tenancy contracts

What a good introduction for your son to his new-found freedom of rent-slavery and getting ****ed over by landlords at every opportunity.
 
You're quoting the wrong person, or you completely misunderstood what I said.

Not really, you stated it may be difficult for the landlord to find a new tenant due to the place being a dump/in a terrible location/overpriced, etc.

If it was that bad, then the OP's son should have considered that before signing.

The LL doesn't need to drop the price - they have a contract stating that they will receive £X per month for 12 months.

They COULD drop the price by e.g. £100/mo and get the OP's son to pay the balance.

They equally COULD drop the price to £100/mo and get the OP's son to pay the balance.

However they are under no obligation to do so.
 
Not really, you stated it may be difficult for the landlord to find a new tenant due to the place being a dump/in a terrible location/overpriced, etc.

If it was that bad, then the OP's son should have considered that before signing.

The LL doesn't need to drop the price - they have a contract stating that they will receive £X per month for 12 months.

They COULD drop the price by e.g. £100/mo and get the OP's son to pay the balance.

They equally COULD drop the price to £100/mo and get the OP's son to pay the balance.

However they are under no obligation to do so.

They would be under an obligation to mitigate the loss as Nitefly said. If it could be show that the LL got a whole bunch of offers for say £10 under what the OP's son is paying, but rejected because they were £10 under, then that wouldn't be reasonable. Naturally the extra £10/month for the year would need to be paid by the OP's son.
 
They would be under an obligation to mitigate the loss as Nitefly said. If it could be show that the LL got a whole bunch of offers for say £10 under what the OP's son is paying, but rejected because they were £10 under, then that wouldn't be reasonable. Naturally the extra £10/month for the year would need to be paid by the OP's son.

I know - that's exactly what I said in the second post in this thread ;)

However that's a very fine line to tread, as to what would be a reasonable reduction.

£10, sure, however would it be reasonable for the LL to drop the rent by 50%, in order to get a tenant in straight away, but for the OP's son to have to make up that 50%?

I would say no, so what point between 0% and 50% rent reduction would be deemed to be a mitigation, but without taking the mick?
 
Last edited:
And the OP's son doing something retarded, if that's the case, doesn't affect the landlord who I was talking about.

So should the LL reduce the rent by 50% to get someone in ASAP and expect the OP's son to cover the remaining 50%?

Lets assume for a moment that the property WAS overpriced, what would you suggest as a solution? (Bearing in mind that the landlord is legally entitled to 100% of the rent regardless of the solution chosen).
 
Last edited:
So should the LL reduce the rent by 50% to get someone in ASAP and expect the OP's son to cover the remaining 50%?

I'd see that as being a reasonable conversation between them. "Do you want to cover 100% until I get someone, or do you want me to accept this guy and cover 50% for the 12 months?" and so on.
 
I'd see that as being a reasonable conversation between them. "Do you want to cover 100% until I get someone, or do you want me to accept this guy and cover 50% for the 12 months?" and so on.

I agree, that would be a perfectly reasonable agreement to come to, and I would hope that the outcome here would end up being something similar, however that would depend on both parties agreeing!
 
What happens if it's expensive/a dive/in a terrible location/etc? Essentially that the OP's kid and his friends overpaid. Would the landlord have to slash the price and claim the rest of the money from the OP's kid and his friends? At what point would he expected to do that? It's not inconceivable it's a bit rubbish and no student would want it, or there's something about it which would make it difficult to let (eg. I once lived in a twelve bed house - finding twelve people who'd want to live somewhere obviously isn't the easiest).

I get what you're saying, and agree with that... I just mean that you're making it sound like there's not a big issue, when there still might be if the place is awful, or whatever.

I know that you know that I was (!) predominantly rebutting the notion they would be unquestionably liable for the whole hog. That said, I think the likelihood of the circumstances you set out are pretty remote (e.g. a place so bad no one would ever take it... Apart from the OPs son who went through all the hoops to do so, or a strange rent reduction and the remote possibility of landlord bothering to ask or claim for the shortfall to the total of a life changing amount of money for the OP's son, and noting the OP states it is a 4 person let). Nevertheless, I refer you to the use of my words 'probably' (used twice) and 'some amount', and will deem it not really worthy of further discussion :p
 
What annoys me with tenancy agreements is if there are problems with the house you are essentially stuck.

I rented a house but ofc landlords don't tell you of damp problems, crime issues etc. You can't exactly see all these things in a house viewing....

