Logic behind an increasing fee for roommates?

[Talakeal]

I am moving into a new place next month, and the land lord has a policy where every person has to pay an additional hundred dollars per roommate.

So, if I have one roommate we both have to pay an extra $100 (200 total). If I have two roommates we each have to pay an extra $200 (600 total) and if I have 3 roommates we each have to pay an extra $300 (1,200 total).

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Can anyone explain the logic behind it?

[Peelee]

I am moving into a new place next month, and the land lord has a policy where every person has to pay an additional hundred dollars per roommate.

So, if I have one roommate we both have to pay an extra $100 (200 total). If I have two roommates we each have to pay an extra $200 (600 total) and if I have 3 roommates we each have to pay an extra $300 (1,200 total).

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Can anyone explain the logic behind it?

Some mixture of greed and a desire to discourage roommates without explicitly saying no roommates.

[Liquor Box]

I am moving into a new place next month, and the land lord has a policy where every person has to pay an additional hundred dollars per roommate.

So, if I have one roommate we both have to pay an extra $100 (200 total). If I have two roommates we each have to pay an extra $200 (600 total) and if I have 3 roommates we each have to pay an extra $300 (1,200 total).

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Can anyone explain the logic behind it?

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a base rent, and then you an increasing additional amount for each person (so $600 total for one, $900 for two $1300 for three)? Or are you saying the cost to each roommate increases the more that move in (so $400 for one, $1000 for two, $1800 for three)?

Because the first seems entirely reasonable to me, the second quite odd.

[Talakeal]

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a base rent, and then you an increasing additional amount for each person (so $600 total for one, $900 for two $1300 for three)? Or are you saying the cost to each roommate increases the more that move in (so $400 for one, $1000 for two, $1800 for three)?

Because the first seems entirely reasonable to me, the second quite odd.

The second one.

[Liquor Box]

The second one.

Well that is a bit odd then, because he's incentivising you to have fewer flatmates, and therefore likely costing himself money.

I can only guess that he wants fewer people to live there for some reason, but instead of simply having a rule that nor than x can live there, he's come up with a system.

[Rynjin]

Landlords are scum, more at 11 basically.

[Imbalance]

Landlords are scum, more at 11 basically.

Seems an unfair generalization, or maybe I'm lucky to have experienced fairness each time I rented. I've seen enough horrible tenants, though, to decide to never be a landlord.

[Rynjin]

Seems an unfair generalization, or maybe I'm lucky to have experienced fairness each time I rented. I've seen enough horrible tenants, though, to decide to never be a landlord.

The best landlord I've ever had is my current one, and I still don't like him much. He's one of those people who treats every request to fulfill his responsibility as landlord as a personal favor to me, as if I'm imposing on him.

At least he gets it done, though.

[snowblizz]

Well that is a bit odd then, because he's incentivising you to have fewer flatmates, and therefore likely costing himself money.

I can only guess that he wants fewer people to live there for some reason, but instead of simply having a rule that nor than x can live there, he's come up with a system.

If utilities are included more people = more use = more costs. But definitely not exponentially. The system as described make very little sense other than somehow trying to limit occupancy.

[Bohandas]

The whole situation almost sounds like a badly designed word problem from some kind of math quiz

[Liquor Box]

If utilities are included more people = more use = more costs. But definitely not exponentially. The system as described make very little sense other than somehow trying to limit occupancy.

Even if they're not included, more people would be more wear and tear on the house, and the residents are getting more use out of it, so I can fully understand them charging more for more people. But, as you say, that doesn't explain why it goes up exponentially.

I guess it's his house though, so he can rent it out for whatever he wants. Even if it seems a bit odd.

[Mr Blobby]

Well that is a bit odd then, because he's incentivising you to have fewer flatmates, and therefore likely costing himself money.

I can only guess that he wants fewer people to live there for some reason, but instead of simply having a rule that nor than x can live there, he's come up with a system.

With my {scrubbed} hat on for a moment, I shall argue that renting to flatmate groups are of a perceved 'higher risk' to me than if I was renting to a 'proper' family group, couple or singleton. And like a bank, I'm charging more for the increased risk.

You - the principal renter - might be fine [if I vetted you], but do I know these flatmates you propose? What happens if one turns out to be 'a deadbeat' and bails on you? This can become a uber-headache; what happens if you/remaining flatmates either can't or won't carry the extra load from the deadbeat?

It would also function well as a way to disincentivise 'poor' people and 'students' from wanting to rent my precious property.

[Rynjin]

You - the principal renter - might be fine [if I vetted you], but do I know these flatmates you propose? What happens if one turns out to be 'a deadbeat' and bails on you? This can become a uber-headache; what happens if you/remaining flatmates either can't or won't carry the extra load from the deadbeat?

Why aren't you vetting everyone on the lease? That's something you should be doing regardless, whether it's a group of strangers or adult family.


It would also function well as a way to disincentivise 'poor' people and 'students' from wanting to rent my precious property.

Yeah, wouldn't want the poor people getting poor people cooties all over your property. :sigh:

[TaiLiu]

The whole situation almost sounds like a badly designed word problem from some kind of math quiz
I'm just imagining a secondary school student who's asking questions from their take-home math test by phrasing them as personal problems.

"My AC stopped working, and I'm looking to get a new one. I've decided between two models. Model A draws this amount of power..." :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

lYou - the principal renter - might be fine [if I vetted you], but do I know these flatmates you propose? What happens if one turns out to be 'a deadbeat' and bails on you? This can become a uber-headache; what happens if you/remaining flatmates either can't or won't carry the extra load from the deadbeat?

In addition to what Rynjyn said, this is a very normal situation - all renters are responsible for the full amount. If Al and Bob go in on it, and Bob stops paying, either Al had to pick up the slack or a potential eviction comes up, which ever state or province will gave very special fic laws detailing the exact process.

Further, it's common for leases to only allow up to a certain number of people, which is determined by both the size of the unit and the whims of the owner. They can set whatever occupancy limits they want within the law, so if multiple roommates is an issue, they can just limit that instantly without this ridiculous gouging system.

[Liquor Box]

without this ridiculous gouging system.

You call it gouging, but if anything it would minimise the landlords profits, by attracting people who would want to live alone. I don't know why anyone would move more than one person in, when each of them would have to pay more.

[Talakeal]

You call it gouging, but if anything it would minimise the landlords profits, by attracting people who would want to live alone. I don't know why anyone would move more than one person in, when each of them would have to pay more.

Yeah. I would definitely live alone here if that were an option.

Unfortunately, it already has one tenant, and I have an existing roommate who can’t afford to live on his own.

[Mr Blobby]

Why aren't you vetting everyone on the lease? That's something you should be doing regardless, whether it's a group of strangers or adult family.

Who said everyone would be on the lease? And if it's a 'remaining members are on the hook for it' clause, that makes the situation more 'risky' [As folks doing flatshares less likely to have the cash to settle it solo]. And would increase the admin load for the rental than if I was simply dealing with one person. It's also possible other costs would rise, for example insurance.

I'm not saying this is fair, I suspect a lot of stereotyping is going on and the numbers cited sound like proper gouging, but I can see *a* case for a kind of 'flatmate supplement' being in operation.

Though it might be somewhat less gouging if other costs have been thrown into the payment. Like say, utilities. That while water/electricity/heat costs will rise less [as a %] with the addition of additional members in the household, they still shall rise. However, this argument dies the simple moment it's pointed out that it appears there's no extra charges for say, kids or a partner.

Why didn't you ask the landlord for their justification for this extra charge, Talakeal?

[Vinyadan]

I am moving into a new place next month, and the land lord has a policy where every person has to pay an additional hundred dollars per roommate.

So, if I have one roommate we both have to pay an extra $100 (200 total). If I have two roommates we each have to pay an extra $200 (600 total) and if I have 3 roommates we each have to pay an extra $300 (1,200 total).

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Can anyone explain the logic behind it?

It makes no sense, and it's not how it normally works. I don't know how laws work in your area, but I advise looking for someplace else even if you already live there, because the owner could start looking for even more people to cram inside while raising the cost for you all.

The one answer I have is that it's possible that the landlord understood something about supply and demand. If, for some reason, he espects his apartment to become hot stuff, then he is ready to increase prices as the available flats become fewer and demand increases; this, however, doesn't account for the lowering living conditions (available space, number of bathrooms, stuff like that).

Under normal conditions, you split the rent, but the owner requests both pay living and maintenance costs. The point of finding a roommate is to pay less. So if you pay 500$ of which 350 is rent and 150 are living and maintenance costs while you are alone, you can split with a roommate and pay 175 + 150 = 325 each. The owner might charge a bit more if he realises it's a nice apartment people want to live in, but that's about it.

[caden_varn]

I have to wonder what the existing tenant thinks about this. Did he have any choice about more people moving in & increasing his bill?

[JeenLeen]

I could understand the logic of adding a small fee per person, to cover additional wear & tear on the apartment (and power usage if utilities are included.) The numbers you state seem oddly high for that, as does that idea that every person is penalized more for each roommate, but I guess whether it's really a lot depends on how much of a percentage 100 is out of the monthly rent.

I've only seen apartments/houses advertiesed for rent as a set amount, or if it's a variable amount it's based on something like credit score, financial history, etc. (The more-risk stuff mentioned earlier.) More tenants (which had to be approved) just means being able to split the rent/utilites more ways, but wouldn't increase the monthly rent.

[halfeye]

Yeah, wouldn't want the poor people getting poor people cooties all over your property. :sigh:

Really rich ****s can pay for the damage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club

Though a lot of slightly less rich ****s wouldn't bother.

I don't believe that the poor are more of a risk than the apparently rich, but naive landlords may well believe that to be true.

[Mr Blobby]

I could understand the logic of adding a small fee per person, to cover additional wear & tear on the apartment (and power usage if utilities are included.) The numbers you state seem oddly high for that, as does that idea that every person is penalized more for each roommate, but I guess whether it's really a lot depends on how much of a percentage 100 is out of the monthly rent.

I've only seen apartments/houses advertiesed for rent as a set amount, or if it's a variable amount it's based on something like credit score, financial history, etc. (The more-risk stuff mentioned earlier.) More tenants (which had to be approved) just means being able to split the rent/utilites more ways, but wouldn't increase the monthly rent.

A v-quick search shows that 'rent increase due to housemate' is semi-normal in the USA, where the OP is. However, in this case not only does getting a housemate negate all savings, but actually costs more. This reeks of total gouging... or a landlord who has tired of the OP's housemate and desires to get rid without making it obvious [esp if tenant is a minority and/or is passive-aggressive].

If this was me, when questioning the gouging, I'd ask what the policy would be if we were lovers? What about if I was actually their long-term houseguest instead ? Would the gouging happen then too?

Also, ask neighbours [if they exist]. Are they getting similar off landlord? Hit search engines etc, see if this landlord has previous for doing this.


Really rich ****s can pay for the damage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club

Though a lot of slightly less rich ****s wouldn't bother.

I don't believe that the poor are more of a risk than the apparently rich, but naive landlords may well believe that to be true.

