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

Well if you only look at it from a "is the guy legally in the right" position, then you're only going to come to one conclusion.

I personally think he could have handled it better but I don't know his personal situation. If he needs the money to survive then clearly it's worth going to court over (presumably though he wouldn't then be in a position to afford any renovation work). If he's only doing it out of principle then I think he's a bit of a dick. I'm not going to convince you otherwise since it's quite clear your position is that whatever is legal is right.
 
Caged said:
Well if you only look at it from a "is the guy legally in the right" position, then you're only going to come to one conclusion.

I personally think he could have handled it better but I don't know his personal situation. If he needs the money to survive then clearly it's worth going to court over (presumably though he wouldn't then be in a position to afford any renovation work). If he's only doing it out of principle then I think he's a bit of a dick. I'm not going to convince you otherwise since it's quite clear your position is that whatever is legal is right.
Click to expand...

I'm considering whether what he did was reasonable and I'm not seeing why it wasn't. I'm not asking for legal opinions I'm asking why this is apparently so evil in the eyes of some.
 
I don't know, you'll have to wait for the people who think it was evil to reply - though it was you who first used the word to describe the guy.

I've explained why I think the guy could have been more reasonable, you don't think that there were suitable grounds to be treated any differently by the other party in the contract. Fair enough. Life goes on.
 
You've not really, you've just pointed out that they've been through some trauma and supposedly made a reasonable offer without much in the way of argument as to why it was reasonable to offer part payment.
 
dowie maybe you should just accept that some people just don't think it's a decent thing to do, from a moral standpoint. You've listed countless examples of things from rape to roof collapsing. I appreciate that the business end of things seems clean cut to you.

You're clearly not someone who takes things on an emotional level so you might as well just accept that and stop taking the thread around in circles.
 
Well I was trying to understand where they're comping from but it seems people conflate morals and emotions then don't want to explain the moral pov because apparently it can't be explained (essentially because it is driven by emotions).
 
dowie said:
You've not really, you've just pointed out that they've been through some trauma and supposedly made a reasonable offer without much in the way of argument as to why it was reasonable to offer part payment.
Click to expand...

Because they weren't living there any more due to their friend being found dead in the property one day. They were receiving no further benefit from the property, and it was available for the landlord to let on a short term basis if he wanted to.

If you approach the entire situation from "well that's not really traumatic get over it" then of course you will struggle to see any other possible outcome from this other than the tenants paying what they were contractually obliged to pay.

The moral point of view is "christ these guys just found their mate dead in the bedroom, let's see what I can do to help". But you're right, there's not a law that says the landlord has to do anything. So balls to the tenants I guess. It's entirely possible to live to the letter of the law and still be a complete and utter **** - fortunately that's not how the vast majority choose to live.
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
If you approach the entire situation from "well that's not really traumatic get over it" then of course you will struggle to see any other possible outcome from this other than the tenants paying what they were contractually obliged to pay.
Click to expand...

but as I've already explained my position holds regardless of the extent of their trauma and no I'm not just looking at the legal argument either - I'm just not seeing the justification for the landlord to be on the hook for it - the only argument for that seems to be some dubious emotional one. They have guarantors for example, people who have agreed to cover the rent - if there was this absolute need for them to incur additional expense renting elsewhere and the rent for the current property is unmanageable then surely the people who agreed to support them/guarantee the rent have a moral obligation?
 
Last edited:
Yes that's about it.

I think the guy is a pleb because he pursued the grieving parents initially but then back out of it. Maybe someone told him it's bad taste.

I think this purely from an emotional standpoint. I personally wouldn't do it. I appreciate contracts are in place. But I still feel sometimes they can be circumvented in certain circumstances.

The guy might deserve what he's owed in the eyes of the law but I think with a portfolio of 200 properties he could have probably just taken a small hit and been nice to all involved.

Naive maybe but I'm not all about the money and I don't see things so black and white.


That's the divide in the thread. I'm not sure what you are really expecting people to say to give you an answer you are looking for.
 
What we don't know from a moral standpoint is what these students were like - maybe they were the tenants from hell, who've completely ruined the place, annoyed the neighbours etc. and are now trying to bail out with this as a convenient excuse? If that's the case, it completely changes the view on the way the landlord has behaved since.
 
Hedge said:
That's the divide in the thread. I'm not sure what you are really expecting people to say to give you an answer you are looking for.
Click to expand...

well I was open to the possibility that there might be more to it, but yes it does seem to be driven by emotion and it is partially misguided IMO
 
If we're arguing using hypothetical situations now then would people's opinions change if the guy was murdered in the living room instead of expiring in bed?

dowie said:
well I was open to the possibility that there might be more to it, but yes it does seem to be driven by emotion and it is partially misguided IMO
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you wanted out of the replies really. Do some people find it a bit distasteful that someone pursues money in this sort of situation? Yes they do. Can they justify that position? Probably not to a level that you'd find acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
If we're arguing using hypothetical situations now then would people's opinions change if the guy was murdered in the living room instead of expiring in bed?
Click to expand...

that mostly (potentially) changes the trauma they suffer*... if you already consider them to genuinely be so traumatised that they absolutely need to move out then it changes nothing - if you're making an argument which holds regardless of the need to move out then it also changes nothing


*since it is hypothetical there are other angles there - maybe they've been mislead by the lettings agent (who is also the landlord) on how safe the area they're living in was, maybe there is insufficient security/dodgy locks on the doors etc..etc..
 
It's the idea that someone other than the person who lived through something gets to decide whether it's 'traumatic enough' which is the bit that I'm struggling with. If they say they are, a psychiatric examination agrees with them, and they've received counselling for it then I'm not sure that people posting on the internet are better placed to make a call on that.

There's details missing in the article though, for sure. I'm just not convinced that the allegations that they'd fake it to save a bit of rent is plausible.
 
Caged said:
It's the idea that someone other than the person who lived through something gets to decide whether it's 'traumatic enough' which is the bit that I'm struggling with. If they say they are, a psychiatric examination agrees with them, and they've received counselling for it then I'm not sure that people posting on the internet are better placed to make a call on that.
Click to expand...

like I've said a few times my argument is detached from the degree of trauma they've apparently suffered and still holds regardless... I'm skeptical that they absolutely needed to move out but assuming they do then morally, IMO, it should be the guarantors stepping up to assist with the additional costs they're now encountering

on the other hand some of the emotional arguments against the landlord seem to rely on an assessment that they've definitely suffered so much trauma that they had to move out and yes there are some obvious flaws with that
 
Sounds a bit farcical really, taking people to court in these circumstances for the sake of 2 months rent when he has 200 properties, waste of time, should have just written it off as a bad experience and tried to mitigate his losses back in January. Doesn't sound like he has anything better to do with his time really.
 
Last edited:
I doubt he has 200 properties, more like he manages 200 including this one which he owns

technically his wealth shouldn't matter but if we are supposing it should be a factor:


supposing he earns 40k as a letting agent and has some income from this property - does that now make not wanting to take a hit of a few grand more reasonable?

suppose one of the guarantors for the students is a banker or other high salaried professional earning 100k or so - does that change things?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom