dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7267
share rss forum feed

MrIcehouse

join:2006-02-07
Saint Petersburg, FL

1 recommendation

reply to walta

Re: Should we let the tenant move back in after the fire?

Good bye floor furnace.
Good bye 60 amp electric service.
Good bye fuse box.
Good bye ungrounded outlets.

Sorry, but you should be ashamed renting that place out, all of that is out of code and wouldn't pass here. Do you still have knob and tube with the ungrounded outlets?


MrIcehouse

join:2006-02-07
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to robbin

Good bye floor furnace.
Good bye 60 amp electric service.
Good bye fuse box.
Good bye ungrounded outlets.

That unit shouldn't have been rented in the first place.


TheMG
Premium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:2
reply to walta

So... the tenant caused the fire through an act of negligence.

Wouldn't that make the tenant liable for the cost of repairs?

Hopefully the tenant has insurance.



John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5
reply to MrIcehouse

said by MrIcehouse:

Sorry, but you should be ashamed renting that place out, all of that is out of code and wouldn't pass here. Do you still have knob and tube with the ungrounded outlets?

Just because those things are 'out of code' in your area doens't make them out of code in the OPs area.

Climb down off your high-horse...


TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25
TEXAS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
·WesTex Connect

1 recommendation

reply to walta

said by walta:

She piled her laundry on top of the floor furnace and went out for the day.

Good bye floor furnace.
Good bye 60 amp electric service.
Good bye fuse box.
Good bye ungrounded outlets.

Walta

I'm assuming if the place only has 60amp service that there is no electric clothes dryer, so if there is also no gas clothes dryer then I must wonder...where these clothes wet and left on the heater purposely to dry them?
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified

robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1

I have a rent house that has 60 amp service with both electric dryer and stove. Hasn't been a problem for the last 18 years.



TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25
TEXAS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
·WesTex Connect

said by robbin:

I have a rent house that has 60 amp service with both electric dryer and stove. Hasn't been a problem for the last 18 years.

Electric Dryer 30amps + Electric Stove 50amps = 80amps

Hope no one is ever using all 4 burners and the oven to cook a thanksgiving dinner and doing laundry at the same time.

Is the water heater electric too?
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified


nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12

Probably more like electric dryer is 4.5 kW and electric stove is 10 kW = 60A

Still not wise to have those items on a 60A service.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


microphone
Premium
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD
reply to walta

If you have had the tenant for several years and she always paid her rent on time, you may want to reconsider given what you might get from a new renter such as not paying the rent on time, boiling chicken in grease unattended, having 5 kids run up and down stairs late at night disturbing the rest of the neighbors, not properly disposing of trash, etc.

I think appropriate warnings to tenants about not placing stuff on these heaters is in order.



TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25
TEXAS
kudos:2
Reviews:
·HughesNet Satell..
·WesTex Connect

I think it should be common sense to not place clothes on top of a heater, it's got to be one of three things:

1. The person was trying to dry wet clothes.

2. The person was purposely trying to burn the place down placing clothes on top of the heater.

3. The person has no common sense what-so-ever and needs to live in a monitored assisted living environment for their own protection.
--
CompTIA Network+ Certified



Coma
Thanks Steve
Premium
join:2001-12-30
NirvanaLand


The person has no common sense what-so-ever and needs to live in a monitored assisted living environment for their own protection.


^ ^ ^ ^
This

--
December is National Fruit Cake Month

MrIcehouse

join:2006-02-07
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to John Galt

"Just because those things are 'out of code' in your area doesn't make them out of code in the OPs area."

Not on my high horse.

I wouldn't feel right for the safety of anyone living in that unit, ungrounded wires, fuse box, code or not those 2 things are a fire trap, she already found another issue and set the place on fire.



rfhar
The World Sport, Played In Every Country
Premium
join:2001-03-26
Buicktown,Mi
Reviews:
·Power-Net Intern..
reply to Bob4

said by Bob4:

said by walta:

Good bye floor furnace.
Good bye 60 amp electric service.
Good bye fuse box.
Good bye ungrounded outlets.

Hello rent increase!

And take your time to see that it is done right.

You should change all your insurance policy's so that if anything like this happens in the future everything ;will be brought up to code.

An rather expensive lesson to be learned here.
--
Whoever said that ignorance is bliss wasn't refering to a person with a computer at his fingertips!

