Evil Buy To Let Landlord demands rent from students after their friend dies(Daily Mail)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
why? It isn't clear he owns 200 properties - he runs a lettings agency. He might well earn a modest to good wage and own a couple of properties, why should he take a hit of a few thousand pounds because some students are feeling 'traumatised'? Just because he has some wealth means he should just let it go? Would it change things if some of the parents (the guarantors) were wealthier than him?
Last edited:
Student rents are higher than professional rents precisely because they are seen as more irresponsible tenants, in exchange for the higher income there might be the possibility of dealing with this sort of situation. Overall landlords letting to students come out ahead, or they wouldn't do it.
If the landlord was relying on the income from a property then perhaps he should have insured against it, or let through an agency that paid him regardless of whether the tenants did.
If the landlord was relying on the income from a property then perhaps he should have insured against it, or let through an agency that paid him regardless of whether the tenants did.
What is the landlords financial position? What if he makes very little money from the properties and would be in financial straits himself if he can't pay the mortgages on the property?
What if he only had one property instead of 200 and why does the number of properties change things? At what point should he waive the rent? 1? 10? 50? 100 properties? Where is the line?
Would you be happy to take a financial loss on something just because you had some spare money? e.g. what if you bought something from a company but because the company had some issues you only received part of the goods. Would that be OK because you had some spare money in the bank yourself?
I think you need to factor this sort of stuff into the cost of doing business. If you base your finances on 100% occupancy for your rental properties, no expenses that aren't covered by the tenants/deposit and then arrange your personal commitments around that number, you're an idiot.
As has been mentioned previously - in this example he may be legally in the right, but there's nothing wrong with doing more than you are legally required. I'm not sure the student lettings market as a whole would be happy if everything was suddenly done to the letter of the law, as I would wager it would start costing landlords quite a bit of cash.
As has been mentioned previously - in this example he may be legally in the right, but there's nothing wrong with doing more than you are legally required. I'm not sure the student lettings market as a whole would be happy if everything was suddenly done to the letter of the law, as I would wager it would start costing landlords quite a bit of cash.
Student rents are higher than professional (for an equivalent property) because experience tells landlords that, statistically, costs are higher. Students aren't known, collectively, for quiet, restrained, considerate lifestyles, often with kids in the house, but rather for drunken episodes and youthful extravangences, often leading to a less than considerate treatment of property, and a higher level of damage and repairs.
If landords "insured" against it, all that will happen is rents will go up to reflect higher costs. Besides, the landlord did "insure". He has a contract, and guarantors. The insurance is the guarantors. And those guarantors are now trying to squirm out.
Like I said, you can argue the legalities of it if you want. But bleating about "what if the landlord needed this income to survive" makes no sense when this exact situation is what rent guarantee insurance exists for. It's ~£1500 per year.
If you don't want the hassle (and combination of increased rental yield and tenants less likely to know their rights) of renting to students, then don't do it.
I'm not saying "burn all property owners!" but it makes sense to reduce your exposure as much as possible. If you let a number of properties and calculate the odds to show that taking out extra insurance is not necessary then that's great, but you wouldn't do that and also not have emergency funds available. Amazon don't insure every package they ship because the added costs would be huge, but they also don't default on payments when they have to send you a second item because the first got lost.
If you don't want the hassle (and combination of increased rental yield and tenants less likely to know their rights) of renting to students, then don't do it.
I'm not saying "burn all property owners!" but it makes sense to reduce your exposure as much as possible. If you let a number of properties and calculate the odds to show that taking out extra insurance is not necessary then that's great, but you wouldn't do that and also not have emergency funds available. Amazon don't insure every package they ship because the added costs would be huge, but they also don't default on payments when they have to send you a second item because the first got lost.
Last edited:
no one is bleating about him needing to survive - people are commenting that it is silly of the students to not fulfill their obligations and that it isn't really fair for him to take a loss of a few grand simply because some students are feeling traumatised after an event occurred that had nothing to do with him
he doesn't have to take insurance, if he has guarantors then the risk is somewhat lower he can go to court... whether he's now scuppered things by decorating is yet to be seen but the idea that he is a scumbag for trying to collect what he is owed (a view some people are taking) is rather ridiculous
Clearly he's decided that his contracts and the court system are a preferable option to adding insurance. He's absolutely permitted to exercise those rights, but I can't help thinking if being a bit more flexible would have reduced the total costs incurred.
I take your point, but disagree on two grounds. Whether to insure or not is a commercial decision, as is whether to write off £6500. Second, Amazon replacing parcels is a poor analogy because they have no choice. The risk in delivery remains with the seller until the buyer receives the items. The buyer is not at risk. Amazon therefore have the same choice we all do over, say, home insurance .... insure and claim, or don't and take the risk. It dossn't matter to the buyer.
maybe, but maybe it is the principle too - I'm guessing accepting the 3 months rent could have left him taking less of a hit than the costs & risks associated with pursuing the full 5 months... but why should he take a hit simply because the students think they might be able to get away with just offering partial payment
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,928
- Location
- Oxon
Contacting the dead students parents to set up a payment plan is not reasonable at all.
Besides, most privately rented student accommodation is rented in such a way that all of the tenants are collectively responsible for the rent rather than individually (so therefore the dead students parents have no legal obligation to the fulfillment of the contract), so why didn't he go directly to the other tenants to discuss subletting or another solution in the first instance?
It's not a nice situation, but the way the landlord has reacted is pretty bloody poor. Students are already fleeced when it comes to renting and landlords like this guy just make it worse.
Plus they did offer him £3,917.4 of the £6,529 balance. Any landlord with a shred of humanity left would have taken that and got on with their lives.
The fact that he started building work in the property during the period for which rent had been paid should mean that the landlord himself has effectively voided the contract. I doubt he gave them notice?
Last edited:
Why not? They were the guarantors, it is more reasonable than expecting them to pay it on schedule. Just because someone has died doesn't mean anyone who is owed money is suddenly evil if they don't instantly write it off. If it was someone with assets then the executors of the estate would still be paying the rent.
If taking 3 months rent and writing the rest off costs the business less then screw the principle.
OK that is what you might do differently but so what - that is his call, how does it make him a scumbag is the question?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,928
- Location
- Oxon
No they weren't. The parents of one of the other students were the guarantors for the contract.
Didn't say it did, but I can see how pursuing a particular course of action that may not even be in the best interests of his business, after a compromise had been proposed, for some romantic view of it being about the principle, would lead people to think the guy is a bit of a dick.
Well then if there was nothing left in the estate (quite likely as he was a student) then he's got no grounds to chase the parents... it isn't clear that they weren't gurantors though
Why is he a dick for that though? It isn't clear it is the best course of action to take the 'compromise' even anyway - you don't know how much the court action is costing him or the assessment on his side of what his chances are of succeeding.