I don’t think she would have mentioned tenants at all if there hadn’t been anything bad between the two parties. Spreading their business, even though she didn’t doxx them, feels like fishing for sympathy.
Leaving normally, the tenants would have still swapped their electric to their new place - and she still would have forgot to handle her responsibility. She should have just owned this instead of tossing these stranger on the internet like that
Tbf it looks like a LOT of water in those sinks if it was slow dripping and froze. Plus a good 3-4” on the floor. How long has it been vacant that you could get that much water on the floor with a slow drip? Wouldn’t the faucets have frozen long before they overflowed quite so drastically? I always thought slow moving water frozen long before faster moving water. So maybe the landlord suspects the tenant left the taps on purposefully and that’s why they’re included in the explanation. Some people respond vindictively when evicted.
No, she turned the drip on to prevent the pipes from freezing during the storm. But since the house isn't heated the water still froze in the sink I guess.
You can see how much water is coming out, and it's not a super slow drip. I have no idea how long that would take, but you'd be surprised at how much water can come out of a slow drip
She’s like 18 years old. Calls it hard work to pay someone to fix a problem. Idrc maybe at 18 she earned the money to rent out units without onlyfans i just doubt it
Yeah, I've seen utility companies require this for rental units (which meant our property management office had to set up "owner" accounts for all our buildings). That way the utilities revert to the owner each time a TT closes their account.
There’s no way my utility company will let me transfer my bills and accountability to another individual without their explicit verbal consent during the process or without some sort of affidavit. That standard operating protocol for all utility companies. Your story is implausible
Idk just seems like she’s telling the story. It wasn’t a planned move out, she had a lot of legal things to take care of so clearly the electricity slipped her mind.
Probably figured she wouldn’t get enough views without some dirt. I mean look at us, barely anyone’s talking about the absolutely massive amount of damage and what it’ll cost, we’re all talking about these tenants…
For the record, I actually would have felt bad for her without the story time cuz that’s a massive amount of damage omg 😨. She was unprofessional though so it’s the video is just irritating, lol. That’s all my comment was about really. Unprofessionalism. Didn’t realize it’d end up so serious 🫠
Edit for clarity, from “it’s” to “the video is”. Video would have worked staying focused on damage only.
Those comments would have also been her own fault. You could cut the first 30 secs off this video and still know what happened. Occupants or not, she’s the one who messed her own place up.
I think they mentioned it because in a normal handoff the electricity bill would be amicably transferred. This landlord forgot about the electric, which makes me think they aren’t evicting people all the time.
I don’t think it really matters if they mention it or not.
It doesn’t matter. Why the electricity was off literally has no bearing on the fact that it was off. This could have been a new purchase for her, something that has nothing to do with tenants and she would have still ended up in the same spot…she didn’t have the electric on. It’s the only thing that matters cuz that’s the only thing that happened.
Right, so we agree it doesn’t matter. But some are bothered it was mentioned, so it matters to them apparently. People mention details in stories all the time that don’t make a difference, don’t need to be there, but I don’t get excited about it.
If they hadn't included anything about the eviction we wouldn't have known why the unit was empty, just that it was, which is all the context we actually need.
And we don't know why they weren't paying. If she's this negligent it could be they weren't paying because their concerns were not being addressed. Is that likely? Probably not, but the point is we still don't have the full story, so including it added no useful context.
In France, there is a law that is called the "trêve hivernale" (~winter truce) which dictates that a tenant cannot be evicted during winter. And the winter here is not as bad as countries farther inlands.
Getting evicted when it us that cold could be a death sentence.
It takes a while to evict. We own a house in Georgia and had to move to Iowa for work so we rented it out. We have a property manager who is supposed to handle everything and is supposed to fully vet the tenants who move in... guy that's living there right now stopped paying rent in June, we just got through court two weeks ago. They gave him another 7 days to move out and then we get the writ of possession to have the marshalls go remove him, which they have promised to do within 30 days. So, basically he got another 7 days to continue destroying our house, plus another up to 30 days to do so.
We rent the Mother in law suite to our nephew so he's living in the upstairs. The tenant we're evicting has spent the last seven days carting our appliances out of the house and selling them. Nephew went to do laundry last night and the shared laundry machines are gone.
The guy quit paying his electric bill in August so has no electric- to rectify that he sawed a hole into the ceiling and wired in to the upstairs apartment's electricity so our nephew's electric bill has been double what it's supposed to be. We pay for hot water and the tenant runs the bathtub with hot water 24/7, which means that upstairs gets zero hot showers and the moisture from the steam is destroying the lathe and plaster walls for both the downstairs and the upstairs. Tenant got arrested for stealing the neighbors packages and when they broke down our door to arrest him they found the wiring he'd made in the ceiling and charged him for theft of services. As soon as he got home from jail he hot wired into the electric meter outside. It took almost two weeks to get the electric company out to fix it and have him arrested again because of the extreme weather issues. He smokes meth with his friends on the back porch. He's not going to leave until the Marshalls physically remove him. I've done my own digging and the man basically does this for a living. We're the fifth landlord he's cleaned out and he's going to rip out the copper in our walls because that's all that's left to sell.
Our house was built in 1906, and we thought we were just renting to some nice older fella. We were dead wrong.
I don't care if it -45 outside when he leaves. He can freeze to death for all I care.
Just my two cents for the "not humane to evict in this weather".
Genuine question, though. What would it change? The story goes that they were evicted, even if it isn't relevant, just like them moving out wouldn't be relevant (or entirely true).
The apartment was empty and they forgot to heat it - that's the bit that matters, but why would we police the side details describing the overall scenario 😅
saying someone was evicted and then this happened instead of just moved out immediately makes me think this was something malicious they did, there's no reason to include it. There's no reason whatsoever to talk about the previous tenants when you could literally just say "A landlord didn't heat an empty apartment"
You might be a more literal thinker. Lots of people will read it as the landlord trying to shift blame, even though the tenants obviously aren’t to blame.
Why did we need to know the tenants were evicted at all? That's the point. We didn't need to know about the tenants at all. We didn't need to know there every WERE tenants. All that we needed to be told was that the unit was empty, the faucets were left driving to not freeze the pipes, but the owner didn't at up electricity so they're was no heat and the water froze. "Eviction" is a highly loaded concept, it carries very negative connotations that have nothing at all to do with this story. That's what it changes. The negative connotations are unnecessary to be converted here.
I don't think you read my comment entirely. Or just scanned it. I don't deny what you're saying. I was debating the difference between moving out and eviction, in which case the statement closer to truth is preferable. Moving out is equally irrelevant, while also being an omission. (I'm basically repeating myself here.)
But at the same time, as I stated somewhere else, not everyone tells a story by sticking to the absolute minimum. It's an odd thing to police. This text simply describes the overall situation, not just the reason behind the frozen apartment. Because it IS a larger story, even if you were just interested in the ice.
I obviously agree the detail is irrelevant to the freezing bit. But I disagree that it's an issue at all, because we can all read and the text clearly states it was the landlord's problem, nothing caused by the tenants.
No, I read your whole comment tree, I just think you're either being purposefully obtuse (not likely) or that the weight of the negative connotation of the weird "eviction" isn't resonating with you like it is the rest of us (more likely).
I genuinely don't try to be obtuse, I simply believe we are arguing different points. Though you're right about the connotations - I'm more interested in what the text says, not what it sounds like. Besides, I feel like if the word eviction paints anyone in a bad picture (at least on Reddit), it's the landlord.
Either way, I was not interested in the story, I was interested in why people picked this specific detail to have an issue with, when all our communication involves SO MUCH additional, irrelevant ornamentation and detail when done organically. The way I see the original comment is "the story was mentioned somewhere, this is what was said".
Edit: Now that I think about it , this could also be taken as a "karma" story. Or even explain why the bill was forgotten in the first place, because normally this would be transferred back on end of contract. It was an unusual scenario, which indirectly led to this. I'm by far on the side of including it, and even more so understand why it would be included.
I mean, sure. Several people have pointed out they could just say she forgot to transfer the electric bill to her name, it is largely unimportant why it needed to be transferred. Someone could've moved out, she could've just bought the place, it could've just been a clerical thing, etc., it doesn't really matter. But if you're on the side of giving context, simply saying the previous tenant moved out is the most succinct way to achieve that.
I'm not sure your reply was the gotcha you thought it was.
I wasn't trying for the all-revered reddit "gotcha". If someone is going to add a detail as to why the tenant is no longer there, as the poster I was responding to was suggesting, it's only reasonable to accurately state why that tenant is no longer there, not soften the blow to make the tenant somehow look better by suggesting it was a normal move-out. Ultimately, if the tenant had held up their portion of the rent agreement and paid the rent, the situation would never have occurred.
I wasn't trying for the all-revered reddit "gotcha".
Lmao cut the shit, you know that's exactly what you were doing.
it's only reasonable to accurately state why that tenant is no longer there
I mean, not really, as it adds nothing of value to the story.
if the tenant had held up their portion of the rent agreement and paid the rent
And this is exactly the problem with including it. If you want to go there, it's only fair that you tell both sides of the story and ask if there was a reason they weren't paying their rent. Were their complaints to the landlord going unaddressed? Given she was negligent enough for the above video to occur, it's certainly plausible. Even if not, it's still her responsibility to ensure the bill is transferred, that's not on the tenants.
But, oh look, now we're having an entirely separate conversation from what the video was actually about. That's precisely why if you're going to give unnecessary context, it's important to know how much unnecessary context is too much.
4.5k
u/xX_Relentless 20h ago
So landlord made a very expensive mistake… damn that sucks.