Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, a burst pipe would cause flooding, which could be costly to you, damage your things and just generally be a big hassle. You really only need to leave a small trickle going in the cold water tap furthest from where the water comes in. This is usually the upstairs bathroom. A small trickle of approximately 60 drips per minute will add up to approximately 0.36 gallons per hour. If your only concern is the increase in your water bill, I suggest you leave the bath tap running at a small trickle into a bucket or garbage can and use that water to flush your toilet.
Would I be unreasonable in demanding that the landlord give residents a $25 rent credit for the water and inconvenience of doing this?
Everyone who's posted is probably right about it not costing much money, but the principle is one that definitely bothers me. Buildings should be much better insulated then they are. Insulation saves money in the long run by cutting down on heating and cooling expenses, as well as management time spent on noise complaints.
As for feeling bad about a neighbor's property being damaged, I suppose I would feel bad as a fellow human being, but I wouldn't feel any responsibility. This is definitely the responsibility of the management to keep pipes in working order, not of the tenants.
Does anyone else agree with me that it is likely the property's insurance company encouraging the management to send these notices? It's obviously cheaper for them to have tenants pay for extra water than for them to foot the bill for a burst pipe.
I grew up in a part of the Midwest that is much colder than North Carolina could ever dream of getting. Our houses were well insulated and nobody lets water drip during periods of freeze. If they did, there would be periods of water running for WEEKS on end.
I've pretty much decided to ignore this freeze warning.
Did you have a basement? Our previous housed the plumbing was all in the basement, which was a contained space and in our case climate controlled. Thus we did not have a real need to let the pipes drip. But folks w/ crawl spaces w/ let their pipes drip. We rented a house where we had to let the pipes drip (the landlord was friendly and asked & we agreed). Our water bill was not noticeably higher. A very small drip is enough.
Would I be unreasonable in demanding that the landlord give residents a $25 rent credit for the water and inconvenience of doing this?
Everyone who's posted is probably right about it not costing much money, but the principle is one that definitely bothers me. Buildings should be much better insulated then they are. Insulation saves money in the long run by cutting down on heating and cooling expenses, as well as management time spent on noise complaints.
As for feeling bad about a neighbor's property being damaged, I suppose I would feel bad as a fellow human being, but I wouldn't feel any responsibility. This is definitely the responsibility of the management to keep pipes in working order, not of the tenants.
Does anyone else agree with me that it is likely the property's insurance company encouraging the management to send these notices? It's obviously cheaper for them to have tenants pay for extra water than for them to foot the bill for a burst pipe.
If you follow through on a "no-drip policy," I think it would be sporting of you to notify your neighbors, particularly anyone below you, that just out of principle you may decide to deluge them with flood water due to the landlord's irresponsibility.
I'm weighing the cost/benefit of following the notice. The tone definitely left a bad taste in my mouth, but the management has been wonderful in nearly every respect during our time here, so that is something to consider.
Maybe I will just use buckets. It'll teach my daughter something about water conservation.
Would I be unreasonable in demanding that the landlord give residents a $25 rent credit for the water and inconvenience of doing this?
Yes, you would be unreasonable. The extra amount on your bill will not amount to $25. And you're not being asked to do anything outside of your agreement with the landlord. While you view it as an "inconvenience," most view it as a responsibility they took on when agreeing to occupy someone else's property.
Quote:
Everyone who's posted is probably right about it not costing much money, but the principle is one that definitely bothers me. Buildings should be much better insulated then they are. Insulation saves money in the long run by cutting down on heating and cooling expenses, as well as management time spent on noise complaints.
If you think you're at a disadvantage because of the insulation of your building, then perhaps you should have investigated that more when you were selecting your apartment and picked a community with "better" insulation. Instead, you signed an agreement for this particular unit and agreed to take on responsibility for it.
A common misconception of renter's is that they have no responsibility for their apartment. That couldn't be further from the truth. You agree to many things when you enter into a lease agreement. The most important is that you agree to take care of the other party's property. There are many things that a renter should do to keep their end of this agreement. Keep batteries in your smoke detector, clean your carpets regularly, use appliances properly, keep the unit clean, keep your unit properly ventilated, keep moisture at bay by wiping window sills, etc. As far as the major systems, like plumbing, are concerned, yes, the landlord is in charge of keeping those in good repair, however, if something happens to them because a tenant fails to do simple things to assist in keeping them in good order, it is NOT their responsibility. If you flush things down the toilet that aren't meant to go down and they cause a blockage, then it's your responsibility to pay for all the damages. If you put too much soap in your dishwasher and it causes a major water issue that leaks into the apartment below you, then it's your responsibility to pay for all the damages. If you fail to properly connection your washer line and it causes a leak, then it's your responsibility to pay for all the damages. Point---just because it's a major system doesn't mean it's wholly the landlord's responsibility to keep it well maintained.
Quote:
As for feeling bad about a neighbor's property being damaged, I suppose I would feel bad as a fellow human being, but I wouldn't feel any responsibility. This is definitely the responsibility of the management to keep pipes in working order, not of the tenants.
Again, it is your responsibility as well as management's to keep the pipes in working order. Your management has asked you and your neighbors to do a very simple thing to protect your community. If you fail to adhere to management's request, then you are not only responsible, but you're in violation of your agreement. Not to mention being disrespectful to your neighbors.
Quote:
Does anyone else agree with me that it is likely the property's insurance company encouraging the management to send these notices? It's obviously cheaper for them to have tenants pay for extra water than for them to foot the bill for a burst pipe.
I've worked in the apartment industry for 7 years for many different management companies and can tell you firsthand that these notices are not directed by the insurance companies. This is a common practice as I said before and just about every community asks this of their tenants.
Inconvenience? To not shut the water off all the way?
I've known two people living in other areas who have had pipes burst due to freezing weather. It was not a fun experience for either of them. It resulted in quite a lot of real inconvenience for them.
One was my friend in college - the pipe burst and the landlord held her responsible, claiming she didn't let the faucet drip. It was a major hassle for her - not only was her bathroom unusable until the plumbing was fixed, but she had landlord legal issues to deal with. This was in FLORIDA, no less. Yes, it occasionally gets that cold there.
My boyfriend's father had a pipe burst a month ago. He lives in Tulsa, OK where they are used to this kind of weather. He was lucky that it happened while he was at home to turn the water off. He had to replace some flooring and make plumbing repairs (yippee!). This was even in an internal room, which would usually not be at as much risk of freezing.
The point is that s*** happens. It is up to you whether you want to make a huge gigantic deal out of it or just try to eliminate some of the risk by taking a precaution that requires extremely nominal effort and expense.
If it makes you feel any better, I am going to do it in my apartment even though I spoke with my landlord about it last year, and she said she's never had a problem with the pipes. I really don't have the time or desire to deal with a possible domestic disaster, but I do have the time to leave the faucet dripping just a tad.
It's all about your risk tolerance and how you view the cost/benefit ratio of the situation. The way I look at it is that I treat my apartment the same way I'd treat my own house when it comes to preventing damage that is preventable.
Would I be unreasonable in demanding that the landlord give residents a $25 rent credit for the water and inconvenience of doing this?
Yes, I think you would be unreasonable to demand that. If you want to live in a building that has better insulation for sub-freezing weather, then I suggest you rent something in Iowa.
I live in an apartment and will leave a faucet dripping tonight, even though we received no memo to do so. It's just the prudent thing to do, considering the outcome of possibly burst pipes.
My father is a plumber in MA where the insulation and plumbing is better suited for the cold. I always got the reminder phone call from him when it hit the teens or near zero to let the faucets drip. I noticed no difference in my water bill. I will be doing the same here. Why risk it?
Keeping a faucet running at a slow trickle for 24 hrs will use ~9 gallons of water. A typical shower uses this much water in TWO MINUTES. I'm sure you won't notice a difference in your water bill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
