Evil Buy To Let Landlord demands rent from students after their friend dies(Daily Mail)

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,182
I'm not quite sure why this is even news:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ands-6-5k-rent-students-left-friend-died.html

Student takes MDMA, as many students, unfortunately he is very unlucky and tragically dies. That is sad and his friends receive counselling afterwards which is understandable.

But his friends also decide they need to move house part way through the academic year... that is slightly less understandable but is their choice. What perhaps isn't so cool is deciding that the Landlord can be the one who takes a financial hit for something that isn't his fault in any way. So he is left taking the students to court.

Reading further it seems he has taken a hit buy not requiring the portion of rent the deceased student would have owed. He's also told them they're permitted to sublet the place for the remainder of the contract - they on the other hand have made him an offer instead of paying for 3 out of the remaining 6 months.

Am I being too harsh by not really seeing why this should be the landlord's problem - he's done the right thing in writing off the rent for the dead student and telling the others they can sublet if they're not happy living there anymore but I think he is right to pursue them if they think it is cool to simply offer part payment and do a runner.
 
Not read the DM article but from the description above I agree the landlord is acting reasonably.
 
After reading the article, so do I. As a commenter pointed out, a mortgage company wouldn't write a mortgage off for a wife if she couldn't live in the house after her husband died.
 
it might not be the landlord's fault, but it's his risk. The landlord sounds like a right **** and I hope the judge orders him to be taken to the cleaners.
 
scorza said:
it might not be the landlord's fault, but it's his risk. The landlord sounds like a right **** and I hope the judge orders him to be taken to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

Not really, its the students and their guarantors risk, they signed the contract so they are liable for the rent. Landlord gave the students options they didn't take them so tough in my opinion
 
scorza said:
it might not be the landlord's fault, but it's his risk. The landlord sounds like a right **** and I hope the judge orders him to be taken to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

The rent could cover his mortgage. If they are allowed to break their contract why should he expected to pull up £6k when a contract was signed saying the rent would be paid for a year?
 
Repta said:
Not really, its the students and their guarantors risk, they signed the contract so they are liable for the rent. Landlord gave the students options they didn't take them so tough in my opinion
Click to expand...

Well one of them is dead, does he have to keep paying the rent then?

Hades said:
Surely it's the tenants risk, not the landlord?
Click to expand...

Actually that's why there's a court case - to determine that.
 
Meh, it's a difficult one.

They offered 3 of the remaining 6 months, and the landlord started refurbishment work. I would say at that point he has taken back ownership of the flat really.

I agree that he shouldn't be out of pocket. He could always have just re-let the property. He had 3 months to do so without being out of pocket.

On the other hand, the students were in a contract, and then decided to break it. It's a lesson that needs learned. Contracts are binding. It was perhaps a little harsh sending a "24 month payment plan" to the parents of the dead kid to cover outstanding rent. And he probably should be blasted for that. However he did have the sense to waive that and "let them off" with it.

As for the students, yeah, people die, that's life. Contracts are binding, that's life. They made an offer of 3 months rent, which I would likely have taken had I been the landlord, but then property letting isn't my livelihood, where it may well be the landlords only source of income.
 
I know it's beside the point, but they must have broke their contract rules anyway?

I would have thought that illegal activities like drug possession and using would be a breach of contract.
 
After reading the article the landlord sounds like a bit of a douche. Otherwise I might have sympathised with him.

Renovating the place while they were paid up kinda shows he's a bit of a muppet.
 
Nonsense. Is OcUK so far gone that we can only see money as the bottom line?

Firstly this just goes to show why tenants shouldn't have to sign up to a 12 month contract with a 6 month break clause. That in itself is a horrible situation to go into as a new tenant with a new (potential ****head) landlord. As a renter I absolutely hate that risk and there's very little you can do about it if the property turns out to be a ****hole or the landlord a ****hole.

There's a few clues in that article that show the landlord is a ****ing ****. It's disgraceful:

#1: Asking for rent from dead boys parents:
Mr Toogood had written to Robert's parents offering them a two-year repayment plan on their son's outstanding rent, but later waived the debt.
Click to expand...

#2: They offered to pay 3 out of 5 months anyway. Anyone with a shred of decency would accept that and move on. The Uni saw it fit to rehome them, that should count for something.
Three of the students offered to pay Mr Toogood three of the remaining five months of their tenancy to terminate the contract, but he refused.
Click to expand...

