Luccas shared an account from when he had to work overseas and decided to rent out his apartment in his absence. Before leaving, he says he made one request very clear to the tenant: no smoking inside the unit. According to Luccas, he directly told the tenant to avoid smoking indoors and that she agreed and promised to follow the rule.
For a time, the arrangement seemed to be going as expected. However, after about three months, problems began to surface from outside the apartment. Luccas reports that neighbors started complaining about an unpleasant smell coming from the direction of his rented apartment. The complaints were significant enough that they reached him and pushed him to take the issue seriously.
Rather than relying only on the neighbors’ claims, Luccas says he decided to confront the tenant himself. He asked her directly about the complaints and the reported odor. In his telling, the tenant denied any wrongdoing. She reportedly dismissed the concerns and insisted that there was no reason to believe the smell came from her or that she had violated the smoking rule that Luccas had set before he left.
Luccas’ account portrays a disagreement between what the neighbors were observing and what the tenant was willing to acknowledge. While the neighbors believed smoking inside had occurred—evidenced by the odor spreading into surrounding spaces—the tenant maintained that the neighbors were exaggerating or misrepresenting what was happening.
The core of the story centers on trust and compliance with a clear boundary set at the start of the rental. Luccas is presenting the situation as a conflict that began with a specific condition: “No smoking inside.” He emphasizes that he made this requirement known before leaving, and he highlights that the tenant gave an assurance that she would respect it.
Yet the later arrival of complaints, according to Luccas, suggests the condition may not have been followed. In response, he attempted to clarify the situation by speaking with the tenant, only to receive a denial. The tenant’s refusal to accept responsibility is a key point in Luccas’ narrative, because it leaves unresolved whether smoking occurred inside the apartment or whether another source was responsible for the smell.
From Luccas’ perspective, the tenant’s promise appears to have been broken, or at minimum, the tenant claims the complaints do not reflect the truth. His frustration is implied through the sequence: he set a rule, neighbors later complained, he investigated by asking the tenant, and she denied it and blamed exaggeration on the neighbors.
While the text does not describe any formal actions that followed—such as bringing the issue to a landlord, mediation, or legal enforcement—it captures a familiar kind of dispute that can arise in shared living environments. Odors from smoking can be difficult to contain and may travel through ventilation, hallways, or shared walls, which often leads neighbors to report problems even when the cause is contested.
Overall, the story is presented as Luccas’ personal experience of renting out his apartment while working overseas. He believes he took precautions by setting a clear indoor smoking limit, but he later faced community complaints that he interpreted as evidence of noncompliance. When he confronted the tenant, she denied the allegations and suggested that the neighbors were overstating the issue. The narrative ends with the dispute still framed as a disagreement between the tenant’s denial and the neighbors’ reports.
Source: Source
Luccas: I rented out my apartment while working overseas. Before leaving, I told the tenant one thing: “No smoking inside.” She promised. Three months later, neighbors started complaining about the smell. I asked her directly. She denied everything. Said the neighbors were exaggerating.. #breaking
— @Shery_cricket May 1, 2026
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
