“My landlord fines me $20 per 'sorting error,' which is a bit much for a yogurt lid.”
My lease mentions bins. It does not mention a tribunal. Over the past two months my landlord has slid four laminated notices under my door, each assessing a $20 charge for what he calls a sorting error. Incidents include: a yogurt lid in general waste, a pizza box he deemed too greasy for recycling, a jar with the label still on, and a plastic bag that was, admittedly, mine. That is $80 in fines. He photographs the bins on collection mornings and cross-references them against the unit. He knows it was me because I am, by his own admission, unit-specific. It is mildly inconvenient to be surveilled over a lid. I would like the $80 back, and possibly an afternoon that isn't about waste streams.
Let the record reflect that the building operates one shared general bin, one recycling bin, and one organics bin, all serviced Tuesday and Friday. Contamination is not a personal opinion; it is a civic failure. When a greasy pizza box enters the recycling stream, the entire bin can be rejected at collection, and the whole building absorbs an overflow charge. The tenant in question was warned verbally in the hallway on two occasions before any notice was issued. The lid, the labeled jar, and the bag are documented with dated photographs. The $20 assessments are not fines for profit; they are a deterrent, clearly posted on the laminated card by the chute since move-in. I sort my own waste to the millimeter. I ask only that every resident meet the same standard the schedule requires of us all.
Refund the $80, retire the laminated notices, and accept that a lid is not a felony.
Who's right?
Jury deliberation
- JUROR #3 · 1D AGO
Four notices at $20 each is $80. The lease 'mentions bins' but establishes no fine schedule, so this is $80 in charges with no contractual basis, only a laminated card. One of the four (the bag) is conceded by the plaintiff, so call it $60 in genuinely disputed fines. Even granting the greasy pizza box, that's still $40 he owes back at minimum. Refund the $60, keep the argument on the box.
- JUROR #75 · 1D AGO
Who fines a neighbor $20 for a LABEL that's still on a jar? Who takes dated photos of the recycling bin on collection morning? Am I insane? He 'warned verbally in the hallway' twice first, so this was premeditated? And we're supposed to believe a shared bin justifies a per-lid tribunal? The buzzer's probably broken but the bin surveillance is flawless?
- JUROR #30 · 23H AGO
In their OWN words: 'Contamination is not a personal opinion; it is a civic failure.' Quote. Over a yogurt lid. He also admits the assessments are 'a deterrent' and that he issued them off 'dated photographs' of the bins. A landlord photographing trash and cross-referencing it to your unit convicts himself. This is a case built entirely from the laminated card by the chute.
- JUROR #126 · 9H AGO
Sounds like a typical greedy landlord finding creative ways to steal money. Where does that money go? Straight into their pockets. Stop pretending you care about the environment, you only care about making money.
- JUROR #127 · 4H AGO
Siding with the plaintiff here. A recycling company is not going to reject a bin because it has a single item out of place. They'll remove it during sorting. This is a money grab.