#3: He's a student landlord. The lowest of the low. We all know they're crooks. All of them.
He had about 200 properties with 500 student tenants.
Click to expand...

In short, what a ****.
 
scorza said:
....

Actually that's why there's a court case - to determine that.
Click to expand...
That, and more. It's always the case when parties to a con4teact can't agree, and neither will back down. Most likely, it'll depend on exactly what the contract said.

scorza said:
Well one of them is dead, does he have to keep paying the rent then? ...
Click to expand...
The short answer, ironically, is yes.

The more technically accurate one would be that he, clearly, cannot, but his estate and/or guarantors, are liable. Debts do not evaporate on death. For proof of that, look at HMRC. Many, many people have found they can't even sell property they've inherited until they pay outstanding taxes because HMRC will block it, until they get paid.

As for this DM story, based on the limited facts in the article, my sympathies are with and my money is on the landlord.

Most student lets are joint tenancy fixed-term agreements. If so, all those named on the tenancy are joint and severally liable for all responsibilities under that tenancy, including rent for the full extent of the fixed term. It also cannot be varied, it most circumstances, without the landlord's agreement. If their tenancy was one of these, all tenants are jointly liable for the rent, in full.

If, as seems to be the case, there are guarantors, then each guarantor will also be joint and severally liable for the entire rent, unless the tenancy agreement specifically limits the guarantee given by a guarantor to the rent of a specific tenant. That would be highly unusual, and would surprise me.

The landlord appears to have made a couple of suggestions. One is for the outstanding liability to be paid off over a couple of years. Another is to allow the tenants to find a replacement to sub-let. He was not obliged to offer either, but did.

The tragedy, clearly, is the student that died but it's hard to see why the landlord should suffer financially either for that, or for the 'trauma' of the kids that decided they couldn't face moving back in. They might be young, but they're adults now, in an adult world where contracts are binding.

No court case is ever certain until the judgement is made, though, and the judge has the full facts. We don't.
 
Last edited:
Aldav said:
The landlord appears to have made a couple of suggestions. One is for the outstanding liability to be paid off over a couple of years. Another is to allow the tenants to find a replacement to sub-let. He was not obliged to offer either, but did.
Click to expand...
Aww, how kind of him! Setting up a repayment plan. And asking the students to do his job for him? You can imagine the at the student union "Room for rent, previous occupier deceased". Erm, yeah.

Aldav said:
The tragedy, clearly, is the student that died but it's hard to see why the landlord should suffer financially either for that, or for the 'trauma' of the kids that decided they couldn't face moving back in. They might be young, but they're adults now, in an adult world where contracts are binding.
Click to expand...
The point is really, not technically should the tenants have to pay (it is likely if the law is followed to the letter, that's almost irrelevant), but is the landlord an ****hole? Which, for the reasons above. Yes. He is quite clearly an ****hole.

I hope they get him on the technicality of renovating the property.
 
I hope the landlord wins and gets compensation as they decided to move out. it doesn't matter what the circumstances are the contract is clear and they need to realise that not everyone out to coddle them. He did provide a number of options as well when he did not need to.
 
Scam said:
Aww, how kind of him! Setting up a repayment plan. And asking the students to do his job for him? You can imagine the at the student union "Room for rent, previous occupier deceased". Erm, yeah.

The point is really, not technically should the tenants have to pay (it is likely if the law is followed to the letter, that's almost irrelevant), but is the landlord an ****hole? Which, for the reasons above. Yes. He is quite clearly an ****hole.

I hope they get him on the technicality of renovating the property.
Click to expand...
It's NOT his job to find new tenants, if it's a fixed term contract. It's a contract neither party can vary, unless the other side agree. And the inference is he could pick someone completely unknown, and perhaps not liked by the other tenants.

On the renovations, maybe. That's up to the judge. But my suspicion is that by moving out, refusing to return and refusing to pay what their contract says they owe, they've already covered him on that. It also depends on what "renovations" means. It may be he's simply redecorating, and perhaps repairing damage, in order to get the property back on the market ASAP. Why? Because any court is likely to require him to do everything reasonable to mitigate losses, and also because if he does have to repair damage, that will likely be part of the claim against the other students and their guarantors.
 
It is an awful situation but they have guarantors would they not? So those people either sort out the subletting or pay up? :confused:

It's not the landlords fault for them doing illegal drugs and he is out of pocket.

Personally their friends and family should sort it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom