Small RV park in Texas–9 units. Does anyone have experience raising different rent amounts for a year? I want to raise the whole park 25.00 per month but I have two pain in the butt tenants and want to raise them 50.00 under the guise that their space has more trees and are on the end? What are your thoughts? Either rent will still be in line with market. Does this create any issues? The tenants are not really breaking the rules they just complain a lot about everything.
Thank you
Pat
Yes. I’ve done this. Be sure to be objective if you do. Had a Park once operate that way for about 7 years. However, my scenario was wholly based on objective data. In other words, certain tenants paid a higher rate due to objective and factual issues, faults, or violations. Reasons revolved around breaking Park rules, failure to return lease renewals by our deadline, or other clear cut violations.
Be very careful doing it just because someone “complains a lot.” You could be opening yourself up to risk. Would recommend establishing firm rules, distributing them to all tenants, then monitor situation.
Best to you!
You need to be very careful doing that. What you are doing could be construed as retaliatory/targeting.
However, if you can justify it reasonably, then go for it.
Good reasons:
" Mr. Jones consistently pays late, your Honor, so we believe the higher rent increase is justified."
" Your Honor, Mr. Jones has a dog that is constantly pooping in the common area and he refuses to clean it up"
“Mr. Jones has a premium spot with lots of trees, and it’s near the pool.”
Bad Reasons:
“Your Honor, we are trying to raise Mr. Jones’ rent so it’s too high for him and he needs to move out.”
“Your Honor, Mr. Jones and I got into an argument over XYZ a while back, and so I want to charge him more.”
“Mr. Jones complains a lot, and his neighbors don’t like him, so we gave him a bigger rent increase.”
I specifically worded this as if you are trying to defend yourself in court.
Texas Property Code § 92.331 and § 92.332
Sec. 92.331. RETALIATION BY LANDLORD. (a) A landlord may not retaliate against a tenant by taking an action described by Subsection (b) because the tenant:
(1) in good faith exercises or attempts to exercise against a landlord a right or remedy granted to the tenant by lease, municipal ordinance, or federal or state statute;
(2) gives a landlord a notice to repair or exercise a remedy under this chapter;
(3) complains to a governmental entity responsible for enforcing building or housing codes, a public utility, or a civic or nonprofit agency, and the tenant:
(A) claims a building or housing code violation or utility problem; and
(B) believes in good faith that the complaint is valid and that the violation or problem occurred; or
(4) establishes, attempts to establish, or participates in a tenant organization.
(b) A landlord may not, within six months after the date of the tenant’s action under Subsection (a), retaliate against the tenant by:
(1) filing an eviction proceeding, except for the grounds stated by Section 92.332;
(2) depriving the tenant of the use of the premises, except for reasons authorized by law;
(3) decreasing services to the tenant;
(4) increasing the tenant’s rent or terminating the tenant’s lease; or
(5) engaging, in bad faith, in a course of conduct that materially interferes with the tenant’s rights under the tenant’s lease.
Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3637, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 650, Sec. 9, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 48, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Redesignated from Property Code Sec. 92.057(a) and amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 5, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 588 (S.B. 630), Sec. 2, eff. January 1, 2014.
Sec. 92.332. NONRETALIATION. (a) The landlord is not liable for retaliation under this subchapter if the landlord proves that the action was not made for purposes of retaliation, nor is the landlord liable, unless the action violates a prior court order under Section 92.0563, for:
(1) increasing rent under an escalation clause in a written lease for utilities, taxes, or insurance; or
(2) increasing rent or reducing services as part of a pattern of rent increases or service reductions for an entire multidwelling project.
(b) An eviction or lease termination based on the following circumstances, which are valid grounds for eviction or lease termination in any event, does not constitute retaliation:
(1) the tenant is delinquent in rent when the landlord gives notice to vacate or files an eviction action;
(2) the tenant, a member of the tenant’s family, or a guest or invitee of the tenant intentionally damages property on the premises or by word or conduct threatens the personal safety of the landlord, the landlord’s employees, or another tenant;
(3) the tenant has materially breached the lease, other than by holding over, by an action such as violating written lease provisions prohibiting serious misconduct or criminal acts, except as provided by this section;
(4) the tenant holds over after giving notice of termination or intent to vacate;
(5) the tenant holds over after the landlord gives notice of termination at the end of the rental term and the tenant does not take action under Section 92.331 until after the landlord gives notice of termination; or
(6) the tenant holds over and the landlord’s notice of termination is motivated by a good faith belief that the tenant, a member of the tenant’s family, or a guest or invitee of the tenant might:
(A) adversely affect the quiet enjoyment by other tenants or neighbors;
(B) materially affect the health or safety of the landlord, other tenants, or neighbors; or
(C) damage the property of the landlord, other tenants, or neighbors.
Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3637, ch. 576, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1984. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 650, Sec. 9, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 48, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Redesignated from Property Code Sec. 92.057(b), (c) and amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 5, eff. Jan. 1, 1
Hernandez v. Gallardo
Dallas Housing Authority v. Nelson
I understand your frustration and as much as you may want to do it… probably best to avoid. In my largest park I have a $25 landscaping credit for those who really take care of their yards and lots in general. Maybe better to show appreciation to your best residents vs targeting your ‘pains’. We all have em.
I think it you are concerned about 2 tenants who complain a lot, then you are in the wrong business. You will always have a few people who want to provide their feedback on every little detail. If you cannot handle the constant grind, you can outsource to somebody else to manage for you. If you are a larger than only 9 units, you can hire other people to provide your customer service function for you so you are not the first person who is called with every minute issue.
At our operation, we have a dedicated agent who takes all incoming calls, emails, and texts from all of our properties. If her phone is busy, the call is routed to a backup. She resolves as much in the first contact as possible and puts the notes in Rent Manager. If she cannot resolve the issue, she puts a service ticket in Rent Manager and assigns to the next person.
We have a guy who calls over 10 times per week to complain that the bridge is missing (really it is not). She speaks to him, calmly tells him the bridge is intact, and politely ends the call. In another situation, we have an older resident who lives by herself and likes to call just to chat for 20 minutes. She is very kind, but the calls are time consuming. In this case, our customer service person speaks to her and keeps her happy until the call ends. In either case, the tenants issues were heard making them happy, the owners and managers were never exposed to these conversations, and life moves on. Having this type of employee to screen your calls and isolate you from the minutiae is invaluable and a timesaver.
citing the statute… way to go! Love it
DaveR I love it too. I am shocked at the number of people who post here to ask about state laws when they can look up the code themselves. I would never trust legal advice unless I actually read the law or a qualified attorney advised me (knowing that many attorneys are not qualified.)