuit.

That was just one example and I have seen alot of others. In most every case it was someone tampering with the current system to add something else, but not doing it in the correct manner.
I see it done with K&T all the time.
Landlords wanting to save money by having Joe's brother's friend down the street add a receptacle for something has always gotten me some work sometime down the road to go back and correct the initial wiring by doing it right.

 

[boboelectric]

Music,Mule. Look it up. Bing.

 

[pfalcon]

The problem with "substantial" is who defines it? Does the addition of an exterior lighting/convienance recep circt qualify? I've had it happen...and I will say this...small town known for independant thinking and selective enforcement.

Every city is different. I know in mine it is an annual program that the city insitituted due to substandard housing issues and the irresponsible absentee land lord. While I do not contend that most of these inspections are "pencil whipped" or complaint generated, what I am saying is that some cities have adopted a formal inspection process while others simply do whatever they do.

Iwire-I used the term "slumlord" to conjure the image of multiple units of substandard housing with no regard of the tenants. I do realize that eight to nine times out of ten it is the tenant that causes the problems and the landlord is a responsible individual.

Substantial is found in the legal codes/regulations for your area. In our area it is typically defined as replacing more than 40% of the affected system - whether wiring or plumbing. Small towns in particular believe they can liberally reinterpret codes so you may have to comply to survive there. The protection of "ex post facto" is only as good as your local enforcements agencies are at resisting corruption.

Charlietuna cited his personal example. The town has the obligation to periodically inspect public venues for safety. If the inspector determines that a "substantial" portion of the electrical system is "unsafe" then he can force 100% compliance. The owner does have the right to have the deficiencies cited to him by book, chapter, verse. Sometimes this request prompts the commission to reconsider their demands.

Slumlords have been around forever so don't apologize. The example from the 70's is the guy in the 70% tax bracket (~$50,000/yr) that bought property for the mortgage deduction. Units rented "As Is"; No maintenance; Rent lowered constantly to keep it occupied. Different from a real landlord that maintains the property to maximize income and therefore able to keep the rental price up. Slumlords do not screen tenants in any way; they rent to anyone therefore they get what everyone else turns away. They care for nothing therefore they get tenants that care for nothing.