I recently read an article over at Propmodo titled: “Changing In‑Tenancy Chargebacks Can Redefine Multifamily Management”, “Consider the Downside” by Ken Murai, dated October 30, 2025. In the article, Ken argues that implementing resident charge‑backs, thereby reducing the number of work‑order tickets, is an operational win. Below are my thoughts. Propmodo
The Upside (as Murai frames it)
Murai argues that by charging residents for damages or issues caused by their own behavior in real time, property operations benefit in three main ways:
-
Residents become more responsible, reducing avoidable damage and maintenance costs.
-
The number of incoming work‑order tickets from resident requests goes down because residents bear more of the responsibility and may self‑resolve or avoid frivolous requests.
-
Operations become leaner: fewer tickets, less backlog, less strain on maintenance teams, and thus higher NOI (net operating income).
I can agree, on paper, this looks like a productivity win. Let’s consider some counter thoughts:
The Hidden Risk: When “Fewer Tickets” Backfires
The goal of reducing tickets carries inherent risks. Tickets (work-orders) aren’t just “annoying interruptions,” they are telltale signs of resident experience. And early warnings of structural or systems deterioration. Realizing fewer tickets today might mean accumulating a big problem in the future.
1. Under‑reporting of serious issues
When residents learn that raising a ticket may cost them (via chargebacks) or invite scrutiny, they may choose to remain silent. A dripping sink, toilet, or supply line; a dysfunctional electrical outlet; or a heating/cooling unit malfunctioning may not feel “urgent” to a resident. But they are urgent for property health, safety, insurance, and long‑term asset value. If residents are conditioned to avoid reporting, the asset team loses critical visibility.
2. Deferred maintenance and chronic decay
Fewer tickets can give the management team a false sense of calm. But if systems are quietly degrading, repair costs later spike far higher than they would have with early intervention. Think about the impact of the early innings of COVID. The industry backlogged tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of tickets and associated expenses, only to take a significant hit after we returned to business. A minor leak today can lead to mold growth, structural damage, and code violations. The business logic of “fewer tickets = less cost” neglects the cost of latent defects.
3. Resident experience and trust erosion
Residents who feel discouraged from reporting may feel they live in a community where calling for help triggers blame or costs them. That undermines trust. Worse, when minor issues escalate, and residents believe management should have intervened, the resident experience suffers, retention decreases, and reputation takes a hit.
4. Regulatory, safety, and insurance exposure
Many municipalities require timely maintenance of specific systems (fire suppression, HVAC, elevators, etc.). If ticket volume declines due to resident discouragement and unreported issues, the owner/operator risks code violations, fines, insurance claims, and liability. The cost of regulatory exposure often dwarfs the “savings” from fewer work orders.
5. Cultural shift: from proactive to reactive
In short, the charge‑back model incentivizes residents to solve problems themselves or avoid reporting. Maintenance operations shift from proactive (collaborative monitoring, respond, fix) to reactive (fix only when a crisis occurs or when the cost becomes unavoidable). Proactive maintenance is the engine of asset longevity.
Not to mention, residents pay for this service as part of their rent.
What to Ask Before Scaling the “Fewer Tickets = Good” Narrative
‐ Are we distinguishing frivolous tickets (requests for cosmetic or non‑critical items) from systemic or safety tickets (requests that signal infrastructure risk)?
‐ How do we maintain resident reporting confidence while applying charge‑backs? (E.g., clear communication: “Report this at no charge; avoid this cost by reporting anyway.”)
‐ Do we have analytics that monitor not just ticket count but ticket severity, trends, repeat issues, and latent system failures? Reducing the count is not enough; we must ensure unseen issues do not accumulate.
‐ How do we handle resident behavior incentives without creating fear of reporting? Are we coaching residents rather than penalizing them unduly?
‐ What’s the plan for maintenance strategy when ticket volume drops? Are we reallocating resources to preventive inspections rather than assuming “less work = less need”?
‐ Are we fully accounting for risks around deferred or unreported maintenance? The original article flags this briefly.
Bottom Line & Action
The belief “reduce tickets, reduce cost” is seductive. But when you lead the property management team and inform owners, you can’t let fewer resident reports masquerade as healthy building operations. Reduce the noise, yes — but not the signal.
Your action: Audit your ticket system this quarter. Not just volume, but what kinds of tickets have gone away, which ones remain, and what lost signals you might now be ignoring. Re‑calibrate your resident‑reporting culture so that you discourage wasteful, trivial requests but encourage all issues that matter.
In my head, resident trust matters most.