[ryan_lane]

If a landlord has a mortgage on the property and can't afford to pay it without the tenant's money, they can't afford to be a landlord. Otherwise, they're doing arbitrage and there's no reason this shouldn't come with risk.

Why do we treat landlords as a business type that simply isn't allowed to take a loss?

[c2p2]

That doesn't make sense. Renting is a business transaction and not charity. Why should a tenant get to pay late just because the other party is an individual and not a corporation? If you own a home and are late to pay the mortgage, you don't get to say sorry, I will pay when I want.

[ryan_lane]

Because landlords are a business providing a service, and doing business has risk. Part of the risk around having a tenant is that they may have financial issues and may not be able to pay you on time. If you can't handle that risk, because you rely on the tenant to pay your mortgage, then your business isn't viable. Any business that relied on accounts receivable to be timely would almost certainly be out of business in a short time period.

Try doing consulting work and see how long it takes businesses to pay out your invoices. Be a B2B company, and see how long it takes businesses to pay out your invoices. Are they going to be willing to pay a late payment fee? Ask your accounting team what their average payout time is for accounts receivable.

The difference between these cases is power dynamic. Landlords have extreme levels of power over tenants. If it's legal to charge a fee for a late payment, the tenant either has a choice of paying a fee or having no home. It's an unfair balance, and the government shouldn't allow this to exist.