I have a rental property - a condo- in Colorado Springs.
Long-distance landlording. (*flinch* **cringe**) Oh joy.
It seems like every six months, I'm being charged to fix something. One time it was a refrigerator motor, one time a charge for gluing down tile. Two times, I've been charged for a plumber coming out to auger the toilet and to clear the garbage disposal because noodles had been put down the drain and the line backed up into the laundry room.
My question is - is it standard that the owner gets charged when the tenant is responsible for something, like the two plumbing incidents? I mean, heck - I rent a place, but I wouldn't plug up the toilet and expect someone else to pay $110 to come unstop it. I just want to be sure before I call the prop manager that I'm not being unreasonable. I broke a garbage disposal once in an apartment, and I paid for the plumber to come fix it.
Not much that can be done about a fridge motor or loose tile, although each could be caused by tenant neglect or a lack of maintenance. (Cleaning & vacuuming fridge coils, walking through the place at least annually looking for problems before they turn into major problems.) Most landlords chalk this up to the cost of doing business.
Plugged toilets, though, should be a pure tenant problem/responsibility. 99.99% of all plugged toilets are "operator error"-- either too much toilet paper or else objects that shouldn't be there in the first place like toys, tampons, & cell phones. (For those of you wondering "But what if the tenant was suffering from really bad constipation and then...?" I have a number of gross stories from the submarine force's toilet systems that really aren't appropriate for a moderated discussion board. Heck, I still have nightmares.) 99% of all toilet plugs improve with age-- waiting for an hour or two, perhaps overnight, before plunging vigorously. You could even put that clause in the lease: "Plugged toilets are a tenant responsibility, including additional damage from overflow".
Auguring a toilet. I think plumbers choose that option because they [-]can charge more[/-] suspect possessions rather than human waste/toilet paper. I've never needed an auger to clear a toilet.
Disposals are a gray area (plumber humor). Again it's 99.99% operator error but tenants have a wider array of choices (so to speak) of inappropriate objects to insert into a disposal than into a toilet. I'd still hold the tenant responsible. Care & repair are ridiculously easy and training takes about 10 minutes.
The toilet thing just happened last month, and to top it off - the renters didn't pay in July and August - Can you believe that?
... and theeeeeeey're outta here!
Yeah, I need to make some changes. I received a notice a couple of weeks ago that they were riding through the parking lot with their stereo loud, disrupting people and that I would get charged $50 by the HOA the next time they did it.
They're military too - I had hoped for better.
You already know this, but for the benefit of those who aren't part of the military-- this is totally unacceptable military & tenant behavior. Even if you weren't already evicting them then you'd want them to vacate at the end of their lease. Too many good military tenants (especially with an ad at the local base housing office or through AHRN.com, if it's available in your area) to put up with people like these.
Since you're evicting them anyway, you have nothing to lose by writing a letter to their command. You'd dispassionately list their quantitative behavioral issues (not paying rent, HOA warning) and notify the command "just for their info" that you're initiating eviction proceedings. Copy to the base's legal office.
Any department head or XO worth their commission would invite the [-]miscreants[/-] accused to stop by for a friendly discussion of their financial and community-relations responsibilities. (They'd much rather hear from a landlord directly than to read about it on the front page of the local newspaper.) They'd also remind them that the command would not look kindly on hearing from the landlord that the property had been trashed during eviction, and that such behavior might even invite UCMJ proceedings.
Again I'm preaching to the choir, but the reason the command cares in the first place is that there's evidence of financial distress. This vulnerability to bribery, blackmail, & espionage can directly impact their suitability for continued access to classified material and even their security clearance. It certainly affects their readiness & performance. A command wants to find out about financial symptoms like these before they attempt to deploy people or before it turns into a crisis. And in the worst case, your tenants might already be widely recognized as dirtbags who desperately need to leave the service. Your timely and informative letter might give the command all the ammunition they need to expedite their departure.
Who knows, an outstanding XO might even require them to take a few months' advance pay to get caught up on the delinquent rent.
Consider what that would cost you in terms of your own time and effort. Maybe Mr. Plumber really is the best option, in the end. 