Cure Disease with your computer


jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to walta

said by walta:

She piled her laundry on top of the floor furnace and went out for the day.

The sad part is that she can’t see that she might as well have put a match to the place.

Why? They didn't catch fire all of the other times that she did that. Her clothes were always nice and dry when she got home.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
reply to walta

Up to you if you continue to rent. More info needs to be considered then you posted here. But your carrier should be seeking recovery from the at fault tenant. They may not, which would be their oversight. If nothing else, I'd ask that the renter pay your deductible (on a side note, you cannot sign a release for that unless you know for a fact that your carrier won't be seeking recovery). This was an accident but the renter is also liable for the damage.

I'm guessing you don't have, as part of the rental contract, that the tenant have renters insurance. I'd _certainly_ add that in your lease upon next renewal. I'd also require that you be listed as an Additional Interest on the policy. That way you should be informed if the policy is no longer active (you may also want to contact the insurance company every few months and confirm it's still active). Also put in the lease that lacking a renters insurance policy that you have the right to give the tenant xx days notice and can evict for this reason (check to see what the law will allow in your area).

Renting out a home is no easy matter. It's a business. You may want to run the lease by an attorney in your area. Would probably cost $500 or so.



jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by tcope:

I'm guessing you don't have, as part of the rental contract, that the tenant have renters insurance. I'd _certainly_ add that in your lease upon next renewal. I'd also require that you be listed as an Additional Interest on the policy. That way you should be informed if the policy is no longer active (you may also want to contact the insurance company every few months and confirm it's still active). Also put in the lease that lacking a renters insurance policy that you have the right to give the tenant xx days notice and can evict for this reason (check to see what the law will allow in your area).

Renter's insurance only covers the tenant's personal property and personal liability. I doubt that you can force a tenant to have a policy unless you're the government and we're talking about health insurance.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

said by jjoshua:

Renter's insurance only covers the tenant's personal property and personal liability. I doubt that you can force a tenant to have a policy unless you're the government and we're talking about health insurance.

It addresses losses that the tenant is liable for... such as in this case. If the tenant had a renters policy, it should have paid for this loss.

Most apartment complexes require tenants have a renters policy but I'd say most don't enforce this. I work as an adjuster and handle claims for a plan called "Renters Legal Liability". It's not a Renters policy but I can say that the complex force places this policy on any renter that cannot show that they have their own Renters policy. So I'd think a landlord can enforce the requirement that a renter have insurance. It only makes sense and if it's in the rental contract I'd think it could be enforced. However, the landlord would still need to follow state laws on eviction.


Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere
reply to jjoshua

said by jjoshua:

said by tcope:

I'm guessing you don't have, as part of the rental contract, that the tenant have renters insurance. I'd _certainly_ add that in your lease upon next renewal. I'd also require that you be listed as an Additional Interest on the policy. That way you should be informed if the policy is no longer active (you may also want to contact the insurance company every few months and confirm it's still active). Also put in the lease that lacking a renters insurance policy that you have the right to give the tenant xx days notice and can evict for this reason (check to see what the law will allow in your area).

Renter's insurance only covers the tenant's personal property and personal liability. I doubt that you can force a tenant to have a policy unless you're the government and we're talking about health insurance.

Yes a tenant can be forced to have a renter's insurance policy. The last two leases i've signed (where the landlord was a corporation that owns many many properties) have had proof of renter's insurance listed as a requirement prior to being able to reside in the property. I'm pretty sure that's there for the benefit of the landlord in case something goes wrong (ie: fire) otherwise it wouldn't be a requirement.


Pacrat
Old and Cranky
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-10
Cortland, OH
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to walta

When I was first married, we rented a small apartment in a converted two-story house. Our renters insurance covered only our loss... the contents of the apartment, nothing regarding the structure of the building. There was no liability coverage at all, because that was deemed to be the landlord's domain as the property owner. I seriously doubt the tennant would be found liable for damages... unless found to be so by a court ruling. Either way it's going to cost the landlord some money.

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is whether or not the building is being legally rented and approved for occupancy as a commercial entity.
--
Keep your eye on the ball, your shoulder to the wheel, your nose to the grindstone, and your ear to the ground. Now, try to work in that position!!!


80289148

join:2012-12-24
reply to walta

What is a floor furnace?



nunya
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Charter
·surpasshosting

»www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu···atus=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.



Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to tcope

said by tcope:

said by jjoshua:

Renter's insurance only covers the tenant's personal property and personal liability. I doubt that you can force a tenant to have a policy unless you're the government and we're talking about health insurance.

It addresses losses that the tenant is liable for... such as in this case. If the tenant had a renters policy, it should have paid for this loss.

Most apartment complexes require tenants have a renters policy but I'd say most don't enforce this. I work as an adjuster and handle claims for a plan called "Renters Legal Liability". It's not a Renters policy but I can say that the complex force places this policy on any renter that cannot show that they have their own Renters policy. So I'd think a landlord can enforce the requirement that a renter have insurance. It only makes sense and if it's in the rental contract I'd think it could be enforced. However, the landlord would still need to follow state laws on eviction.

That's interesting when I bought my dad renters insurance it specifically stated it covered his personal property and not the dwelling (Apt).


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to Pacrat

said by Pacrat:

When I was first married, we rented a small apartment in a converted two-story house. Our renters insurance covered only our loss... the contents of the apartment, nothing regarding the structure of the building. There was no liability coverage at all, because that was deemed to be the landlord's domain as the property owner. I seriously doubt the tennant would be found liable for damages... unless found to be so by a court ruling. Either way it's going to cost the landlord some money.

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is whether or not the building is being legally rented and approved for occupancy as a commercial entity.

Exactly it covers the personal property of the renter. Nothing at all with the structure.


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to nunya

said by nunya:

»www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issu···atus=301

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Wonder if the writer even has been around one? I lived in a home with one for 17 years. My dad, mom and 2 sisters did not die from CO poisoning, the house did not burn down and the temperature was not that difficult to regulate.


tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
reply to Jack_in_VA

A renters policy is going to have two parts. The forst part is Liability coverage. This is when the renter is liable for injury to others or damage to their personal property.

The second part of the policy is to cover the renters personal property.

Liability coverage may be even more important for people to have then covering their own personal property. In this case of this post the renter us lucky that the home did not burn down. If it had, and the cause could be found, the OP's own carrier would have paid the lose and sought recovery from the renter. Where is the renter going to get $100,000 to pay for the loss of the home? Even if the renters liability limits were less, at least the renters carrier could (would) offer up the limits in return for a release (and the OP's carrier would most certainly sign a release for the policy limits as the alternative is.... nothing from the renter).

"Personal liability

Personal liability renters insurance policies may cover bodily injury and property damage to others caused by your actions or negligence."



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1
reply to Jack_in_VA

The article is almost 5 years old as well


microphone
Premium
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD
reply to Jack_in_VA

I have renters insurance that covers both personal property and the cost of damage to the landlords property within the unit. The landlord recently mandated it but I already had it and simply had to have the landlord listed as an interested party.



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
reply to Jack_in_VA

said by Jack_in_VA:

said by nunya:

You don't see them much any more. They are banned in a lot of places.

Wonder if the writer even has been around one? I lived in a home with one for 17 years. My dad, mom and 2 sisters did not die from CO poisoning, the house did not burn down and the temperature was not that difficult to regulate.

I grew up in a home with several of them--or at least several vents to one. They were very common for homes built during the period of the forties in California.

Never had a problem with it but then of course we never sat anything on top of the vent either. Maybe there is a connection there?


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to microphone

said by microphone:

I have renters insurance that covers both personal property and the cost of damage to the landlords property within the unit. The landlord recently mandated it but I already had it and simply had to have the landlord listed as an interested party.

quote:
damage to the landlords property within the unit.
That's not the same as damage to the landlords unit. Probably refers to refrigerator, stove, washer/dryer etc.

Last week some clown was keeping snakes in a storage unit using heat lamps to keep them warm. Well the lamps started a fire and burned 40 units up. The owner stated that her insurance would cover the units but not the renters contents that they had to have their own renters insurance to cover.


mattmag
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-04-09
NW Illinois
kudos:3
reply to walta



My concern would revolve around how a jury would view the testimony of your tenant if it came down to that. I believe they would be quite sympathetic to the situation, and she could easily testify that she "thought it was just a heat register" and had no idea what a floor furnace was.

Unless she was given strict instructions on the proper use of such a unit, I'd think she has a very strong chance to prevail.

Not that I think you are wrong and she is right, I just know how juries view such situations.