Dunning-Kruger for landlords. A little bit of experience and they hugely overrate their abilities to sniff out in advance probable lemon tenants. Ultimately, this falls towards their own pre-conceptions / prior experience of what is 'risky' or not. Truth is, if they've passed the standard vetting layers chances are your 'pick' would be as good as a random choice. Similar to the hiring process;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/insight-therapy/202008/poor-predictors-job-interviews-are-useless-and-unfair

but we don't desire to admit that, because it is [I]uncomfortable to realise how much stuff is down to simple chance. We like the illusion of control, of agency.

We also have screwed-up justifications. A 'successful' rental shall be down to our 'great savvy' in judging character, while all 'failures' shall be down to the deception of the 'bad' tenant. Rarely is it down to our own stupidity, inattention or gullability - to quote Homer Simpson; 'this is everyone's fault but mine'.

[Rynjin]

Who said everyone would be on the lease?

Because I'm not going to assume the OP is illegally subletting his apartment?

I'm confused by the question. Why WOULDN'T all tenants be on the lease? As far as I'm aware the lease is what gives you the authority to charge money for rent; otherwise they're just squatting (and depending on where you live, allowing squatters to reside in your property for long enough makes it legally become theirs).

[Aedilred]

In theory, more people in the house will be harder on it in terms of wear and tear, since flooring will get more traffic and furniture and appliances will get more use, leading to wearing out sooner. It also increases the risk of breakages, and it's also fairly common for larger households (of flatmates, rather than families) to struggle to maintain collective responsibility, with a resulting effect on cleaning, and so forth. There'll also be more use of utilities (electricity, water, heating, internet data) which is relevant if the rent covers that. Ditto any local taxes which take account of number of residents.

So there is some kind of justification for charging more per person in occupancy, although I haven't encountered it myself except where rooms are being individually let. Overall, though, this cost will be relatively marginal compared to the base rent (assuming that is calculated using some combination of purchase price, mortgage cost and/or area market rent).

The system as set out by the OP seems insane, however, and, as others have pointed out, not just gouging, but actively self-defeating.

[TaiLiu]

Really rich ****s can pay for the damage:
Wow. The "Reputation" section is really something.

[Talakeal]

So I got more information. It was actually even stupider than I thought.

So, one of my roommate's father is the landlord. Said father is charging his son a linear amount for each person who lives there. However, the son thinks he is entitled to live rent free in his father's house, so he came up with this crazy payment scheme where his housemates pay his share of the rent to his father.

I still don't think his math checks out, but at least I figured out what the heck is going on.

He is acting like he is doing us a favor because, even if we pay his rent, it is still cheaper than living on our own, and because he is blood related to the landlord he feels nothing wrong with making his roommates pay his share of the rent.

[Peelee]

So I got more information. It was actually even stupider than I thought.

So, one of my roommate's father is the landlord. Said father is charging his son a linear amount for each person who lives there. However, the son thinks he is entitled to live rent free in his father's house, so he came up with this crazy payment scheme where his housemates pay his share of the rent to his father.

I still don't think his math checks out, but at least I figured out what the heck is going on.

He is acting like he is doing us a favor because, even if we pay his rent, it is still cheaper than living on our own, and because he is blood related to the landlord he feels nothing wrong with making his roommates pay his share of the rent.

Simple answer here. Sign the lease with the father, pay the amount on the lease to the father, and sucks to be the son.


This is actually less stupid than the original concept, because this isn't a landlord with a wacky payment setup. This is a tenant hwo is trying to get free rent. All the stupid passes to the tenant, but the overall premise makes significantly more sense.

Also, missed this earlier:

Who said everyone would be on the lease?
... Your own lease and also the law? Most leases require anyone over 18 living there to be on the lease, so someone moving in a roommate would be in violation of the lease and would put the tenant and roommate in an actionable position. Further, if the roommate stays long enough to establish tenancy and does not have a signed lease, then in most jurisdictions they are on an effective month-to-month lease and still have the landlord-tenant relationship, which will be more favorable to the tenant or landlord depending on which state the property is in.

For a landlord, and based solely on your own statements in this thread, you seem to have uncertainties around some of the most basic legal and realistic aspects of property management. I have a single tenant, who is a friend of mine to boot, but you can be damned sure I looked up everything I could about property management in the state of Alabama to ensure we had an equitable and legal agreement, and especially that I would be aware of my rights, responsibilities, and what I am not allowed to do by law. If you have not already done this, and from the sounds of it you have not, I would recommend you do the same.

[Bohandas]

So I got more information. It was actually even stupider than I thought.

So, one of my roommate's father is the landlord. Said father is charging his son a linear amount for each person who lives there. However, the son thinks he is entitled to live rent free in his father's house, so he came up with this crazy payment scheme where his housemates pay his share of the rent to his father.

I still don't think his math checks out, but at least I figured out what the heck is going on.

He is acting like he is doing us a favor because, even if we pay his rent, it is still cheaper than living on our own, and because he is blood related to the landlord he feels nothing wrong with making his roommates pay his share of the rent.

No that's a lot less stupid. That's just skimming off the top. There's nothing stupid about that, although there may be ethical (and possibly legal?) issues with it.

[Talakeal]

No that's a lot less stupid. That's just skimming off the top. There's nothing stupid about that, although there may be ethical (and possibly legal?) issues with it.

I didn’t mean stupid in that sense.

Yeah, its a lot more sensical, but to conjure up such a crazy payment scheme rather than just flat out saying he wanted to live rentfreeis still just baffling.

[Liquor Box]

So I got more information. It was actually even stupider than I thought.

So, one of my roommate's father is the landlord. Said father is charging his son a linear amount for each person who lives there. However, the son thinks he is entitled to live rent free in his father's house, so he came up with this crazy payment scheme where his housemates pay his share of the rent to his father.

I still don't think his math checks out, but at least I figured out what the heck is going on.

He is acting like he is doing us a favor because, even if we pay his rent, it is still cheaper than living on our own, and because he is blood related to the landlord he feels nothing wrong with making his roommates pay his share of the rent.

This makes perfect sense. He is effectively leasing the apartment, and subletting a share of it for a profit. This seems legitimate to me.

Everyone wins too - the dad gets the rent he wants, your roommate gets the lowered rent he wants, and you get lower rent than you would if you went to your alternative place to live instead. Obviously you don't win by the same extent as if you paid an even lower amount, but that's not an option on offer to you.

[Peelee]

This makes perfect sense. He is effectively leasing the apartment, and subletting a share of it for a profit. This seems legitimate to me.

Assuming the allows subletting at all, allows subletting at a higher amount than the landlord is charging (unlikely), and local laws don't forbid subletting at a higher amount than the landlord is charging (will likely vary based on state).

It's happening, sure. Whether it's legitimate is very much up in the air.

[TaiLiu]

It seems like the problem is now social. Can you trust your roommate? Clearly he's willing to lie to you. That's a really uncomfortable situation to be in.

[Liquor Box]

Assuming the allows subletting at all, allows subletting at a higher amount than the landlord is charging (unlikely), and local laws don't forbid subletting at a higher amount than the landlord is charging (will likely vary based on state).

It's happening, sure. Whether it's legitimate is very much up in the air.

I meant legitimate in terms of being sensible and reasonable. As distinct from the original suggestion that the landlord was increasing rent exponentially for each additional roommate.

You're right that local laws or the lease might prevent subletting, although they usually do not in my experience. But that's a matter between the father and the son.


It seems like the problem is now social. Can you trust your roommate? Clearly he's willing to lie to you. That's a really uncomfortable situation to be in.

The OP can confirm one way or the other, but my sense was that the roommate wasn't lying but was instead being upfront. The OP says that the roommate is acting like he's doing the others a favour because it's cheaper than their other accomodation options, which suggests that (now at least) he is being open about what's going on.

[Peelee]

I meant legitimate in terms of being sensible and reasonable.

Must be cultural difference, then, because I see that as nonsensoble and unreasonable.

[Liquor Box]

Must be cultural difference, then, because I see that as nonsensoble and unreasonable.

Not cultural I don't think, just looking at it from a different perspective/lens.

Sensible as in it makes sense - unlike the original scenario or the landlord imposing exponentially escalating rent which benefited nobody. It makes sense that the roommate would seek to profit from renting out additional rooms at a higher rate than he pays for them.

Whether it's reasonable, your mileage may vary (and yours and mine obviously does). To me, he has a thing, and he is selling at a profit, which is the cornerstone of all commerce, so it is reasonable (subject to the possibility it is contractually barred). He's not ripping anyone off - his father still gets the same rent, Talakeal still gets a room that is cheaper with what he can get elsewhere. But I get that there are other perspectives on this, which you may or may not want to get into.

[Peelee]

Not cultural I don't think, just looking at it from a different perspective/lens.

Sensible as in it makes sense - unlike the original scenario or the landlord imposing exponentially escalating rent which benefited nobody. It makes sense that the roommate would seek to profit from renting out additional rooms at a higher rate than he pays for them.

Whether it's reasonable, your mileage may vary (and yours and mine obviously does). To me, he has a thing, and he is selling at a profit, which is the cornerstone of all commerce, so it is reasonable (subject to the possibility it is contractually barred). He's not ripping anyone off - his father still gets the same rent, Talakeal still gets a room that is cheaper with what he can get elsewhere. But I get that there are other perspectives on this, which you may or may not want to get into.

In the original scenario, you have one person, the landlord, who is taking advantage of the tenants which benefits the landlord. In the updated scenario, you have one person, the one tenant, who is taking advantage of his roommates which benefits the one tenant.

I don't really see any distinction in how one is more sensible or reasonable than the other.

[Liquor Box]

In the original scenario, you have one person, the landlord, who is taking advantage of the tenants which benefits the landlord. In the updated scenario, you have one person, the one tenant, who is taking advantage of his roommates which benefits the one tenant.

I don't really see any distinction in how one is more sensible or reasonable than the other.

Well you did say:

, but the overall premise makes significantly more sense.

But happy to break it down

The original scenario didn't benefit the landlord. If the landlord had been just charging high rent it would benefit him or her. But, as several people in this thread have pointed out, charging exponentially more for each additional roommates disincentivises extra roommates, thereby decreasing the landlord's revenue and acting to his/her own detriment. The original scenario didn't even benefit the landlord relative to his/her alternative options, so didn't make sense. That's why you'll struggle to find any other landlords who do that.

The roommate's strategy does benefit them, so is different from the original scenario.

I'm not sure that anyone is taking advantage of anyone else in either scenario (you could argue the son is taking advantage of the parent kindly offering below market rent I guess). There's no trickery. The amount of rent being charged is not out of line with other apartments from the sounds of things. There's no undue influence being exerted on any party. It's just a simple exchange of money for a service (tenancy) - the son has just got a better price than the parent did. Little different from the grocery shop buying potatoes from the farmer, then selling it to the customer for a higher price

[Peelee]

Well you did say:
"The unicorn pizza ate my fence away" makes more sense than "soafhoeht" but it is still not sensible.

But happy to break it down

The original scenario didn't benefit the landlord.

I'd be happy to break it down for you, actually. The original scenario benefitted the landlord. Either he gets fewer tenants (desirable based on the pricing structure) or he gets more money (desirable based on the pricing structure). It's a win-win for the landlord.

A tenant taking advantage of other tenants and gouging them to have free rent for himself is not win-win, as you have described. The free tenant is winning and the overpaying tenants are losing. They both get access to the exact same thing but one pays nothing and the others overpay. That is win-lose for the tenants.

I am, frankly, both surprised and horrified at every stance you have taken on this thread.

[Liquor Box]

"The unicorn pizza ate my fence away" makes more sense than "soafhoeht" but it is still not sensible.

Sure. But you had said that they were equally sensible - your exact words were "I don't really see any distinction in how one is more sensible or reasonable than the other." But never mind, since you've kindly broken it down.


I'd be happy to break it down for you, actually. The original scenario benefitted the landlord. Either he gets fewer tenants (desirable based on the pricing structure) or he gets more money (desirable based on the pricing structure). It's a win-win.

There was no pricing structure - that was a misunderstanding from the OP. The hypothetical pricing structure (which you described as wacky) meant the rent the landlord was likely to receive was much less than under a different pricing structure. That's why there was so much confusion about what was going on until the OP clarified. That is why you'll struggle to find a similarly bizarre structure in real life.

Either way, whether you think original landlord scenario makes sense or not, the roommate one seems to clearly make sense from the perspective of the roommate (who created the situation)


A tenant taking advantage of other tenants and gouging them to have free rent for himself is not win-win, as you have described. The free tenant is winning and the overpaying tenants are losing. They both get access to the exact same thing but one pays nothing and the others overpay. That is win-lose.

What makes you think it is gouging? Unless there's a swindle or deception going on, he is charging an amount which is in line (better from what the OP says) with what can found elsewhere. You don;t have to charge the least amount that it is possible to charge without making a loss to avoid gouging.

Likewise, how does the tenant lose? He is paying cheaper rent than would be available elsewhere. Sure he's paying more than the hypothetical amount he would pay if the roommate charged less, but that amount was never actually available.


I am, frankly, both surprised and horrified at every stance you have taken on this thread.

For myself, I am surprised that you disagree that roommate arrangement is more clearly beneficial (to the roommate) than the landlord one is (to the landlord).

I am not surprised that you see the issue of reasonableness differently. I can see how there's a different perspective, based on a sense of fairness, regarding that.

Why horrified though? That is a strong word. At every stance, no less?

[Peelee]

Put simply, if you cannot plainly see how the son is taking advantage of his roommmates, then I do not believe I have the capability to explain it to you. To me, this seems as if I am being asked to explain how water is wet. It is, for me, so patently self-evident that I am gobsmacked at the idea that I am being asked.

[Keltest]

Put simply, if you cannot plainly see how the son is taking advantage of his roommmates, then I do not believe I have the capability to explain it to you. To me, this seems as if I am being asked to explain how water is wet. It is, for me, so patently self-evident that I am gobsmacked at the idea that I am being asked.

If the prospective roommates are getting a better deal out of it than they would from the competition, then I fail to see how theyre being taken advantage of. Certainly it is manipulative, but thats not the same thing.

Which is not to say that I would necessarily trust somebody like that not to take advantage of me in the future, but you seem to be implying that the roommates are losing out here in some way.

[Liquor Box]

If the prospective roommates are getting a better deal out of it than they would from the competition, then I fail to see how theyre being taken advantage of. Certainly it is manipulative, but thats not the same thing.

Which is not to say that I would necessarily trust somebody like that not to take advantage of me in the future, but you seem to be implying that the roommates are losing out here in some way.

I can understand why some people might think that there's something not quite right about a roommate (which is often seen as more of a personal relationship and less of a business one) profiting off their other roommates. Perhaps that's why you say you'd trust them less in the future.

But I think focusing on that ignores the fact that this is a business arrangement as well.

TO me, the deciding thing is whether the roommate is being upfront about what he's doing. It sounds like he is, which means the OP could simply go and live elsewhere if he doesn't like it. But it sounds like he doesn't want to do that because the roommate is offering them lower prices (kind of the opposite of gouging).

[Rynjin]

Quite honestly this setup is a pretty clear indicator that Mr. Freeloader is going to be an absolute bitch of a roommate. YMMV on whether the lower rent is worth dealing with that.

[Peelee]

If the prospective roommates are getting a better deal out of it than they would from the competition, then I fail to see how theyre being taken advantage of. Certainly it is manipulative, but thats not the same thing.

Except by subletting, the son is taking on liabilities as the original tenant, and while this is pure speculation, I highly doubt he will either know or care about this, and would more likely than not fail to adhere to any legal issues that he may be responsible for in this arrangement.

Not to mention that it may be illegal for the son to charge a subtenant more than what they pay the landlord under the lease agreement. These laws are typically municipal and highly location dependent. Does the son know if they are in one of those areas? Five gold says he don't.

Long story short, they will almost certainly be entering into a legal relationship with someone who very likely is not aware of the legal relationship and may be ignorant of his duties and liabilities.

[Liquor Box]

Except by subletting, the son is taking on liabilities as the original tenant, and while this is pure speculation, I highly doubt he will either know or care about this, and would more likely than not fail to adhere to any legal issues that he may be responsible for in this arrangement.

Not to mention that it may be illegal for the son to charge a subtenant more than what they pay the landlord under the lease agreement. These laws are typically municipal and highly location dependent. Does the son know if they are in one of those areas? Five gold says he don't.

Long story short, they will almost certainly be entering into a legal relationship with someone who very likely is not aware of the legal relationship and may be ignorant of his duties and liabilities.

So you think that the idea that the son is taking advantage of his roommates is "so patently self-evident that I am gobsmacked at the idea that I am being asked", because you speculate that he (the son) may not have a complete understanding of the legal obligations that apply to him?

[Talakeal]

Ok, so OP here. I am going to give a longer version of the story to clear up some misunderstandings.


I have a place where I am currently paying 900 dollars a month. It is a very nice place, but the AC doesn't work and the landlord won't fix it.

My friend Bob got kicked out of the place he was living in for 500 dollars a month. He moved into one of his wealthy father's investment properties.

He told me and my roommate that he doesn't want to live alone, and offered to let us stay there for only 500 dollars a month, the same deal he had been getting.


I wasn't crazy about it because its a much smaller place, the commute is twice what mine is, I don't have access to the amenities of my old place (pool, sauna, weight room, etc.) and I have to share the living room and kitchen with 2 or 3 other people. But the saving 400 dollars a month is nice.

My current landlady tells me they are raising the price of rent $50 dollars a month and wants me to sign a new lease. I decide to put the ball in their court and tell them if they fix the AC I will sign. She declines, rescinds the offer to renew, and sell the place to a large real estate conglomerate.

So, I accept Bob's offer.

At this point, he tells me that he misunderstood his father's offer, and that while he thought his father was letting him live there for free, his dad was actually going to be charging each of us rent. That's when he revealed the $600 dollar for one tenant, $700 each for two, $800 each for three, and $900 each for four scheme.

At this point I am upset and perplexed. I create this thread.

This weekend I talked to Bob about it again and asked him to explain the rationale behind the scaling scheme, and he says that it isn't his fathers scheme, it was his calculation about how he can pay rent to his father and still make a $500 dollar per person profit.

I ask him for a breakdown, and he says his father charges 300 dollars base, plus $300 per person. Bills tend to run about 400-600$ a month for water, electricity, gas, garbage, insurance, cable, and HoA.

I say that split three ways, that is still only ~600 dollars a person. Charging us 800 dollars, he isn't paying any living expenses at all most months.

And he responds that we aren't his roommates, we are his tenants, and he plans to find a fourth roommate and make a profit of the situation, but we should still be grateful because its less than we would be paying for a two bedroom apartment split two ways.

Oh, and for a final slap in the face, he also he reveals that his AC doesn't work either.

So, I am stuck in a much smaller place with more roommates and a longer commute, only saving 150$ a month, which I will likely burn through paying for a storage unit, gas, and a gym membership. As well as a huge upfront investment paying too move and the related expenses of fixing up both rooms.


And yeah, he is already being kind of a prick about it. While we were moving in furniture I commented about how I wish condos were built with roommates in mind rather than families, as one bedroom is always way too big for a single adult and the rest way too small, to which he had to explain that it is totally fair, because we aren't room mates, we are his tenants, and as they call it the "master" bedroom to show that he is the master of the house.

[Liquor Box]

Ok, so OP here. I am going to give a longer version of the story to clear up some misunderstandings.


I have a place where I am currently paying 900 dollars a month. It is a very nice place, but the AC doesn't work and the landlord won't fix it.

My friend Bob got kicked out of the place he was living in for 500 dollars a month. He moved into one of his wealthy father's investment properties.

He told me and my roommate that he doesn't want to live alone, and offered to let us stay there for only 500 dollars a month, the same deal he had been getting.


I wasn't crazy about it because its a much smaller place, the commute is twice what mine is, I don't have access to the amenities of my old place (pool, sauna, weight room, etc.) and I have to share the living room and kitchen with 2 or 3 other people. But the saving 400 dollars a month is nice.

My current landlady tells me they are raising the price of rent $50 dollars a month and wants me to sign a new lease. I decide to put the ball in their court and tell them if they fix the AC I will sign. She declines, rescinds the offer to renew, and sell the place to a large real estate conglomerate.

So, I accept Bob's offer.

At this point, he tells me that he misunderstood his father's offer, and that while he thought his father was letting him live there for free, his dad was actually going to be charging each of us rent. That's when he revealed the $600 dollar for one tenant, $700 each for two, $800 each for three, and $900 each for four scheme.

At this point I am upset and perplexed. I create this thread.

This weekend I talked to Bob about it again and asked him to explain the rationale behind the scaling scheme, and he says that it isn't his fathers scheme, it was his calculation about how he can pay rent to his father and still make a $500 dollar per person profit.

I ask him for a breakdown, and he says his father charges 300 dollars base, plus $300 per person. Bills tend to run about 400-600$ a month for water, electricity, gas, garbage, insurance, cable, and HoA.

I say that split three ways, that is still only ~600 dollars a person. Charging us 800 dollars, he isn't paying any living expenses at all most months.

And he responds that we aren't his roommates, we are his tenants, and he plans to find a fourth roommate and make a profit of the situation, but we should still be grateful because its less than we would be paying for a two bedroom apartment split two ways.

Oh, and for a final slap in the face, he also he reveals that his AC doesn't work either.

So, I am stuck in a much smaller place with more roommates and a longer commute, only saving 150$ a month, which I will likely burn through paying for a storage unit, gas, and a gym membership.


And yeah, he is already being kind of a prick about it. While we were moving in furniture I commented about how I wish condos were built with roommates in mind rather than families, as one bedroom is always way too big for a single adult and the rest way too small, to which he had to explain that it is totally fair, because we aren't room mates, we are his tenants, and as they call it the "master" bedroom to show that he is the master of the house.