Oh nope sorry mate you signed for 12 months! toss off. Bunch of snakes.

Just ensure your landlord is decent.
 
What annoys me with tenancy agreements is if there are problems with the house you are essentially stuck.

I rented a house but ofc landlords don't tell you of damp problems, crime issues etc. You can't exactly see all these things in a house viewing....

Oh nope sorry mate you signed for 12 months! toss off. Bunch of snakes.

Just ensure your landlord is decent.

If you have a decent look you can usually spot the signs of damp if it's that bad and there's plenty of places you can get crime statistics for postcodes.
 
What annoys me with tenancy agreements is if there are problems with the house you are essentially stuck.

I rented a house but ofc landlords don't tell you of damp problems, crime issues etc. You can't exactly see all these things in a house viewing....

Oh nope sorry mate you signed for 12 months! toss off. Bunch of snakes.

Just ensure your landlord is decent.

Which is still a lot better than you'll get if you buy ;)

And if there are major problems you can get environmental health and the council involved (although speaking from experience, just the threat of doing this is enough to give most landlords the kick up the **** they need to get it sorted!)

Again, better than if you buy where the problems are yours and yours alone...
 
Surely they'd be liable to pay the rent until new tenants are found, as opposed to a whole year regardless of when new people move in.
 
Again, better than if you buy where the problems are yours and yours alone...
But when you buy you can do surveys etc to your hearts content. If you rent you get 10 minutes to look around and they expect you to hand over a deposit there and then.

And trust me, having 'issues' in your hands is way more preferable to some hobbyist landlord that won't even give you the time of day let alone your deposit back for 'reasonable wear and tear' or some sort of other bull.
 
But when you buy you can do surveys etc to your hearts content. If you rent you get 10 minutes to look around and they expect you to hand over a deposit there and then.

And trust me, having 'issues' in your hands is way more preferable to some hobbyist landlord that won't even give you the time of day let alone your deposit back for 'reasonable wear and tear' or some sort of other bull.

I guess it's different in London where the rental market is a lot more competitive for tenants, but I've never been expected to pay a deposit straight away - in fact a few times I've had multiple viewings of a property before signing anything.

Also, if you let landlords walk all over you, then that's exactly what they'll do. If you have a problem, then exercise your rights and get it sorted, don't just take no for an answer.
 
I've just got a feeling it's a ridiculous dive :p. But yeah, obviously if it's okay what you said was right, and your answer was clearly a specific answer to a specific claim. I was just curious what steps the landlord would have to take in reality, if it was a bit rubbish - I could have a guess, but don't actually know for sure and thought you might have a better idea/be able to expand on that.

It would have to be a very peculiar set of circumstances for a residential Landlord (particularly an individual) to actually bother with any such enforcement in circumstances similar to the OP where replacement tenants are likely to be found, and also when losses are unlikely to be severe, when it will undoubtedly cost him money and time to do so. If the Landlord does have a considerable loss, cannot negotiate and is hellbent on taking action (pride is expensive and can give rise to immense stupidity!) a claim for rental arrears could be made on the merits of those circumstances. Beyond that, there's not much more I can say... my free time considered :p
 
It would have to be a very peculiar set of circumstances for a residential Landlord (particularly an individual) to actually bother with any such enforcement in circumstances similar to the OP where replacement tenants are likely to be found, and also when losses are unlikely to be severe, when it will undoubtedly cost him money and time to do so. If the Landlord does have a considerable loss, cannot negotiate and is hellbent on taking action (pride is expensive and can give rise to immense stupidity!) a claim for rental arrears could be made on the merits of those circumstances. Beyond that, there's not much more I can say... my free time considered :p

Agreed, cut and run, If you do get hit, it's unlikely to cost as much as years tenancy.
 
Surely they'd be liable to pay the rent until new tenants are found, as opposed to a whole year regardless of when new people move in.

Generally wouldn't be legal for the LL to try and take the full money off them and then rent it out to someone else but they are liable as per what Nitefly said to the interim and any (reasonable) additional costs they might put the LL to by pulling out.

EDIT: I would think carefully about cutting and running though - this can potentially have consequences later though unlikely.
 
I don't know why he wanted to do a house share for uni anyway when we live in the same city hes going to uni and so do the 3 friends he's going to have to move in with....

His GF can stay over whenever he wants, his friends can come back home with him when he leaves work and gets in at stupid hours like 2-3am as long as they keep the noise down.
I don't think he realises how good he has it living at home.

LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom