Landlord won't let tenant charge EV

The answer to your question is a resounding yes, because one thing is positively tangible and the other is not.

Any amount of money is rarely petty to business.

 

You CANNOT open that door.

"I only siphoned a gallon...isn't it petty of you to complain?"

"I only took 10% of your savings from your bank, don't be petty"

"I only 'borrowed' your wife for an hour...let's not get petty about it, you have your whole lives together"

Seriously...do not open that door.

 

It's a dollar a day, not marital infidelity. This door needs to be blown clear off its hinges, using enough explosives to take the roof with it.

Our entire economic system is based on ignoring environmental costs. We're liquidating natural capital and calling it income. The balance sheet doesn't balance, and the bottom line is nowhere near the bottom. Clean air, water and soil are priceless, not worthless, as our current economic model values them.

 

who said steal? he offered to pay for the electricity

 

OK and how much did he take? $1? $1.50? $2?

Did he charge once or did he charge it up twice a day?

It's not his property, it's not his electricity to take. $1 a day over 300 days is $300 pa or if charged every day is $365 pa.

That's not insignificant. It's $30 per month! If that's insignificant then send me a cheque for that amount in the post each month

 

haha, yeah some just dont understand.

The landlord is not being nice and "giving this guy a free place to stay"

NO, he owns the apartment, for what?

TO turn a profit......to make a living (ok, perhaps get rich)

But it is literally his "job"

So it is not right, unless it is ok to give someone your lunch everyday.

AS grumpy panned out $300 year to charge.
Lets just look at that over 10 yrs.

3 grand

Wth, does that not sound like $1 to charge.

Wouldnt you get upset if your pay was docked a nickel an hour?!!!!!!!

 

You got that right. But I think you're wrong about who's not understanding the situation. The tenant offered to reimburse the landlord - nobody's out of pocket for anything at all. But you guys carry on, ranting and raving about that dollar, and we'll just completely ignore the big picture.

 

Well, if I had a landlord, maybe I would ask him if I could put a stripper pole in.
Heck, I will pay for it too.

He wont mind any liability if it is in the garage, because that would hid all
the strippers. Also, it is only concrete. If you fall and get hurt....you will get better at some point.

Few things here....
You are seeing the whole situation from one side.
And that side is also speaking from the tenant union rep.
Not to mention the media is the one that is blurping it out.

You did not hear from the landlord side....because the media said
they tried to contact, but the landlord side declined.

So it is nothing but hearsay or from word of mouth.

Who knows, landlord might have said "yeah, you can buy a meter so we can
know how much you use and charge/bill accordingly."

We just dont know.
But since the "tenant union guy" wanted to go public, it is just a mess.

 

Quote from article:

However, an expert in landlord tenant law disagrees.
"I don't' see any reason in the law why the landlord would be obliged to make that socket available," David Garcia said.
Garcia, a former superior court judge, now mediates civil disputes. Garcia says if the landlord lets one tenant plug in, he may have to grant access to everybody else. And since Wiesner's lease doesn't give him specific rights to the socket, the landlord can say no.
"It's not a part of his unit; that socket is part of a common area," Garcia said.
Gullicksen says just the opposite: if the lease doesn't prohibit use of the socket, it's fair game.
"That means they have the right to use the outlets without restrictions," Gullicksen said.


Unless the lease lays out the terms on the common ground outlet, then it is not fair game.
The landlord can deny any requests.
If the lease does not say anything on the common ground outlet,

The landlord can deny any request.


If the landlord is one of the biggest in the area, he has money,
which means he has good lawyers.
Then to have a judge straight up say that the tenant does not have the right...
then the tenant union guy is just a bull sh*t con artist fooling alot of tenants for
no good.


The tenant asked for something and was told, no.
It should have been the end of it.