Now this is different. Not because he is charging you more than his father is charging him and looking for a profit (which I think he is entitled to do, subject to his lease and local laws). But because he promised you a place at a certain price, and then after you burned your bridges at your previous residence, put those prices up.

Do you think you would have lost your old place anyway or do you think you would have signed and locked them into another year?

Edit:
Lol at him saying that having the master bedroom shows that he's the master of the house.

[Talakeal]

Now this is different. Not because he is charging you more than his father is charging him and looking for a profit (which I think he is entitled to do, subject to his lease and local laws). But because he promised you a place at a certain price, and then after you burned your bridges at your previous residence, put those prices up.

Do you think you would have lost your old place anyway or do you think you would have signed and locked them into another year?

Yeah, the bait and switch element makes it worse.

But even so, he originally framed it as him doing us a favor because he doesn’t want to live alone, which is quite different from him wanting us to pay all of his living expenses.

Out of curiosity, if he wasn’t related to the property owner, would you still think it was ethical? Like, if I kept my current place with the 1800 dollar rent and talked two other people into each paying 1000? Because I get a landlord making a profit, but I have never heard of one also living there themselves as a rent free roommate.

I would have absolutely stayed at my current place. Lack of AC is a bitch, but in every other way it is a great place at a decent price.

[Peelee]

So you think that the idea that the son is taking advantage of his roommates is "so patently self-evident that I am gobsmacked at the idea that I am being asked", because you speculate that he (the son) may not have a complete understanding of the legal obligations that apply to him?

No. The legal obligations are secondary, which I presumed I would not need to explain to you, as you have previously professed to be a lawyer and I assume you could smell the guy's bull**** from a mile away, on top of the self-evident gouging. I may have been incorrect on that assessment.

Ok, so OP here. I am going to give a longer version of the story to clear up some misunderstandings.


I have a place where I am currently paying 900 dollars a month. It is a very nice place, but the AC doesn't work and the landlord won't fix it.

My friend Bob got kicked out of the place he was living in for 500 dollars a month. He moved into one of his wealthy father's investment properties.

He told me and my roommate that he doesn't want to live alone, and offered to let us stay there for only 500 dollars a month, the same deal he had been getting.


I wasn't crazy about it because its a much smaller place, the commute is twice what mine is, I don't have access to the amenities of my old place (pool, sauna, weight room, etc.) and I have to share the living room and kitchen with 2 or 3 other people. But the saving 400 dollars a month is nice.

My current landlady tells me they are raising the price of rent $50 dollars a month and wants me to sign a new lease. I decide to put the ball in their court and tell them if they fix the AC I will sign. She declines, rescinds the offer to renew, and sell the place to a large real estate conglomerate.

So, I accept Bob's offer.

At this point, he tells me that he misunderstood his father's offer, and that while he thought his father was letting him live there for free, his dad was actually going to be charging each of us rent. That's when he revealed the $600 dollar for one tenant, $700 each for two, $800 each for three, and $900 each for four scheme.

At this point I am upset and perplexed. I create this thread.

This weekend I talked to Bob about it again and asked him to explain the rationale behind the scaling scheme, and he says that it isn't his fathers scheme, it was his calculation about how he can pay rent to his father and still make a $500 dollar per person profit.

I ask him for a breakdown, and he says his father charges 300 dollars base, plus $300 per person. Bills tend to run about 400-600$ a month for water, electricity, gas, garbage, insurance, cable, and HoA.

I say that split three ways, that is still only ~600 dollars a person. Charging us 800 dollars, he isn't paying any living expenses at all most months.

And he responds that we aren't his roommates, we are his tenants, and he plans to find a fourth roommate and make a profit of the situation, but we should still be grateful because its less than we would be paying for a two bedroom apartment split two ways.

Oh, and for a final slap in the face, he also he reveals that his AC doesn't work either.

So, I am stuck in a much smaller place with more roommates and a longer commute, only saving 150$ a month, which I will likely burn through paying for a storage unit, gas, and a gym membership. As well as a huge upfront investment paying too move and the related expenses of fixing up both rooms.


And yeah, he is already being kind of a prick about it. While we were moving in furniture I commented about how I wish condos were built with roommates in mind rather than families, as one bedroom is always way too big for a single adult and the rest way too small, to which he had to explain that it is totally fair, because we aren't room mates, we are his tenants, and as they call it the "master" bedroom to show that he is the master of the house.

Ok, here's the important question. Who are you signing the lease with? The father or the son? If the answer is "neither", then contact the father and ask him to sign a lease to get everything all set.

Also, look up to see if landlords are required to repair air conditioners in your state.

[Talakeal]

Also, look up to see if landlords are required to repair air conditioners in your state.

Unfortunately no, as CO is a colder state, heating is mandatory, AC isn’t.

Trust me, I have looked, and if there was any way to force the landlady to fix the AC I would have done so long ago as that is my only complaint about my current place.

[Liquor Box]

Yeah, the bait and switch element makes it worse.

But even so, he originally framed it as him doing us a favor because he doesn’t want to live alone, which is quite different from him wanting us to pay all of his living expenses.

Out of curiosity, if he wasn’t related to the property owner, would you still think it was ethical? Like, if I kept my current place with the 1800 dollar rent and talked two other people into each paying 1000? Because I get a landlord making a profit, but I have never heard of one also living there themselves as a rent free roommate.

I would have absolutely stayed at my current place. Lack of AC is a bitch, but in every other way it is a great place at a decent price.

I don't think him being related to the property owner makes a difference (unless he's lying to his dad, which would be an issue between them.

Here it is pretty common to have arrangements like that. Several times while i was studying I lived with roommates who had a lease with the landlord and then they charged me. I didn't mind if it was slightly more expensive because I didn't have any of the obligations that the tenant had (I could move out without finding someone to replace me for example). If I hadn't liked it, I could gone and entered into a tenancy agreement directly with a landlord at a different place.

In my opinion, if he's being clear and honest about what he's offering, then he's not doing anything wrong. The problem is if he baited you by saying one thing, then switched it up when it was too late for you to back out.

[Peelee]

Unfortunately no, as CO is a colder state, heating is mandatory, AC isn’t.

Trust me, I have looked, and if there was any way to force the landlady to fix the AC I would have done so long ago as that is my only complaint about my current place.

That sucks.

Also, you probably won't want to act on this to start with since you'd need a lawyer (especially since I am not one and can give only the most basic of legal information), but based on what you've said, you might want to look into "promissory estoppel". It's a fun legal principal that basically says "I made a decision based on something you promised and you changed the deal afterwards and that cost me money, so it's on your head to fix it". More or less.

[Liquor Box]

No. The legal obligations are secondary, which I presumed I would not need to explain to you, as you have previously professed to be a lawyer and I assume you could smell the guy's bull**** from a mile away, on top of the self-evident gouging. I may have been incorrect on that assessment.
You mean the legal obligations you speculate might exist?

You refer to price gouging again, but earlier you said you did not have the capability to explain why it is price gouging (or taking advantage). Generally, if you are unable to articulate why something is a certain way, it may be worth reexamining whether you were right to assume it was so.


, you might want to look into "promissory estoppel". It's a fun legal principal that basically says "I made a decision based on something you promised and you changed the deal afterwards and that cost me money, so it's on your head to fix it". More or less.

I suggest he would have better luck alleging that a contract was in place for the lower amount, through their oral agreement. I have my doubts based on what's been said in this thread (he put the rent up in the same conversation where Talakeal was going to accept), but I think it's an easier bar to meet.

[Peelee]

You mean the legal obligations you speculate might exist?

The legal obligations that absolutely do exist, if the son is subletting. Again, I assumed this was not something I needed to explain to a lawyer. I apologize for that assumption.

You refer to price gouging again, but earlier you said you did not have the capability to explain why it is price gouging (or taking advantage). Generally, if you are unable to articulate why something is a certain way, it may be worth reexamining whether you were right to assume it was so.
Allow me to rephrase. I do not believe I had the capability to explain to you specifically, as I vehemently disagreed with what you were saying to such an extent that I do not think I would be able to put it any better than I already had.

Also, upon learning that such arrangements are common where you live, I I was similarly shocked.

[Liquor Box]

The legal obligations that absolutely do exist, if the son is subletting. Again, I assumed this was not something I needed to explain to a lawyer. I apologize for that assumption.

Well that depends which obligations you mean. I thought you were talking about the possibility local law, or the lease itself prohibited subletting. What obligation were you referring to exactly?

No apologies needed. I often find myself failing to explain things that I assume others will know or understand, only to find they hadn't. We don't all know what the other knows or thinks - such is the beauty of discussion forums.

[Peelee]

Well that depends which obligations you mean. I thought you were talking about the possibility local law, or the lease itself prohibited subletting. What obligation were you referring to exactly?

I do not know how tenancy works where you live, but here, no legal relationship exists between landlord and subtenant. Legal relationship exists between landlord and tenant/sublesor, and sublesor and sublessee.

[Liquor Box]

I do not know how tenancy works where you live, but here, no legal relationship exists between landlord and subtenant. Legal relationship exists between landlord and tenant/sublesor, and sublesor and sublessee.

Here contractual relationships exist between the landlord and tenant, and seperately between tenant and subtenant.

There are some forms of law that may apply between a landlord and a sublesee - for example a subtenant might be liable directly in negligence if they negligently started a fire that harmed the house. But nothing onerous.



Allow me to rephrase. I do not believe I had the capability to explain to you specifically, as I vehemently disagreed with what you were saying to such an extent that I do not think I would be able to put it any better than I already had.

Oh, has you explained somewhere previously in this thread why you think that sublettting for rent, which is lower than the market rent is gouging? (to me, or to anyone else). Where did you say so?


Also, upon learning that such arrangements are common where you live, I I was similarly shocked

Yes, well maybe I was wrong to dismiss your early suggestion that our different perspectives arose from different practices in our country. It is common here, and makes sense. Someone chooses to take on the responsibilities and risk arising from being on the lease, but they can offset their rent a little by renting out to be people who don't want such resposibilities. I've only ever been in the position of the roommate whose not on the lease myself, but I fail to see the disadvantage of such a system.

[Peelee]

Here contractual relationships exist between the landlord and tenant, and seperately between tenant and subtenant.
Then I am confused at your earlier confusion at this concept.

Oh, has you explained somewhere previously in this thread why you think that sublettting for rent, which is lower than the market rent is gouging? (to me, or to anyone else). Where did you say so?
We only have Bob's word that it is under market rent. Bob is clearly acting solely in Bob's own self-interest and may not be offering a fair comparison when he envisions a more expensive two-bedroom apartment. Further, there is also a marked difference in value in having significantly more roommates, which is the case here, as well as actually living with the sublessor. Given how Bob has presented the situation (which you also found laughable at points, eg. asserting that having the master bedroom made him master of the house), I am not inclined to grant him the benefit of the doubt. Especially when OP is going to be paying more for amenities he might otherwise be getting.

