[Case Study] How Should Shared House Tenant Troubles Be Handled? — Revealing a Unique Management Method That Solves Problems at the Root Through "Aptitude Diagnosis"

In shared house management, there is an eternal challenge that cannot be avoided: "tenant trouble." Differences in values, gaps in daily rhythms, or a lack of awareness regarding small rules in shared spaces—these can spark conflicts that sometimes escalate into major disputes. Given the nature of strangers living under one roof, this is an aspect that is, to some extent, unavoidable.

When problems arise, how do most management companies respond? They tend to rely on symptomatic treatments that lean on "penalties" or "emotional arguments," such as dumping the problem on the tenants by saying, "Please talk it out among yourselves," or resorting to "posting notices to raise awareness" or "strongly reprimanding the parties involved."

Our approach at LLC-HOUSE is fundamentally different. We seek solutions by "objectively visualizing the 'invisible personality' lurking behind the trouble and implementing a system that eliminates subjective judgment as much as possible."

Why do we "assess aptitude" instead of relying on rigid management responses? We have been incorporating this for quite some time, but I have never heard of any other operator in the industry doing the same.

In this article, I would like to disclose the true intent behind what is actually incorporated into our contracts, our unique approach, and the "essential challenges" that have emerged from it, as a realistic record from the field.

🎧 "Listen" note | ▶️Listen to the audio summary of this article: approx. 5 min 11 sec

Click here for audio summaries of other articles👇
🎧 "Listen while you do" note | Audio summary magazine📖

1. The True Intent Behind the Contract

Our shared house lease agreement contains a unique clause called "Aptitude Assessment During the Contract Period".

Let me explain this clause. This is not merely a punitive provision. When a tenant causes problematic behavior or disputes with other tenants during communal living in a shared house, the management naturally encourages improvement.

However, this process is triggered when the management determines that the degree or content of the incident includes "actions or remarks that would normally be considered highly unlikely for a tenant to engage in, assuming they are living in a shared house." In other words, it is a process activated when we feel a strong sense of discomfort, thinking, "Under normal circumstances, no one would act like that in a shared house," or "Even if warned, friction will continue to occur in the same way."

At this point, we diagnose whether the incident is "a possibility caused by the tenant's personality" rather than just a "careless mistake" or a "minor error." The true purpose of this clause is to visualize, as objective data, the extent to which that person has the aptitude for communal living in the first place.

2. "Self-Check" Conducted at the Office and the Referral Flow to Specialists

So, what does it mean to specifically "visualize aptitude"?

At our company, we conduct interviews at our office with the parties involved in problems accompanied by the strong sense of discomfort mentioned above. At that time, we do not simply interrogate or grill them, asking, "Why did you do such a thing!" We have the tenant perform "
self-checks (simple screenings) for ADHD, ASD, autism, bipolar disorder, adjustment disorder, schizophrenia, HSP, MBTI, etc." themselves.

If the results of the check show "signs of any characteristics," we do not label the person or make speculative conclusions. As the next step, we proceed to a flow where they receive a diagnosis from a specialist.

If a specialist's diagnosis confirms corresponding characteristics, the tenant is asked to work on adapting to communal living while coordinating with the specialist. It is a process of improving their life while correctly understanding their own characteristics and learning coping methods based on medical knowledge.

However, if the specialist reaches the conclusion that "given this person's current characteristics and situation, communal living in a shared house is difficult," then continuing the contract forcibly in that state would be good for no one—not for the individual, not for the other tenants, and not for the management. Therefore, our company naturally responds flexibly to requests for contract termination, even during the contract period.

We do not force people into difficult lives by binding them with contracts; instead, we prioritize transitioning them to an environment that is optimal for everyone. This is the stance of our optimization process.

3. The type of person the management side should be most wary of

As we have built and operated this screening mechanism, the "attribute we view as most problematic" has become clear.the "attribute we view as most problematic" has become clear.

It is the person whose diagnostic results at the office show "no signs of anything." They are in a completely normal state, and no cognitive distortions or medical characteristics are recognized. Yet, an incident occurred that disrupted the order of communal living.

What kind of state is this? I recognize this as being equivalent to the judgment of mental incapacity and criminal responsibility in a criminal case. It is a case where a person who committed an incident and claims mental incapacity is determined to have "criminal responsibility" as a result of a psychiatric evaluation.

To use an analogy, it is like this.

The structure is exactly the same in a share house.
Even though a person who was diagnosed as "normal" has the ability to follow rules and sufficient judgment to imagine the impact on others, they "caused an accident (trouble) involving other tenants within the share house."

This is an act of clear "intent" or "gross negligence," not a "lack of ability" due to characteristics. We define this as the issue that should be most guarded against and dealt with strictly within the community.

4. Rental agreements do not include "education." That is why we do not lecture endlessly

How does our company respond to tenants who were judged as "no signs (normal)" in the diagnostic results, yet ended up being called to the office because of their actions despite being urged to improve?

To conclude, our company does not engage in any lecturing or strong reprimands.

The reason is extremely simple. Tenants are "adults" whose criminal responsibility is guaranteed legally, and it is judged that their personality is firmly formed at the current stage.

In the relationship of a rental agreement, "education based on social norms," which corresponds to lecturing or reprimanding, is not included. We, as the landlord, have no obligation to educate their personality or morals, and conversely, the tenant has no obligation to be educated by us. This is not a school or a family; it is merely an equal business contractual relationship, and going beyond that is an abuse of the landlord's authority and an abuse of management rights.

Therefore, for such "tenants who have sufficient judgment but run wild of their own volition," our company requests that they promptly "live alone" and moves to discussions on contract termination.

Our company always tells tenants this during the preliminary explanation when concluding the contract: "Just as there is aptitude for occupations, there is also a certain degree of aptitude for living arrangements."

Instead of emotionally kicking them out by denying their personality head-on, we land on the objective fact that "You are an adult with sufficient judgment, but there was a mismatch with the living arrangement of a share house." We believe this is the cleanest solution.

5. The essence seen from our unique initiative: Conclusion, they were "well-intentioned people"

As I continued this unique initiative of "guiding people from aptitude judgment to specialists," I had a major realization that I was approaching the essence of the problem.

That is the subsequent reaction of those who were flagged as having 'signs' during the office diagnosis and proceeded to the stage of seeing a specialist.

I had assumed that there would be twists and turns or pushback, such as people saying 'That's rude!' or 'I don't agree!' during the stage of encouraging them to see a specialist or during the subsequent feedback process. However, in reality, they engaged with it sincerely.

When I spoke to the individuals directly at a later date, they said this:

Far from being angry at having their traits pointed out, they accepted it positively. The significance of this fact is extremely profound.

In other words, the person who caused trouble in the share house (the person who had those traits) was actually a 'person of good will' whowas never attacking others or breaking rules out of 'malice'.that is what it means.

Throughout their lives until now, they had carried a vague sense of difficulty in living, wondering 'why things just don't work out' in human relationships and group life. It was 'just' that theydidn't know the cause and how to deal with it.that is all.

Once they knew their own traits through objective indicators and understood the improvement methods and tips through a medical approach, they were people with perfectly normal perceptions who naturally cooperated with those around them.
Instead of emotionally scolding them by saying 'That's a rule violation!', it was a moment where we were able to take an approach that was also positive for their own lives by'unraveling the cause through a system'.

6. Conclusion: Visualizing the Invisible and Protecting the Psychological Safety of the Community

The biggest point of these issues in a share house is the aspect that these 'personality-related problems'cannot be easily understood from appearance, a few conversations, or the stage before moving in.

That is why our company introduces our own unique diagnosis, analyzes it, and responds to it, thereby overwhelmingly deepening our resolution regarding the parties involved.Appropriate response routes according to traits(cooperation with specialists or transition to moving-out discussions) are logically branched, which is how we are dramatically reducing themistake rate (inconsistency in response or emotional entanglement) on the share house management side.

I don't think there are any other share house operators who have gone this far to incorporate behavioral design and psychological approaches into contract clauses and operation manuals. Even when we entrust primary responses to AI agents in the future, this 'branching algorithm that does not rely too much on emotional judgment' will function as a powerful operational flow as it is.

I was concerned that this initiative might be a factor that could be criticized, but perhaps because the public's resolution regarding personality and diverse traits has increased recently, it is actually being accepted favorably by contractors, who say,'I see,' 'It's very thorough to have measures this logical.'We have also had opportunities to receive very good evaluations from people in the education sector.

For tenants who are living seriously and following the rules, the fact that 'the management is rational and has a solid system' directly leads to thepsychological safetyof the living space.

We will continue to provide safe and comfortable homes to everyone by continuing to refine our 'mechanism for visualizing the invisible,' rather than working from the arrogance of 'managing tenants.'

Flowchart for Aptitude Judgment in Communal Living

Thank you for reading the article to the end!
If you liked this article or thought 'I see,' please be sure to 'Like' or 'Comment' or 'Share' it, as it will encourage my future posts!

💬 Please send us what you 'want to know'
We accept a wide range of questions, including questions about the article, questions about the daily life of share house management, questions about the share house industry, and other business challenges. We are waiting for anything you are curious about regarding LLC-HOUSE!

《Magazine containing this article》
To build an environment where people can live with peace of mind.
We collect information on systems and risks that operators cannot avoid, such as harassment and trouble response, insurance systems, and responses to infectious diseases.

《🌐note article site map》
There is also plenty of information on actual share house operation records and web marketing. You might find information that is useful to you.

🏠《Click here for the official LLC-HOUSE site》
We plan and operate over 20 share houses, mainly in Tokyo, with monthly rents starting from the 30,000 yen range. We have over 10 years of operational experience and are committed to safe and secure share house management.