• spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    this shit (what the landlord did) should be illegal and prosecutable?

    imagine renting farmland out to a farmer, waiting for them to plant and grow crops right up till before harvest, then try to pull a switch and up the rent because “🤓☝️the land is worth more now.”

    like no shit the plants on the property add value. value that came directly from the tenant in hundreds of hours of labor and materials!!??!!

    good on this tenant for getting the W on the situation. im sure for countless poor others the opposite has been true :(

    • tonarinokanasan@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      That’s not a great argument at all. Assuming a rent agreement with say a 1-year term, there’s a huge difference between trying to change rent in the middle of the contract period (obviously violates the contract unless it has specific provisions for this, which is also unlikely in most places) and asking for higher rent to renew for another term (which Occam’s razor says presumably is happening here). A farmer renting farmland would never be leasing for less time than it will take their crops to grow, as that would obviously be an insane risk.

      The better point here is on improving the property. Some rental contracts I’ve seen have terms where if the tenant spends money improving the property they get some kickback (part of it can be reduced from rent, e.g.). If you’re improving property someone else owns for free and expect not to be taken advantage of, then I don’t know what to tell you except that you’re a sucker.

      If there are takeaways from this post, it’s either that 1) more jurisdictions should include stuff about this as part of their legal protections for tenants, or 2) don’t be a sucker and give your landlord money for free.

      Edit: if I wasn’t clear, my point was that imo there should be better policies around tenants improving the homes they live in to begin with (because obviously nothing here was illegal)

      • vortic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        How is this different from a tenant taking their patio furniture with the? “It’s worth more with the patio furniture”. “The new tenants are expecting the nice patio furniture to be there!”

        Plants cost money and effort and, in many cases, can be successfully transplanted to a new location. It seems to me that the tenant simply took their property with them when they left.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    in my uni house, the landlord once barrelled in without notice (highly illegal!!) to give us a rug, a new coffee table, and a bunch of crappy canvas wall art.

    After we decided to sign for another year, following a few viewings, the landlord barrelled in without notice again to take it all back lmao.

    • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Had a landlord POUNDING on all 3 of our doors (one at a time, not at once) one time when I was taking care of my sick mother. He didn’t try the key, else he’d have probably gotten a size 14 boot up his asshole. Some of the shit landlords think they can get away with…

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I think he was perfectly justified in removing the plants, but should have done so before he wound up screwing the innocent new tenants who probably can’t break the contract unless it specifically includes the plants. By delaying, he’s basically handing the landlord a check from the new people.

      • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ehhh I don’t really care about this. Landlords are categorically exploitative leeches, so this pales in comparison to the day-to-day activities of the landlord.

        Besides, he should remove the plants whenever it was convenient for him. I’m not going to dictate the “should’ves” in this situation. They’re his damn plants.

        My husband had plants at the last house we rented, and we basically had to wait until the weather was right and we were just about ready to relocate before he removed and replanted them.

  • Nora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Probably should have done it before the viewings so that you’re not screwing over the renters.

      • Nora@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        They’re now stuck in a contract for a year in a home they might not have went with, all because they were lied to by the landparasite.

        • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          And how is that the plants’ owner’s fault? Should they have removed all their furniture from the place before pictures and viewings too?

    • vortic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is this different from a tenant taking their patio furniture with the? “It’s worth more with the patio furniture”. “The new tenants are expecting the nice patio furniture to be there!”

      Plants cost money and effort and, in many cases, can be successfully transplanted to a new location. It seems to me that the tenant simply took their property with them when they left.

      • MudSkipperKisser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        No idea the laws or standard practices in OP’s location but a general rule of thumb where I am is if you flipped the house upside down anything that falls to the ground goes and everything else stays-meaning anything that’s attached/affixed to the property stays (or at least should be specifically referenced in a contract as included or excluded with the rent/sale). Plants that have been planted into the ground could be reasonably expected to stay from the new renter’s perspective, they have no way of knowing that was an improvement made by the current tenant and not the landlord/owner. The landlord messed up by not having this discussion explicitly with the current tenant and just assuming they were leaving the plants. I think it would be reasonable for the new tenant to require the landlord to plant a new garden to match the old, especially if it was specifically advertised that way