Yes, well maybe I was wrong to dismiss your early suggestion that our different perspectives arose from different practices in our country. It is common here, and makes sense. Someone chooses to take on the responsibilities and risk arising from being on the lease, but they can offset their rent a little by renting out to be people who don't want such resposibilities. I've only ever been in the position of the roommate whose not on the lease myself, but I fail to see the disadvantage of such a system.
It's an issue of middle-men. I have a rather extreme dislike of middle-men due to my extensive experience in the healthcare system, which I am unable to go into further here. Suffice it to say that, on another medium of discussion, I could find it trivially easy to make the case that a great deal of middle-men do nothing except drive up the cost to the end-consumer, as might be the case in a tenant subleasing an apartment or house at a profit.

[Liquor Box]

Then I am confused at your earlier confusion at this concept.

Obviously one of us, probably both, is misunderstanding something the other is saying here.


We only have Bob's word that it is under market rent. Bob is clearly acting solely in Bob's own self-interest and may not be offering a fair comparison when he envisions a more expensive two-bedroom apartment. Further, there is also a marked difference in value in having significantly more roommates, which is the case here, as well as actually living with the sublessor. Given how Bob has presented the situation (which you also found laughable at points, eg. asserting that having the master bedroom made him master of the house), I am not inclined to grant him the benefit of the doubt. Especially when OP is going to be paying more for amenities he might otherwise be getting.

I wasn't going of Bob's word that is it under market rent. I was going off Talakeal saying that it was cheaper than his last place, and an assumption that Talakeal might have a reasonable idea of market rents in the area and wouldn't have moved in if it was above market rent. Given Talakeal's later post, it may be that this difference in price can be explained by the difference in location, quality and number of roommates. But if the apartment is above market rent, then Bob's plan will be self-defeating - he will have trouble filling the rooms, and it will cost him. That calls into question how smart Bob is, but doesn't mean he's taking advantage of people.

Bob is clearly self-interested, as you'd usually expect in a business deal - I accept this is a bit different because the two were friends first.


It's an issue of middle-men. I have a rather extreme dislike of middle-men due to my extensive experience in the healthcare system, which I am unable to go into further here. Suffice it to say that, on another medium of discussion, I could find it trivially easy to make the case that a great deal of middle-men do nothing except drive up the cost to the end-consumer, as might be the case in a tenant subleasing an apartment or house at a profit.

Well, most commerce works through middle men, All retailers are effectively middle men, as are all brokers and wholesalers. The exist because they provide a service (so add value) in exchange for taking a cut. In the case of tenants who sublet, they assume a good deal or risk on behalf of the other roommates and take some administrative burden on. If you are saying you disagree, and that you think that all (or most) middle men don't add sufficient value to justify their cut, but you can't explain because of forum rules, I can understand that. But I do think saying that it was 'patently self evident' probably put it too strongly.

[Peelee]

I wasn't going of Bob's word that is it under market rent. I was going off Talakeal saying that it was cheaper than his last place

And you did not consider the numerous amenities he mentioned that the last place had that this place did not?

[Beeftank]

Is pretty clear to me the friend is upset he has to pay rent to live in a house that isn’t his and is trying to hook wink his friends to subsidize his expenses under the guise of doing them a favor. You need to talk to the guys dad (aka the actual landlord) about this. I have a suspicion the guy might be doing this without his knowledge.

[Talakeal]

It is below market value. Housing prices in CO are insane right now.

Still though, it is for a single very tiny room and a small kitchen I have to share with 2-3 other people. Paying market value would get me a much nicer place much closer to work, like the one I already had before this came up.

[halfeye]

It is below market value. Housing prices in CO are insane right now.

Still though, it is for a single very tiny room and a small kitchen I have to share with 2-3 other people. Paying market value would get me a much nicer place much closer to work, like the one I already had before this came up.

Doesn't market value vary with property size?

[Talakeal]

Doesn't market value vary with property size?

Yes… but the property itself isn’t too bad, its just that I am in the smallest room and have to share the common areas with 2 or 3 other people.

If I had two friends who were willing to split expenses evenly we could get a much nicer place for only a little more money.

[Liquor Box]

And you did not consider the numerous amenities he mentioned that the last place had that this place did not?

I did consider it. That's why I said in the very post you quoted "Given Talakeal's later post, it may be that this difference in price can be explained by the difference in location, quality and number of roommates.".

Anyway, Talakeal has now confirmed that is below market value. So perhaps not quite as obvious as you thought.

[Dragonus45]

In the original scenario, you have one person, the landlord, who is taking advantage of the tenants which benefits the landlord. In the updated scenario, you have one person, the one tenant, who is taking advantage of his roommates which benefits the one tenant.

I don't really see any distinction in how one is more sensible or reasonable than the other.

"Taking advantage of" carries certain connotations I don't think fit here. Person A get's a place to live, Person C gets money for it, person B manages the in between and makes sure the people who are in the house don't burn it down and pay on time. Everyone wins, no one is being exploited.

[Rynjin]

"Taking advantage of" carries certain connotations I don't think fit here. Person A get's a place to live, Person C gets money for it, person B manages the in between and makes sure the people who are in the house don't burn it down and pay on time. Everyone wins, no one is being exploited.

I mean, no, there absolutely is someone being exploited. Freeloader used deception and misdirection to trick people into this arrangement which, once agreed to, becomes a giant pain in the ass to get out of.

[Liquor Box]

I mean, no, there absolutely is someone being exploited. Freeloader used deception and misdirection to trick people into this arrangement which, once agreed to, becomes a giant pain in the ass to get out of.

There is no deception, misdirection or tricks in Talakeal's explanation of what happened. You can be critical of the 'freeloader' changing the rental arrangements after Talakeal had lost his previous apartment (but before he'd agreed to take on this new one), but that doesn't suggest any dishonesty. It feels like you are assuming that because a person wants to make a profit (or at least not pay rent himself) he must be a bad person, and therefore must be being dishonest.

[Beeftank]

We think he’s being dishonest because he withheld information about the living arrangements because he wants his friends to subsidize housing costs because he feels entitled to live there for free even though the landlord (the guys dad) said that wouldn’t be the case. He’s clearly taking advantage of his friends instead of offering to split the rent equally which is what any other reasonable roomate would do.

[Liquor Box]

We think he’s being dishonest because he withheld information about the living arrangements because he wants his friends to subsidize housing costs because he feels entitled to live there for free even though the landlord (the guys dad) said that wouldn’t be the case. He’s clearly taking advantage of his friends instead of offering to split the rent equally which is what any other reasonable roomate would do.

No he didn't withhold information about the living arrangements. Here;s the relevant passage from Talakeal's explanation:

he tells me that he misunderstood his father's offer, and that while he thought his father was letting him live there for free, his dad was actually going to be charging each of us rent. That's when he revealed the $600 dollar for one tenant, $700 each for two, $800 each for three, and $900 each for four scheme.

At this point I am upset and perplexed. I create this thread.

This weekend I talked to Bob about it again and asked him to explain the rationale behind the scaling scheme, and he says that it isn't his fathers scheme, it was his calculation about how he can pay rent to his father and still make a $500 dollar per person profit.

So he was open that he had originally thought that his dad would forgo his rent, but then found out that his dad expected rent from him to, so he increased his roommates rent to cover his portion and make a profit. Can you quote the part of Talakeal's explanation that you think demonstrates dishonesty.

The son has the benefit of being leased an apartment for well below market rent by his father. While the most generous thing to do might be to split that benefit equally amongst his roommates, he is by no means obligated to do that. He is entitled to take the great deal he got from his dad, and give his roommates a deal which is still good for them (relative to market rents) but profits him as well.

[Rynjin]

There is no deception, misdirection or tricks in Talakeal's explanation of what happened. You can be critical of the 'freeloader' changing the rental arrangements after Talakeal had lost his previous apartment (but before he'd agreed to take on this new one), but that doesn't suggest any dishonesty. It feels like you are assuming that because a person wants to make a profit (or at least not pay rent himself) he must be a bad person, and therefore must be being dishonest.

...Yes, changing the deal once you know someone has no choice but to accept is dishonest. If you don't think that, we have no further need to discuss this topic. Or any other topic for that matter.

[Liquor Box]

...Yes, changing the deal once you know someone has no choice but to accept is dishonest. If you don't think that, we have no further need to discuss this topic. Or any other topic for that matter.

It would be if Bob had deliberately offered lower rates originally, knowing that he would raise them later. But that is not what Talakeal's account says happened. If the circumstances changed (or even if Bob just changed his mind) it would not be dishonest - it may still not be the right thing to do (certainly not if he just changed his mind IMO), but not a question of honesty.

Is it that you assume Bob was being deceitful at the outset when offering the lower rates? If so, do you have any basis for that, or are we back to thinking he seems the sort of person who would be dishonest?

As for whether we have further need to discuss, that's up to you. Feel free to respond, or not, as you choose.

[Talakeal]

We think he’s being dishonest because he withheld information about the living arrangements because he wants his friends to subsidize housing costs because he feels entitled to live there for free even though the landlord (the guys dad) said that wouldn’t be the case. He’s clearly taking advantage of his friends instead of offering to split the rent equally which is what any other reasonable roomate would do.

That is pretty much how I feel about it as well, but with the added bit that he raised the prices after I had already passed up on a better deal as a result, and didn't mention that he would be living rent free (and considers us his tenants rather than roommates) until pressed.

I don't know, having a roommate who doesn't pay his share of the rent (or expenses) just because he is related to the landlord feels unethical to me, especially when said landlord is still charging him rent for the arrangement!

Like, I get that we get a better deal than we would living someplace else (at least financially, and when you factor in extra gas and amenities only slightly), but on the flip side, he is also getting a better deal by finding roommates who are willing to split expenses with him, because if he lived alone he would be on the hook for the full 1800 dollars a month.

[Keltest]

That is pretty much how I feel about it as well, but with the added bit that he raised the prices after I had already passed up on a better deal as a result, and didn't mention that he would be living rent free (and considers us his tenants rather than roommates) until pressed.

I don't know, having a roommate who doesn't pay his share of the rent (or expenses) just because he is related to the landlord feels unethical to me, especially when said landlord is still charging him rent for the arrangement!

Like, I get that we get a better deal than we would living someplace else (at least financially, and when you factor in extra gas and amenities only slightly), but on the flip side, he is also getting a better deal by finding roommates who are willing to split expenses with him, because if he lived alone he would be on the hook for the full 1800 dollars a month.

That still doesnt sound dishonest to me, just crass. Except maybe for the part about raising the price; its unclear to me how much of that was a miscommunication/misunderstanding on his part versus actually changing things after his initial sales pitch.

All in all, this sounds like a very good example of why you should never enter into a financial arrangement with a friend though. The only healthy way for money to transfer between friends is as explicit gifts, otherwise either the finances or the friendship suffers.

[Rynjin]

Lies by omission are still lies. That is why it's dishonest.

Lies don't need to be as obvious as telling someone "the sky is green".

I figured this was common knowledge, as variants on scams like this are pretty common. The only difference here is Freeloader has the absolute chutzpah to actually stick around and live in the same location as the people he's fleeced.

[Talakeal]

That still doesnt sound dishonest to me, just crass. Except maybe for the part about raising the price; its unclear to me how much of that was a miscommunication/misunderstanding on his part versus actually changing things after his initial sales pitch.

He gave me a price of $500 dollars a month. $500 dollars would almost cover a third of the total expenses, although his room is still more than twice the size of mine so it makes sense that he would pay slightly more, especially when he pitches it to us as cutting us a great deal because he doesn't want to live alone. I told him I would think about it, and lost my lease as a result.

Then he found out that his dad would still be wanting rent from him, but he still wanted to live rent free.

So when I came to him to accept his offer, he told me that was no longer on the table, pitched this crazy rent scaling thing where we pay 800 dollars a month (900 when a fourth person moves in, which still doesn't make any sense at all) which I would have never considered, but now had no choice to accept because I had already lost my old lease.

[TaiLiu]

You are in an experiment. You are Alice. The person across from you is Bill.

The experimenter gives $20 to Bill, and tells Bill that he must split the money however he would like between the two of you. Bill decides that the Alice:Bill split ought to be $1:$19.

You, Alice, must either (a) accept the deal and the uneven split, or (b) reject it, which will cause both of you to leave with $0.

I think there are cultural differences that influence whether you accept the deal or not. But likely there are psychological differences, too. I suspect that said psychological differences are causing some of the disagreement in this thread.


The OP can confirm one way or the other, but my sense was that the roommate wasn't lying but was instead being upfront. The OP says that the roommate is acting like he's doing the others a favour because it's cheaper than their other accomodation options, which suggests that (now at least) he is being open about what's going on.
I think other details by Talakeal has confirmed that he wasn't being open. He is open now, after prompting. But dishonesty like that is not a characteristic I would look for in a roommate.


Quite honestly this setup is a pretty clear indicator that Mr. Freeloader is going to be an absolute bitch of a roommate. YMMV on whether the lower rent is worth dealing with that.
Right, exactly. Like, Talakeal's not gonna get a fair say in what goes on in this living situation. That sucks a lot.


That is pretty much how I feel about it as well, but with the added bit that he raised the prices after I had already passed up on a better deal as a result, and didn't mention that he would be living rent free (and considers us his tenants rather than roommates) until pressed.

I don't know, having a roommate who doesn't pay his share of the rent (or expenses) just because he is related to the landlord feels unethical to me, especially when said landlord is still charging him rent for the arrangement!

Like, I get that we get a better deal than we would living someplace else (at least financially, and when you factor in extra gas and amenities only slightly), but on the flip side, he is also getting a better deal by finding roommates who are willing to split expenses with him, because if he lived alone he would be on the hook for the full 1800 dollars a month.
I'm guessing you signed the lease and therefore are trapped for a year or so. That's very unfortunate.

[Rynjin]

You are in an experiment. You are Alice. The person across from you is Bill.

The experimenter gives $20 to Bill, and tells Bill that he must split the money however he would like between the two of you. Bill decides that the Alice:Bill split ought to be $1:$19.

You, Alice, must either (a) accept the deal and the uneven split, or (b) reject it, which will cause both of you to leave with $0.

I think there are cultural differences that influence whether you accept the deal or not. But likely there are psychological differences, too. I suspect that said psychological differences are causing some of the disagreement in this thread.

Exactly. I don't know if it's cultural or personal, but my inclination in this scenario would be to split Bill (or at least his lip), not the money.

I don't need $1 enough that I'm not willing to tell Bill to go **** himself even if technically I'm "not losing anything" by taking the deal, and am technically losing $1.

[Liquor Box]

You are in an experiment. You are Alice. The person across from you is Bill.

The experimenter gives $20 to Bill, and tells Bill that he must split the money however he would like between the two of you. Bill decides that the Alice:Bill split ought to be $1:$19.

You, Alice, must either (a) accept the deal and the uneven split, or (b) reject it, which will cause both of you to leave with $0.

I think there are cultural differences that influence whether you accept the deal or not. But likely there are psychological differences, too. I suspect that said psychological differences are causing some of the disagreement in this thread.

But Bob (the roommate) can go and find different flatmates if Talakeal doesn't take the deal. So it's like your scenario, but Bill can give the $1 to someone else (and keep the $19) if Alice doesn't take it.


Exactly. I don't know if it's cultural or personal, but my inclination in this scenario would be to split Bill (or at least his lip), not the money.

I don't need $1 enough that I'm not willing to tell Bill to go **** himself even if technically I'm "not losing anything" by taking the deal, and am technically losing $1.

Would you need it enough if it wasn't $1, but instead $150 a month?

[Rynjin]

Not really, no. Especially when the tradeoff is that I have to live with Bill, the selfish freeloader who wants me to pay his rent for me.

I'd need a steeper discount than that to willingly put up with such an entitled prick.

[Beeftank]

For the record, the setup where the rent per person increases with more people living in the apartment is baffling to me. People usually have roommates to reduce the cost and I don’t understand how such a system could possibly be fair.

[Peelee]

Here is an example of an above-board deal. If you hire a contractor, the contractor can take the money you pay and hire subcontractors. This is not taking advantage of the client, because the contractor knows what must be done, coordinates what and when the things are done, and is responsible for anything that is not done. They give estimates, which are subject to change, and also produce receipts to justify changes in estimates to actual costs.

The contractor makes profit but is not a useless middle-man by hiring subcontractors. The contractor is putting in work for their profit. This is not taking advantage of people.

Conversely, Bob is giving no benefit whatsoever to the subtenants. They could lease directly from Bob's father for less money. Bob is not coordinating anything other than the ability for himself to live rent-free. He does, actually, have responsibilities but I would eat my hat if he is aware of any of these or would do a damned thing to comply with them if they were brought to his attention. Further, by having each subtenant's price go up with the addition of more subtenants, it's also clear that he intends on pocketing the difference, since the math is not adding up at all. This is taking advantage of people.

Talakeal, I would advise you to speak to the dad and, T the very least, say something along the lines of "I'm going to be renting from your son but the pricing structure sounds strange, can you verify it?" Or ideally, asking if you can rent from him directly. Also, has the son given you a lease to sign? Or is he just saying "hey, pay me X amount to live here"?

[Dragonus45]

I mean, no, there absolutely is someone being exploited. Freeloader used deception and misdirection to trick people into this arrangement which, once agreed to, becomes a giant pain in the ass to get out of.

Yea, I had been responding more to Peelee's general characterization of anyone subleasing or pulling an arrangement like this more then this specific one, mostly because I've times been the person in the extra room subsiding a guy I know who really wants to have a stand up comedy career and really is not getting one any time soon and I think it was a fair arrangement. This **** though. Just gets worse and worse with every update.

[Peelee]

Yea, I had been responding more to Peelee's general characterization of anyone subleasing or pulling an arrangement like this more then this specific one, mostly because I've times been the person in the extra room subsiding a guy I know who really wants to have a stand up comedy career and really is not getting one any time soon and I think it was a fair arrangement. This **** though. Just gets worse and worse with every update.

I have no moral issues regarding subleasing - it's a great system for people who cannot otherwise get our of a lease for reasons. I have moral issues subleasing at a profit.

[Dragonus45]

I have no moral issues regarding subleasing - it's a great system for people who cannot otherwise get our of a lease for reasons. I have moral issues subleasing at a profit.

If it's a just a situation where I move out of an apartment and sublease that apartment then sure charging more then the landlord is is sketchy and best, probably violates a rental agreement, and I think might not be legal in most states. The "I have access to a house from (insert reason here) and several rooms I can rent out so long as I make sure nothing burns down and the rent gets paid on time," situation it's entirely fair to charge a bit extra to cover your rent or put money in your pocket. So long as no one is lied too and manipulated into the position.

[Peelee]

If it's a just a situation where I move out of an apartment and sublease that apartment then sure charging more then the landlord is is sketchy and best, probably violates a rental agreement, and I think might not be legal in most states. The "I have access to a house from (insert reason here) and several rooms I can rent out so long as I make sure nothing burns down and the rent gets paid on time," situation it's entirely fair to charge a bit extra to cover your rent or put money in your pocket. So long as no one is lied too and manipulated into the position.

You're driving up the cost housing without providing anything that the landlord doesn't already offer. Again, that is nothing but a useless middleman increasing cost on the end consumer. I find it absolutely detestable and will protest it every chance I get.

[Dragonus45]

You're driving up the cost housing without providing anything that the landlord doesn't already offer. Again, that is nothing but a useless middleman increasing cost on the end consumer. I find it absolutely detestable and will protest it every chance I get.

They aren't driving up the cost, personal experience from several times I've done it is that an arrangement like this is coming in under market rent and if they weren't offering the rooms the rooms simply wouldn't have been available to me at all because either the parents in question would have rented it out to someone who wanted to use them all themselves or just sold the house that I wouldn't have been able to afford.

[Peelee]

They aren't driving up the cost, personal experience from several times I've done it is that an arrangement like this is coming in under market rent and if they weren't offering the rooms the rooms simply wouldn't have been available to me at all because either the parents in question would have rented it out to someone who wanted to use them all themselves or just sold the house that I wouldn't have been able to afford.

They are driving up the costs. If a thing costs ten dollars and I take it and resell it to someone else for fifteen dollars, I have driven up the cost. It doesn't matter than the twenty other people selling it sell it for twenty dollars, because you could have gotten it from the same person I got it from for ten, but you got it from me for fifteen instead, and I did absolutely nothing of value to justify that increase other than wanting more money for myself. Housing is expensive enough, I don't particularly care for any argument based on "yes, but I could make money by making it more expensive for someone else". It's under market value? Great. It was even more under market value until you inflated it for someone else. You're not paying upkeep on the property. You're not paying taxes on it. You're a middle man that drives costs up.

All "you"s being general and not "Dragonus, specifically", because it was just easier for me to write it that way.

Im a landlord. The house we bought had an attached (barely, by way of deck) unfinished building. We finished it and turned it into a 1b1br apartment complete with garage parking and washer/dryer hookups. No shared walls, no upstairs or downstairs neighbors, this is about as ideal an apartment as one could want for 1b1br. We currently rent it out severely under market, which is our choice. But regardless of what we rented it out at, if the tenant tried to sublet it at a higher cost, that would be driving up the price needlessly. I wouldn't be getting any more money, and the new person living there would be paying more money than I would be charging if they rented from me directly. It would be nothing but greed for the existing tenant to do that, and it serves to deny a potential impoverished person who may be able to afford my price but would not be able to afford the sublessor's price potential housing. I fundamentally disagree with the concept of subletting for profit. I don't want to be absolute on this, but I cannot imagine any argument you could make which would alter my stance on this, as it is inherently unfair to the sublessee who could otherwise rent directly from the landlord for a lower price.

Put simply, I will not support the idea of middlemen who add no value charging the end consumer more and pocketing the difference.

[Keltest]

They are driving up the costs. If a thing costs ten dollars and I take it and resell it to someone else for fifteen dollars, I have driven up the cost. It doesn't matter than the twenty other people selling it sell it for twenty dollars, because you could have gotten it from the same person I got it from for ten, but you got it from me for fifteen instead, and I did absolutely nothing of value to justify that increase other than wanting more money for myself.

That seems like a pretty bold assumption there, no pun intended. In this particular example, the actual property owner is related to the middleman, and its pretty unlikely that non-family would be able to get the same deal out of him directly that the friend did.

[Peelee]

That seems like a pretty bold assumption there, no pun intended. In this particular example, the actual property owner is related to the middleman, and its pretty unlikely that non-family would be able to get the same deal out of him directly that the friend did.

In this case, renting from the father would still have the increased amount for multiple roommates, but nowhere near what the son is wanting to charge, since the son is not only increasing the cost on roommates/sublettors to cover his own rent, but also arbitrarily increasing even further after that.

Short version, yes, it would still be cheaper to rent directly form the father.

[Keltest]

In this case, renting from the father would still have the increased amount for multiple roommates, but nowhere near what the son is wanting to charge, since the son is not only increasing the cost on roommates/sublettors to cover his own rent, but also arbitrarily increasing even further after that.

Short version, yes, it would still be cheaper to rent directly form the father.

Youre assuming the father is willing to rent to other people at all, is what I was getting at.

[Peelee]

Youre assuming the father is willing to rent to other people at all, is what I was getting at.

Given that the father has pricing for roommates, I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

[Keltest]

Given that the father has pricing for roommates, I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

And what happens if the son moves out and dad decides that he isnt interested in being a landlord for its own sake and sells the property?

[Peelee]

And what happens if the son moves out and dad decides that he isnt interested in being a landlord for its own sake and sells the property?

Then that's no different from the dad renting to other people and then deciding he isn't interested in being a landlord anymore and sells the property. And frankly, I am typically disinterested in playing the "what if" game unless there is actual reason to expect a scenario.

Notwithdtanding that having active renters in a property can make it attractive to potential buyers since they have the ability to use the tenant's rent as collateral for the loan, giving them extra incentive to purchase.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yikes... a lot of bad takes here and assumptions about land owners.

I'm happy to see this scheme was ultimately revealed to be the brainchild of an entitled kid.

Yes, people get roommates to pay less rent, but that doesn't mean the price doesn't go up.

Landlords aren't suddenly running a charity just because someone wants a roommate.

[Peelee]

Yikes... a lot of bad takes here and assumptions about land owners.

I'm happy to see this scheme was ultimately revealed to be the brainchild of an entitled kid.

Yes, people get roommates to pay less rent, but that doesn't mean the price doesn't go up.

Landlords aren't suddenly running a charity just because someone wants a roommate.

I agree with everything you said, but the son ain't the landlord. The son is an entitled kid who, in my view, is gouging his "friends".

[halfeye]

Put simply, I will not support the idea of middlemen who add no value charging the end consumer more and pocketing the difference.

There is unfortunately a lot of that going on. I hear a lot of people complaining when new games consoles, or for that matter concert tickets, are released, all of them are sold in seconds, then they are up for sale at inflated prices on, typically Ebay, other electronic market places doubtless allow the same.

[Rynjin]

Yes, people get roommates to pay less rent, but that doesn't mean the price doesn't go up.

Landlords aren't suddenly running a charity just because someone wants a roommate.

Well thankfully they're not. They're still getting the same amount of money. They're just getting less from each person.

If someone's initial reaction to two people pooling their cash to afford to buy something they own is to raise the price, they're an *******, simple as.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with everything you said, but the son ain't the landlord. The son is an entitled kid who, in my view, is gouging his "friends".
Agreed.

I get the point about how he technically didn't deceive, etc. but... my philosophy is make use of the opportunities you're provided with and don't be freaking greedy about it. You've got an arrangement with your dad for a place to live at below market rate and with roommates. Just split it. Everyone wins. No need to try and get more. In my experience you get more out of life counting your blessings than looking for every bit that you can scrounge.

Except when it comes to D&D. Then I'll complain until the day I die... :smalltongue:

@Halfeye - I agree, and with Peelee's quote as well.


Well thankfully they're not. They're still getting the same amount of money. They're just getting less from each person.

If someone's initial reaction to two people pooling their cash to afford to buy something they own is to raise the price, they're an *******, simple as.
Oh well if it's said with such conviction it must be true.

I got a message from the city asking me if I had a leak because my water usage for the quarter was through the roof. Turns out my lovely renter had moved two people in without my knowing. Easy enough to vet them and add them to the lease.

But some guy on the internet says I'm an ******* for covering my increase in expenses (that I hadn't agreed to previously) by increasing the rent, so I guess I'll just swallow the cost lol. Yeah, sure :smallamused:

[Rynjin]

You're not increasing rent because of additional people but due to additional cost. That is not usually the case. I have not lived anywhere I don't have to pay for my own water bill, electric bill, other utilities. Landlord provides occasional maintenance and that's about it.

This is the norm across the country as far as I can tell, given I've rented in 7 states and never had a different experience.

[Liquor Box]

Conversely, Bob is giving no benefit whatsoever to the subtenants. They could lease directly from Bob's father for less money. Bob is not coordinating anything other than the ability for himself to live rent-free.

Why should he give a benefit to the subtenants - they are not paying above market rent. It is the landlord who is leasing for below market value, so that is where Bob's cut is coming from.

Bob is providing a benefit to the landlord - he is finding roommates, he is collecting their rent, and making other such arrangements. That is an administrative benefit. He is also taking on significant risk, as he would be responsible to the landlord for the entirety of the rent.

Is that worth the amount of money he is profiting (several hundred a month)? I don't think so, and if I was his landlord I wouldn't discount the apartment by that much. But not a question for us - it's between him and his landlord, and the fact that it's his dad may explain his generosity.


Further, by having each subtenant's price go up with the addition of more subtenants, it's also clear that he intends on pocketing the difference, since the math is not adding up at all. This is taking advantage of people.

I think he has openly said he intends to make a profit out of the situation. But putting aside the bait and switch on Talakeal, that is still not taking advantage. They are still getting below market value rent.

It may be that he's taking advantage of his father, who is possibly charging him well below market rent because he's unaware of the market. But we can only guess, possibly the father is simply being generous.


Talakeal, I would advise you to speak to the dad and, T the very least, say something along the lines of "I'm going to be renting from your son but the pricing structure sounds strange, can you verify it?" Or ideally, asking if you can rent from him directly. Also, has the son given you a lease to sign? Or is he just saying "hey, pay me X amount to live here"?

A few people have suggested talking to the Dad. (Talakeal, do you have any way to contact the Dad?).

There are three possibilites though:

The dad either knows what's going on, or doesn't know but doesn't care. This is the most likely in my opinion, he's just being generous to his son.
The Dad finds out that Bob has been ripping him (not the roommates) off and is annoyed so either raises the rent or kicks him out. This could mean speaking to the Dad might see Talakeal lose his cheaper than normal apartment.
The Dad finds out what is going on and insists that Bob offers all the roommates rent at below market value (or offers it himself). To me, this is unlikely. Why would the Dad want to subsidise the rent of a whole lot of people he doesn't know?


Before contacting the Dad, Talakeal should think about whether he wants to risk the second possibility in the hope of the third.


You also pose the question of whether Talakeal signed a lease. Good question. But it may be better for Talakeal to not sign a lease if he feels as badly about Bob's behaviour as you and Rynjin do - that way he can move out by simply giving notice when he finds somewhere else. He's not locked in for a year.


There is unfortunately a lot of that going on. I hear a lot of people complaining when new games consoles, or for that matter concert tickets, are released, all of them are sold in seconds, then they are up for sale at inflated prices on, typically Ebay, other electronic market places doubtless allow the same.

I agree that this is a problem, although I think it is a bit different.

Though, if people are willing to pay much more for a gaming console, I don't really understand why the people who make them don't charge more. Or charge more for pre-release versions or something.


Well thankfully they're not. They're still getting the same amount of money. They're just getting less from each person.

If someone's initial reaction to two people pooling their cash to afford to buy something they own is to raise the price, they're an *******, simple as.


They are getting the same money, but the wear and tear and risks of damage to the house are higher. I have no problem with landlords charging more for extra roommates. Although I think they should charge less for each additional roommate to incentivise more people to move in.

Why do you think they are an *******?

[Talakeal]

Yikes... a lot of bad takes here and assumptions about land owners.

I'm happy to see this scheme was ultimately revealed to be the brainchild of an entitled kid.

Yes, people get roommates to pay less rent, but that doesn't mean the price doesn't go up.

Landlords aren't suddenly running a charity just because someone wants a roommate.

I have seen a property that raises the price based on how many people will be living there, let alone actually been in that situation.

[Peelee]

Why should he give a benefit to the subtenants - they are not paying above market rent.

I actually think it is market price. Talakeal also said market price would not be much more, and would be better location with more amenities. That sounds like the current place is market price for what he is paying and what he is getting.

Also, not to belabor the point, but anyone making a profit should damn well be providing a benefit. I think this may well be the the fundamental aspect of our disagreement, and if you do not agree with that idea, then I can safely say we will never agree on anything regarding this situation.

[Liquor Box]

I actually think it is market price. Talakeal also said market price would not be much more, and would be better location with more amenities. That sounds like the current place is market price for what he is paying and what he is getting.

Even if we assume that the price Bob is providing to Talakeal is (contrary to Talakeal's estimation) market price, the father would still be charging Bob below market price and this is where Bob's cut is coming from (not from Talakeal and co).


Also, not to belabor the point, but anyone making a profit should damn well be providing a benefit. I think this may well be the the fundamental aspect of our disagreement, and if you do not agree with that idea, then I can safely say we will never agree on anything regarding this situation.

It's not that I disagree about whether they should be providing a benefit, it's that I think they are providing a benefit. I think Bob is providing a benefit to his father. I set out what I think the benefit was in my previous post:

Bob is providing a benefit to the landlord - he is finding roommates, he is collecting their rent, and making other such arrangements. That is an administrative benefit. He is also taking on significant risk, as he would be responsible to the landlord for the entirety of the rent.

Is that worth the amount of money he is profiting (several hundred a month)? I don't think so, and if I was his landlord I wouldn't discount the apartment by that much. But not a question for us - it's between him and his landlord, and the fact that it's his dad may explain his generosity.

[Peelee]

It's not that I disagree about whether they should be providing a benefit, it's that I think they are providing a benefit. I think Bob is providing a benefit to his father. I set out what I think the benefit was in my previous post:
If you think he is providing a benefit to his father, then he should be charging his father. Not the sublessors, who he is not giving any benefit to and who he is solely profiting from.

I'm sorry, the son's scheme is bull**** system and you have consistently failed to convince me otherwise.

