While Robin Hood did show a great example of how to best fight greed and injustice, alas, justifying robbery, theft, burglaries, and the like under the veil of all that is good and righteous isn’t always the most practical approach.
But, there are alternatives. Maliciously compliant ones.
A Redditor recently shared a story of how a greedy landlord did not want to part with the $25 per month they were getting from OP after they got rid of their car and hence had an unused vacant parking space. This in turn prompted some very malicious compliance that pushed the landlord into a bit of a bind.
More Info: Reddit
Ever been told you can't cancel a part of a service without cancelling the whole thing or something among those lines?
Image credits: Atomic Taco (not the actual photo)
So, the story goes that OP, user u/eGrant03, was just starting out their adult life back in the early 2000s. They ended up renting a place from a complex—one that also upcharged a parking spot for $25 a month. Pretty sweet deal if you have an injury, a car and can’t be bothered to have an uncertain parking space on the street.
But, OP reached a point when they didn’t have a car any more, so they didn’t really need a parking space (or worry about finding space for it on the street either). And, what is more, public transport wasn’t all that bad, was paid for by the employer, and the local grocery store delivered (pretty progressive for the early aughts), so the car outlived its purpose. RIP Junker.
In reality, you can reach an agreement, but it has to be "convenient" for the company. Too bad malicious compliance is worse
Image credits: eGrant03
So, OP turned to the landlord, the leasing office of the complex. After being asked to cancel the charge, the person at the desk said she’d look into it. Whether she actually did was uncertain, but OP got slapped with another fee. Back to the office. The same lady said she was still awaiting an answer. Well, the answer came about 3 days before rent.
Effectively, it was a no.
The long story, though, is in order to eliminate that particular fee, the agreement would have to be canceled, and a new one would have to be set in motion. This in turn meant paying all of the early termination fees. This is besides the fact that a new contract would be drafted with a new market rent price, which was an extra $1,000. And that was not an option.
A Redditor recently shared how they couldn't get rid of a $25 monthly parking fee from their rental agreement, so they embraced it
Image credits: eGrant03
Image credits: Morgan (not the actual photo)
Following this back-and-forth, OP seemingly let it go. Until a few weeks later when they were reviewing the contract for another matter. This is where they found this one particular clause about the parking spot. It specifically stated that parking renters could keep “a motorcycle, scooter such as Vespa, car, truck, SUV, or trailer.”
Light bulb!
As long as it had wheels on it, it fit the description. Technically. So, OP found themselves a wheeled container—similar to a shipping one, but much smaller in size. $700 for the container and $30 for the trailer registration later, OP proudly parked it in their parking spot.
The rental's management did not budge—they wanted that $25—but what they got in return was a technicality left in the agreement
Image credits: eGrant03
Now, they didn’t have a lot of stuff to fully utilize the storage, but they knew who did—the neighbor. After offering $35 a month, giving full uncompromised 24/7/365 access, he took the deal. This is compared to the $100/month storage unit deal the complex was also offering as a service.
This did not please the overlandlord, and so “out of compliance” stickers, tow company calls, fines for improper parking and the like started coming in. However, OP was a tough nut to crack, and they stood their ground—they had proof of what was within their rights, and could even call specific laws and regulations to back it up.
Turns out, the author of this post could have used the parking space for anything, as long as it had wheels. So they opted for wheeled storage
Image credits: eGrant03
It all went downhill from there for the complex, though. In the time that OP lived there, the neighbor saved well over $1,000 on storage by renting from them, all the while showing the middle finger to the landlord. In fact, others followed suit and soon the landlord’s storage side-venture was struggling.
And speaking of the landlord, their last attempt at “fixing” the situation was to impose new rules. Which they couldn’t impose upon existing leases. And so they offered 6 months free storage, but few bought into it. What was worse for them was that tenants could reassign their leases, which meant passing on the contract under the existing old terms—including the trailer parking loophole—along with them. The gift that kept on giving.
And the idea was contagious: not only did it grind the complex's gears, but it also prompted the other neighbors to start following suit
Image credits: eGrant03
If you need a point of reference, this is what the author of the post was referring to, except in reality it was much smaller
Image credits: Falcon Structures (not the actual photo)
The fallout was that OP was passing by the building 2 years or so later and, apparently, the complex had rebranded itself under a different name. But remnants of its maliciously compliant past remained in the form of about a dozen wheeled shipping containers in the parking lot.
In an interview with Bored Panda, OP did point out that the sky was the limit and they could've easily one-upped themselves in their malicious compliance: "The space was already tight with the trailer, but maybe if I had put the trailer in a large truck bed and then stored motorcycles on top of it... Nothing ever said you were limited to one vehicle per space."
OP also provided more details about it all in an update later on in the post itself. Specifically, how much they ended up selling the unit for, how big it was, some nuances with the towers, the neighbor, stuff like that.
The maliciously compliant author also provided some edits in the form of more info on some of the nuances of the situation
Image credits: eGrant03
When asked if they think the greedy complex has learned a lesson from all of this, eGrant03 wasn't sure, but they do want to think that it made some difference:
"They were one of the only places with availability near the start of the semester. Looking back, HUGE red flag. They nickel and dimed their residents so much that a lot of people stayed exactly the length of their lease and moved out. I didn't mind that there wasn't storage in the apartment, but for a family such as my neighbor, they would be forced to buy one or more garages or storage sheds to stash their things."
"Sometimes places nickel and dime you when they're their financially taking on water. I don't know if losing the revenue from the storage facilities pushed them over the edge, but I like to think so."
Image credits: eGrant03
But you do have to admit—unlike most malicious compliance stories that are set in a very particular situation and context, this one is much more replicable as long as you have a crummy landlord and a parking space that's vaguely described in the agreement. So, you can do it too! In fact, OP pulled it off again. Not to the same degree, but still:
"Have I ever tried this again? Not to the extent of getting a trailer, but I had a neighbor that didn't want to pay for parking and we got a disability space for free at one location. All he had was a motorcycle, so he didn't want to spend whatever it was to keep it out of the elements. So he parked at the top my spot as we had plenty of space to park a Neon. The lease didn't explicitly forbid tandem parking, so he saved some extra money. We didn't charge him anything for it, but he always brought by leftovers when he had a family party and a some decent baked goods for Christmas."
Some time later, when the hero of the story was passing by, they still saw a dozen containers parked there—the gift kept on giving
Image credits: eGrant03
Needless to say, folks online loved it. How much, you ask? 37,500 upvotes and over 65 Reddit awards worth of love. People were happy OP showed the complex what’s what, and they also managed to help others along the way.
OP concluded our interview with some advice on what you can do if you end up in a similar bind:
"I know it's cliché, but read your lease. You'd be surprised how many of my leases have ambiguous language that could be interpreted to your benefit. A lot of states have a clause that ambiguity in a contract favors the party that did not draft it, but I am not a lawyer by any means."
"I have had to Google 'Bad landlord laws' for my state a LOT, not just for myself but for the nonprofit I used to work at. I found a lot of states have dedicated websites and often downloadable PDFs too."
"And if all else fails, almost everywhere has a housing discrimination office where you can reach out and ask questions. If they can't help, they might be able to refer you to someone that can and often at low or no price."
You can check out the post in all of its contextual glory here. And you might as well leave us a comment sharing your thoughts on how OP could’ve perhaps made it a lot worse for the company? Either that, or share your own parking spot stories in the comment section below!