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

I think it's more likely that the rehoused location was cheaper thus this is the motivation to move.

The fact that the other house mate just coughed up the remaining rent pretty much IMO removes this we are too traumatised rubbish.

There is something more to this than just the traumatise bit. It's either cheaper or better, that's where the motivation is.

They rejected any reasonable negotiation with the landlord, they rejected any attempt to complete the contract or pay the contract.

I have zero sympathy for these students. Pathetic folks.
 
lafemmefatale said:
Hardly makes him a druggie though does it. Perhaps if he'd died from choking on his own vomit after a huge heroin OD, then fair enough, chances are he was an addict.
Click to expand...

so basically if its a drug you approve of they're not a "druggie" one you disapprove of and they must be an addict?
 
Tosno said:
Or beta and didn't want any stress. Just as when people pay up when PayPal want to refund a eBay scammer.
Click to expand...

Haha and again. :D

aT61DXR.jpg.png
 
Kenai said:
Because shirking your responsibilities with excuses about being too upset to be able to pay what you owe is the truly alpha way to live :cool::cool:
Click to expand...

Truly alpha way would be to let the Shylock landlord to take them court and see him lose his case :cool: :cool: :cool:
 
Hades said:
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?
Click to expand...
Your analogy of a consumer buying a good from a company isn't relevant.

If I were the landlord and if someone had tragically died, yes I'd take the loss. It's a few grand of potential loss (note - he can still rent it out) and not worth the upset for everybody involved, the hassle and now the terrible publicity.
 
Kenai said:
Did you get burnt by a landlord before? You seem incredibly bitter towards landlords generally.
Click to expand...

Nope. I am generally bitter on people prying on the basic human need for a roof over your head. The same as I would be if water was bought up and charged hundreds a month to drink it, if you don't have your own well. Some things should never be on the market.
 
I think the landlord is running on principle mode. I don't even think it's down to the money, it's down to them acting like kids trying to work their way out of a contract due to a dead guy and making zero reasonable attempt at renegotiating the terms.
 
Tosno said:
Nope. I am generally bitter on people prying on the basic human need for a roof over your head. The same as I would be if water was bought up and charged hundreds a month to drink it, if you don't have your own well. Some things should never be on the market.
Click to expand...

:confused:

No one forces people to rent. People are more than welcome to purchase their own property, you can live on the street under some cardboard if you prefer that avenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom