A case for ethical dealings

A saga I came across today that involves 2 PMs I know. I won't name them here but involves PM B and PM N both in Adelaide.

Timeline is as follows:
- self managing landlord having lots of trouble with awful tenant.
- LL employs PM B to manage property and help evict and is eventually successful.
- Tenants new address comes to light and PM B looks up the property and its advertised for rent by PM N
- PM B makes several calls PM N to warn him about awful tenant and can't reach him
- PM N either hasn't done background / reference checks on the tenant or ignores the results.

From here, which route should PM B take :
A) say too bad, PM B wipes his hands of it .
B) contact owner of property directly since he couldn't reach PM N to advise.

I know what happened, but I'm curious what forumites think of ethical / professional courtesy.

 

Are there any privacy act concerns with releasing information like this? (I don't know myself). Could it amount to defamation? (again I don't know).

If I was PM B I would not do anything.

 

Not pm b's problem. At least they tried.

But I know if I was pm B i would be contacting the owner. And if I was the owner it would be a very welcomed call.

 

So the tenant has rented a property (allowing his address to come to light) but it's advertised for rent still?

Warn him of what, and what would PM N be expected to do about it if there is a lease in place?

Yeah, probably.

If the tenant has a lease for the "new address" PM B should wind his neck in and bugger off and look after the properties he's contracted to.

 

Professional courtesy extends both ways. PM B did the right thing but if PM N chooses to ignore the contact then I would expect PM B to leave it at that spend his/her time on their clients. Dealing with the tenants is now PM N's time and effort.

 

Yea, this is the same view I subscribe to as well. I just wanted to see what others thought before I gave my view. PM N's fault for not doing background / reference checks, he can put up with the effort of managing a pest tenant.

He went on to go and contact the owner, though. What happened after that I haven't been told (and isn't any of my business anyway).

Anyone on the forums have a property in suburb in Adelaide starting with K and a PM starting with N?

 

I would be cranky if I was PM N. He has another PM contacting his clients and potentially undermining him.

 

Why call them PM B and PM N and not PM A and PM B?

 

Because that's what their names start with

 

I feel sorry for the landlord using PM N.
Yet another reason I SM

 

This is similar to the bad employee who gets the sack/leaves and looks for a job elsewhere.

Realistically; the ex-Employer should not interfere unless asked by the prospective new Employer, but hey; my moral code says; "That b@stard needs to be brought down a few pegs and cop his/her right whack"...

So, I'd be on the phone to warn the new Employer - or in this case; the new PM.

 

Yep for sure, which is included in the outline above. He couldn't reach him though.

Ill reiterate the question. Should that be the end of it since PM N couldn't be reached, or should PM B now try to reach the owner directly?

Personally I think if PM N had done his background / reference checks, they'd have already spoken.

 

So new pm ignores all warnings of dud tenants from old pm?????

If so. Completely new pms fault.

 

No, rather new PM didn't do background checks of his own and didn't answer calls from old PM who was trying to call him out of professional courtesy.

 

Doesn't the landlord ask PM N about the reference checks and his/her pov?

 

Good call, wasn't really considering that angle. It'd be interesting to see if he either A) did the checks and convinced landlord it was ok or B) wasn't mentioned and landlord assumed PM was doing his job.

 

I caught one of my PM's not doing the due diligence and took it to the manager. She got me a good tenant after that. Pity but has to be done sometimes. She's not a bad PM but they're overworked and looking for loopholes as much as anyone. Also, I get the impression that some landlords are happy to get just anyone and then hope for the best.

 

Same as any profession really - PM's lawyers, doctors, teachers, brokers, cleaners - some either don't know how, or know how but don't have time, to do an A class job.

Personally I'd rather do full background checks because that's going to save me a bunch of time on not dealing with their nonsense going forward. It also maximises the investment return for the client, which is what it should be all about.

 

If I'm PM B then I would send a wine bottle to PM N for keeping the bad tenant away from me

 

If the new PM ignores the contact by the old pm, it's not through lack of trying.

Why should the old pm get involved unless asked for a reference check?

List the tenant on TICA and move on.