>I've discussed this with the wife before ad nauseum and to no avail.
>She just doesn't see things in a rational way.She doesn't believe in
>legal contracts or anything else. When she meets a prospective
>tenant,she evaluates on intuition.
I also use intuition. The difference is that I have about 40 years of
experience dealing with tenants. BTW, my best tenants initially
barely spoke English.
Here's the mess my last tenants at my last rental left me. There's
more in the garage and behind the house.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/rental01.html>
Students in, garbage out. Actually, there was quite a bit of good
stuff left behind, including $120 in cash in a jacket pocket. I can't
really complain, except for the 7 trips to the dump in my mini-pickup.
I sold the house a few weeks later.
>As i said before, she owns the
>house. She can decide who comes or goes. I'll suggest the "guest'
>router to her. That's a good idea.Regards.
On or about 4/16/2009 00:17, it came to pass that shareyourknowledge@hotmail.com wrote:
> I found out my wife gave our tenant the wireless encrypted password
> and ssid so he can use his laptop via our wireless Linksys router. I
> was pissed, but it's already been done. What steps can i take, if any
> to prevent any hacking? I playing devil's advocate and assuming this
> may happen. He's a nice college kid, but you never know. Am i
> vulnerable only with my wireless laptop or is my hardwired pc
> vulnerable too? Would disabling ssid broadcast help?
If you have a newer d-link router (mine is a Dir-625):
Login then click on Advanced tab
click on Advanced Wireless on left menu
check WLAN Partition
Save
WLAN Partition
Enabling WLAN Partition prevents associated wireless clients from
communicating with each other.
> If you have a newer d-link router (mine is a Dir-625):
> Login then click on Advanced tab
> click on Advanced Wireless on left menu
> check WLAN Partition
> Save
>
> WLAN Partition
> Enabling WLAN Partition prevents associated wireless clients from
> communicating with each other.
And also prevent the OP from communicating with his own peers.
On or about 4/18/2009 08:59, it came to pass that Axel Hammerschmidt wrote:
> totalstranger <totalstranger@not.yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> If you have a newer d-link router (mine is a Dir-625):
>> Login then click on Advanced tab
>> click on Advanced Wireless on left menu
>> check WLAN Partition
>> Save
>>
>> WLAN Partition
>> Enabling WLAN Partition prevents associated wireless clients from
>> communicating with each other.
>
> And also prevent the OP from communicating with his own peers.
>
> What use is a LAN in that case?
In my case it's simply a pipe for multiple wireless laptops to share a
high speed connection to the internet. My partner travels and connects
to multiple wireless networks while away from home. Should her machine
get infected, my laptop is isolated and cannot be seen by her machine
and vice versa. However, we are both able to connect to the wired Canon
multi-function printer/copier/scanner/fax connected to the router.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:43:54 -0400, totalstranger
<totalstranger@not.yahoo.net> wrote:
>If you have a newer d-link router (mine is a Dir-625):
> Login then click on Advanced tab
> click on Advanced Wireless on left menu
> check WLAN Partition
> Save
>
>WLAN Partition
> Enabling WLAN Partition prevents associated wireless clients from
>communicating with each other.
That will prevent the wireless clients from seeing each other, but
will not isolate the wireless connected tenant from the CAT5 wire
connected desktop. "WLAN Parition", "AP Isolation", "client
isolation", and "hotspot mode" will only isolate wireless clients, not
wired.
On or about 4/18/2009 16:22, it came to pass that Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 08:43:54 -0400, totalstranger
> <totalstranger@not.yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>> If you have a newer d-link router (mine is a Dir-625):
>> Login then click on Advanced tab
>> click on Advanced Wireless on left menu
>> check WLAN Partition
>> Save
>>
>> WLAN Partition
>> Enabling WLAN Partition prevents associated wireless clients from
>> communicating with each other.
>
> That will prevent the wireless clients from seeing each other, but
> will not isolate the wireless connected tenant from the CAT5 wire
> connected desktop. "WLAN Parition", "AP Isolation", "client
> isolation", and "hotspot mode" will only isolate wireless clients, not
> wired.
>
That is correct, otherwise I could not use my wired LAN printer. I
should have noted this this in my original post-sorry.
In message <k29Gl.109538$BR.38800@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com> Mark
McIntyre <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>On 17/04/09 06:59, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>
>> Most jurisdictions have an implied tenancy agreement that forms
>> automatically as soon as money is exchanged for tenancy.
