Notes from a Landlord: What Makes a Tenant Report a Problem, Such As a Constantly Running Toilet? (LeakBird)

Feb.08, 2009 in Prop Management

In my four years as a property manager, responsible for several buildings in San Francisco, one question that has come to mind time and time again concerns tenant proactivity with regard to reporting problems with respective units. It seems that there are three main factors that push tenants to report problems:

The problem will directly effect the pocketbook of the tenant
The problem is causing psychological annoyance to the tenant
The problem is threatening physical harm to the tenant

Now, it is clear why tenants respond so quickly and, for the most part, intensely, to situations where either factor #1 or #3 is in play. However, factor #2 is harder to understand, though it is in this second factor that I have found the key to one of the biggest problems that management faces comes into play, namely, tenant non-reporting of the sort of problematic conditions which:

1) Hit management and owner directly in the pocketbook
2) Causes physical harm to the property

In short, the question is: Where is that psychological threshold that causes tenants to act proactively when there is a problem with their unit that does not threaten their pocketbook or their physical well being?

Well, with this question in mind, I have taken notes throughout my tenure, and found that if the tenant does not reach a level that we might call ‘annoyed’ as a result of the problem (i.e. the problem can be ignored), then the tenant will do nothing about it, and as a consequence, management will find out nothing about it, perhaps until the problem becomes a bigger problem, and finally annoyance, or the fear of monetary loss or personal injury comes to the fore.

Coming to realize this fact by way of experience, I realized that if there were ways to make an otherwise ignorable situation ‘annoying’, a proactive response could be evoked in situations that were otherwise left alone to become expensive, wasteful, dangerous, or all of the above.

In this light, consider the smoke detector as the perfect example of this kind of ‘annoyance’ creator. An otherwise ignorable problem (smoked out unit) which can damage or even destroy property, is made, literally, unbearable by way of an alarm, and in such a way, the tenant responds very proactively, opening windows, turning off the stove, etc. In this way, damage and danger is avoided.

The question now becomes, what are the other destructive and/or dangerous ‘ignorable’ problems that can arise, and how can such an ‘alarm’ be put to these other otherwise ignorable problems?

With this second question in mind, we have been developing an acoustic leak detector for running toilets, called the LeakBird, that responds to a running toilet condition by way of an alarm, which provokes a tenant to check the condition and perhaps contact the landlord regarding the said problem, before it shows up on the landlord’s water bill.

It’s a pure Pavlovian play, and because it’s already in the consciousness due to the preponderance and analogue of the smoke detector, it will not only drastically lower a property manager’s water bills overtime, but in turn educate and sensitize tenants to the issue and problem of leaks which directly effect the bottom lines of the landlord as well as your local water company, utility or water manager.

If you are interested in How You Can Increase Your Cash Flows by $2,500.00 Every Year and Never Pay for High Water Bills Due to Your Tenants’ Running Toilets, sign up for our Free Report here.

Jordan Sudy is the VP of Product Development for LeakBird Industries LLC in San Francisco, CA. He may be reached by email at jordan@leakbird.com

Bookmark Me!