>
>A contract exists, but not a tenancy agreement. And in Scotland it is a
>legal requirement to provide a written tenancy agreement.
>
>
>> Depending on the laws in your particular jurisdiction, once the second
>> rent payment is made (which establishes a paper trail confirming the
>> amount and frequency) there may be no difference at all if a contract is
>> signed or not.
>
>Uk law has this to say:
>"...a legal contract exists between a landlord and a tenant whether or
>not anything is written down. [-] A verbal contract may, however, be
>difficult to enforce, especially if there were no witnesses to the
>agreement"
>
>This last part is the bit to think about - if you have no written
>agreement, as a landlord you can't keep the deposit to pay for repairs,
>you can't stop the tenant having wild parties or painting the room puce,
>On the other hand the tenant can't stop the landlord doubling the rent,
>or charging extra for internet access or giving him a week's notice.
>
>So its in everyone's interests.
A contract is generally a good idea, it never hurts to spell out basic
rules and regulations going in.
That being said, where I live, if the landlord accepts a current and
post dated cheque, or two payments exactly a month apart, it
automatically establishes a month-to-month tenancy. The law establishes
a basic contract automatically, and without anything else being signed,
those two canceled cheques guarantee that I can't be kicked out without
at least three month's notice (unless I have a significant breech;
failing to pay rent, physical assault, damage to the property exceeding
my damage deposit along with a refusal to correct the situation, etc),
my rent can't be raised for a year, the landlord cannot change keys
under *any* circumstances without permission from myself or a judge.
My current contract specifically spells out a number of terms that are
unenforceable because the law specifically prohibits them, and even
attempting to enforce some of them would result in my landlord being
charged with a variety of non-real-estate laws. This contract could
actually work in my favour since if it ever went to court, the fact that
a number of terms in the contract are explicitly forbidden by law shows
bad faith on the part of the owner.
So I stand by what I said, where I'm living, the contract isn't
particularly important, but this *really* depends on your local
jurisdiction. A landlord would do well to sit down and read the local
statutes before deciding if they want to rent at all, and what sort of
written agreements should be made.
Another thing that jumps out at me, in the previous discussion someone
mentioned needing the next deposit to pay the first, where I live
deposits must be kept either in a bank account dedicated to damage
deposits or in a trust account and cannot be touched under any
circumstances until the tenancy is terminated, a landlord that uses one
deposit to pay the next would find themselves in trouble if the tenant
ever requested information about where and how the deposit was kept.
I'm not saying that a contract is or isn't required, I'd always
recommend one even if only to make sure both parties have a meeting of
the minds even on topics dictated by law, but it may not be as bad as
some people are making out.
shareyourknowledge@hotmail.com wrote:
> I found out my wife gave our tenant the wireless encrypted password
> and ssid so he can use his laptop via our wireless Linksys router. I
> was pissed, but it's already been done. What steps can i take, if any
> to prevent any hacking? I playing devil's advocate and assuming this
> may happen. He's a nice college kid, but you never know. Am i
> vulnerable only with my wireless laptop or is my hardwired pc
> vulnerable too? Would disabling ssid broadcast help?
Put his computer in the DMZ and let him be the sentinel chicken :)
On 19/04/09 05:51, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message<k29Gl.109538$BR.38800@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com> Mark
> McIntyre<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/09 06:59, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> Most jurisdictions have an implied tenancy agreement that forms
>>> automatically as soon as money is exchanged for tenancy.
>> A contract exists, but not a tenancy agreement. And in Scotland it is a
>> legal requirement to provide a written tenancy agreement.
>>
>>
>>> Depending on the laws in your particular jurisdiction, once the second
>>> rent payment is made (which establishes a paper trail confirming the
>>> amount and frequency) there may be no difference at all if a contract is
>>> signed or not.
>> Uk law has this to say:
>> "...a legal contract exists between a landlord and a tenant whether or
>> not anything is written down. [-] A verbal contract may, however, be
>> difficult to enforce, especially if there were no witnesses to the
>> agreement"
>>
>> This last part is the bit to think about - if you have no written
>> agreement, as a landlord you can't keep the deposit to pay for repairs,
>> you can't stop the tenant having wild parties or painting the room puce,
>> On the other hand the tenant can't stop the landlord doubling the rent,
>> or charging extra for internet access or giving him a week's notice.
>>
>> So its in everyone's interests.
>
> A contract is generally a good idea, it never hurts to spell out basic
> rules and regulations going in.
>
> That being said, where I live, if the landlord accepts a current and
> post dated cheque, or two payments exactly a month apart, it
> automatically establishes a month-to-month tenancy.
Yes, similar here - but that isn't a contract. Without something written
or at worst witnessed, both parties can change the terms and there's no
realistic comeback.
But this is wildly offtopic for this group. The OP should write up a
simple tenancy agreement covering internet access too, and ensure that
the current and future tenants sign it.
> So I stand by what I said, where I'm living, the contract isn't
> particularly important,
I think you'd find that if you got into a dispute with your landlord
then it would suddenly become very important. :-(
In message <Rj6Hl.120269$BR.36514@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com> Mark
McIntyre <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>On 19/04/09 05:51, DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message<k29Gl.109538$BR.38800@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com> Mark
>> McIntyre<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/09 06:59, DevilsPGD wrote:
>>>> Most jurisdictions have an implied tenancy agreement that forms
>>>> automatically as soon as money is exchanged for tenancy.
>>> A contract exists, but not a tenancy agreement. And in Scotland it is a
>>> legal requirement to provide a written tenancy agreement.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Depending on the laws in your particular jurisdiction, once the second
>>>> rent payment is made (which establishes a paper trail confirming the
>>>> amount and frequency) there may be no difference at all if a contract is
>>>> signed or not.
>>> Uk law has this to say:
>>> "...a legal contract exists between a landlord and a tenant whether or
>>> not anything is written down. [-] A verbal contract may, however, be
>>> difficult to enforce, especially if there were no witnesses to the
>>> agreement"
>>>
>>> This last part is the bit to think about - if you have no written
>>> agreement, as a landlord you can't keep the deposit to pay for repairs,
>>> you can't stop the tenant having wild parties or painting the room puce,
>>> On the other hand the tenant can't stop the landlord doubling the rent,
>>> or charging extra for internet access or giving him a week's notice.
>>>
>>> So its in everyone's interests.
>>
>> A contract is generally a good idea, it never hurts to spell out basic
>> rules and regulations going in.
>>
>> That being said, where I live, if the landlord accepts a current and
>> post dated cheque, or two payments exactly a month apart, it
>> automatically establishes a month-to-month tenancy.
>
>Yes, similar here - but that isn't a contract. Without something written
>or at worst witnessed, both parties can change the terms and there's no
>realistic comeback.
But change to what? My point is that most of the tenancy terms are
spelled out in law here, very little variation is allowed. Without
knowing where this particular situation is playing out (And without an
understanding of both the law and caselaw in there) we don't know what
the situation is, she may well be acting perfectly reasonably because
the law may protect her. Then again, it may be slanted entirely in the
tenant's favour and without a lease she might be one paddle short when
the creek turns into a river.
Even if I have a signed, witnessed and notarized contract that says my
landlord can only give me 3 days notice to vacate, or can change the
locks if I'm three weeks late on rent, or enter without notice for an
inspection, at best he'd be fined for trying and just as likely he'd end
up enjoying a local jail cell until his bail was posted (criminal
trespass comes to mind)
Most of the basic terms are controlled here.
>But this is wildly offtopic for this group. The OP should write up a
>simple tenancy agreement covering internet access too, and ensure that
>the current and future tenants sign it.
>
>> So I stand by what I said, where I'm living, the contract isn't
>> particularly important,
>
>I think you'd find that if you got into a dispute with your landlord
>then it would suddenly become very important. :-(
Not really, in my current lease specifically, there is absolutely
nothing in the lease that gives me additional rights over what the law
guarantees, nor is there anything (enforceable) that gives the landlord
rights over what the law offers. The only advantage I might have from
my contract is to show bad faith on the part of the landlord, since the
contract attempts to add restrictions that are not legally valid.
<shareyourknowledge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4acdfdcb-6958-43a6-939f-0d0c3eb3b419@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 3:50 pm, "Bill Kearney" <wkearne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No, there's no lease.There's no rental agreement. It's a house and my
> > wife doesn't want to go through that.
>
> Which is insanely stupid, from a liability standpoint. One serious
> accident and any good attorney could get him more than the value of the
> house in a lawsuit.
I agree. I mentioned this to her but she doesn't listen. Like i said,
it's her house, but she doesn't do things in a conventional way.{{
Do you live, by chance, in community property state?
Re: Tenant shares wireless connection. 
Linear Mode