[Dragonus45]

They are driving up the costs. If a thing costs ten dollars and I take it and resell it to someone else for fifteen dollars, I have driven up the cost. It doesn't matter than the twenty other people selling it sell it for twenty dollars, because you could have gotten it from the same person I got it from for ten, but you got it from me for fifteen instead, and I did absolutely nothing of value to justify that increase other than wanting more money for myself. Housing is expensive enough, I don't particularly care for any argument based on "yes, but I could make money by making it more expensive for someone else". It's under market value? Great. It was even more under market value until you inflated it for someone else. You're not paying upkeep on the property. You're not paying taxes on it. You're a middle man that drives costs up.

This assumes I would have access to rent the property if it wasn't being rented out by the middleman though. Simply not dealing with it and not renting it to me is always an option.



All "you"s being general and not "Dragonus, specifically", because it was just easier for me to write it that way.

No worries, understood.


Im a landlord. The house we bought had an attached (barely, by way of deck) unfinished building. We finished it and turned it into a 1b1br apartment complete with garage parking and washer/dryer hookups. No shared walls, no upstairs or downstairs neighbors, this is about as ideal an apartment as one could want for 1b1br. We currently rent it out severely under market, which is our choice. But regardless of what we rented it out at, if the tenant tried to sublet it at a higher cost, that would be driving up the price needlessly. I wouldn't be getting any more money, and the new person living there would be paying more money than I would be charging if they rented from me directly. It would be nothing but greed for the existing tenant to do that, and it serves to deny a potential impoverished person who may be able to afford my price but would not be able to afford the sublessor's price potential housing. I fundamentally disagree with the concept of subletting for profit. I don't want to be absolute on this, but I cannot imagine any argument you could make which would alter my stance on this, as it is inherently unfair to the sublessee who could otherwise rent directly from the landlord for a lower price.

Put simply, I will not support the idea of middlemen who add no value charging the end consumer more and pocketing the difference.


To use me specifically as an example. Right now I'm in a modified motel room I think dates back to when we had the World's Fair here and they threw a ton of these up in a hurry to make a quick buck mainly because I wanted to knock a half hour, or more depending on traffic, both ways off my commute. For this tiny coffin of a place I am still paying more then I have any time I've had to deal with a "middle man" arrangement with some ******* with richer parents then mine letting me rent a room so they could "focus on their podcast" or whatever the plan was, and if this was actually being rented direct by the parents I would almost certainly be priced out. But since they are happy to let their kid rent it out so long as they find enough money to cover the mortgage payment and don't ask questions I get a cheaper place to live then I might find anywhere outside of almost literal charity and a struggling artist gets to have some pocket money. I get being miffed it this was someone tricking a landlord who would want to rent for lower and turning it around at a profit but that's not the situation, I feel it's more analagous to the parents saying "you manage my rental property I expect X a week in it and whatever extra you get is your pay". Even then, I don't know for certain if it's fair to say they are doing it for nothing since they are responsible for managing the people they bring in and I have seen it go terribly wrong. And I feel like I need to stress, the above situation usually results in places that otherwise just wouldn't be an option becoming one. I feel like it could be more niche then has been my experience. But at least living on a college town I have trouble thinking of anyone I know who hasn't lived in someone's old bedroom for cheap so their friend could focus on starting up a DDP Yoga studio. Actually bad example the Yoga studio thing worked out I think.

[Peelee]

This assumes I would have access to rent the property if it wasn't being rented out by the middleman though. Simply not dealing with it and not renting it to me is always an option.

Which takes the cheaper option off the market entirely, which raises costs. I never said that it raised costs less than one possible alternative. Sure it does. Developing it into the nicest possible place to live and raising all nearby property values as well also raises costs, but just like your example of the owner simply not renting it out at all, that's not relevant to the fact that the a tenant subletting at a profit still raises costs.

[Liquor Box]

If you think he is providing a benefit to his father, then he should be charging his father. Not the sublessors, who he is not giving any benefit to and who he is solely profiting from.

It is his father he's profiting from. The father is receiving significantly under market rent for the apartment - that's where Bob's cut is coming from.

The roommates are paying below market rent (or at market rent you think) so are not paying anything.


I'm sorry, the son's scheme is bull**** system and you have consistently failed to convince me otherwise.

No need to apologise, you are entitled to your opinion. I have no illusions that i will be able to convince you to change your opinion, you seem pretty set in it. I'm just interested to see if my mind is changed.


This assumes I would have access to rent the property if it wasn't being rented out by the middleman though. Simply not dealing with it and not renting it to me is always an option.

I agree. If the father wasn't leasing it Bob at a highly discounted rate, he would probably either rent it out at market rate or sell it someone else who would rent it out at market rate.

Either way Talakeal would probably have to pay more to live there than he is under the current arrangement.

[Peelee]

It is his father he's profiting from.

It is not. His father is paying him nothing. His father is charging him money. The sublessors are paying him money. He is profiting from them.

Either way Talakeal would probably have to pay more to live there than he is under the current arrangement.
If market rate is slightly higher in a better location with better amenities, then it stands to reason that he is being charged market rate under the current system in the current place.

And that's even going by how inaccurate "market rate" is in housing. Real estate famously has the slogan "location, location, location".

[Dragonus45]

Which takes the cheaper option off the market entirely, which raises costs. I never said that it raised costs less than one possible alternative. Sure it does. Developing it into the nicest possible place to live and raising all nearby property values as well also raises costs, but just like your example of the owner simply not renting it out at all, that's not relevant to the fact that the a tenant subletting at a profit still raises costs.

It only raises costs relative to a hypothetical cheaper rental price that doesn't exist.



Either way Talakeal would probably have to pay more to live there than he is under the current arrangement.

The Talakeal thing has the problem of the person doing the renting kind of just being a liar who tricked them into the place though, and Talakeal would likely be getting more for their money from what they said as well considering relative amenities.

[Liquor Box]

It is not. His father is paying him nothing. His father is charging him money. The sublessors are paying him money. He is profiting from them.

The father is providing him an apartment which is worth more than what he asking for it. The father is losing out on the money he would make by renting out at the market rate. The effect is the same as if he rented it to all the flatmates at the market rate, then simply gave Bob the money back.


If market rate is slightly higher in a better location with better amenities, then it stands to reason that he is being charged market rate under the current system in the current place.
And that's even going by how inaccurate "market rate" is in housing. Real estate famously has the slogan "location, location, location".

Talakeal is likely to know better than you or I what market rent is in the area where he lives. He would be more likely to know the impact of amenities and location than you or I would. So when he has very clearly said that he thinks this place is below market rent, then it is good enough for me.

But that is beside the point. Even if it is at market rent, he is not ripping them off. He is openly entering into a deal where it is him who gets to take advantage of the cheap rent his father is giving him, instead of passing that windfall onto his roommates.

[Peelee]

It only raises costs relative to a hypothetical cheaper rental price that doesn't exist.
It does exist. The cheaper rental price is being paid at this moment.

The Talakeal thing has the problem of the person doing the renting kind of just being a liar who tricked them into the place though, and Talakeal would likely be getting more for their money from what they said as well considering relative amenities.
This is also true.

[Liquor Box]

It does exist. The cheaper rental price is being paid at this moment.

Because Bob has facilitated it with his father.

There's no reason to think that Bob's father would offer such cheap rent to people he doesn't know.

[Peelee]

The father is providing him an apartment which is worth more than what he asking for it. The father is losing out on the money he would make by renting out at the market rate. The effect is the same as if he rented it to all the flatmates at the market rate, then simply gave Bob the money back.
And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle. Regardless of how it might be effectively the same another way, it is not happening that other way. If I buy a Gamestation for 50 dollars and sell it on ebay for a 500 dollars despite its MSRP being a 100 dollars, I made a profit off the poor soul who paid the 500.

Talakeal is likely to know better than you or I what market rent is in the area where he lives.
Just because they live there? Am I more likely to know the law in Alabama than a trained and seasoned lawyer in Georgia just because I live here?

[Liquor Box]

And if my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle. Regardless of how it might be effectively the same another way, it is not happening that other way. If I buy a Gamestation for 50 dollars and sell it on ebay for a 500 dollars despite its MSRP being a 100 dollars, I made a profit off the poor soul who paid the 500.

If your grandmother let you live in her house for free you wouldn't be obliged to let your roommates live there for free too.

If a gamestation is worth $100, then you made $400 off the person you sold it to, and $50 off the person you underpaid for it. The difference Bob is not renting out the rooms for more than their worth, he's renting them for no more than they're worth. So all of Bob's profit comes from his father.


Just because they live there? Am I more likely to know the law in Alabama than a trained and seasoned lawyer in Georgia just because I live here?

Are you a trained and seasoned realtor? You (a layman) in Alabama probably know marginally more about the law in Alabama than a layman in Georgia.

Are you suggesting that you know as much as Talakeal about the market value of an apartment you have never seen in an area where Talakeal lives?

[Talakeal]

As I said before, it is slightly below market value, but not nearly enough below market value to justify the terrible location and conditions.

But then again, that’s market value for a regular apartment, not a tiny nursery with no AC and that you have to share the kitchen and living room with 2-3 other people, so I really have nothing to compare it to.

It also isn’t anywhere close to as good a deal as my current place, let alone the added moving expenses.

[Liquor Box]

As I said before, it is slightly below market value, but not nearly enough below market value to justify the terrible location and conditions.

Honestly though, that’s market value for a regular apartment, not a tiny nursery with no AC and that you to share the kitchen and living quarters with 2-3 other people, so I really have nothing to compare it to.

It also isn’t anywhere close to as good a deal as my current place, let alone the added moving expenses.

Do you have any sort of lease agreement with Bob (or anyone), or can you move out at any time?

If you can move out, does that mean you are looking for an alternative?

[Peelee]

If your grandmother let you live in her house for free you wouldn't be obliged to let your roommates live there for free too.
No, but if I charged them rent instead of my grandmother charging them rent than I'd be a pretty ****ty person.

If a gamestation is worth $100, then you made $400 off the person you sold it to, and $50 off the person you underpaid for it. The difference Bob is not renting out the rooms for more than their worth, he's renting them for less than they're worth. So all of Bob's profit comes from his father.
But Bob is getting more than simply his $500 in rent. We have discussed several times how the math doesn't add up. Bob is profiting from his friends by having his rent be entirely subsidized by them and also gaining extra money on top of that. None of them is from his father. I don't know why you are now regressing to Bob only getting the flat $500 rent and breaking even when you agreed he was profiting.

Are you a trained and seasoned realtor? You (a layman) in Alabama probably know marginally more about the law in Alabama than a layman in Georgia.
No, but as mentioned earlier, I am a landlord, and shockingly, I did a great amount of research to determine both my legal duties and responsibilities and also fair pricing, so I know more than the average layman. I used the lawyer example because I'm a fan of reduction to absurdity and I figured you'd appreciate the legal version.

Are you suggesting that you know as much as Talakeal about the market value of an apartment you have never seen in an area where Talakeal lives?
No offense, Talakeal, but...
As I said before, it is slightly below market value, but not nearly enough below market value to justify the terrible location and conditions.

Honestly though, that’s market value for a regular apartment, not a tiny nursery with no AC and that you to share the kitchen and living quarters with 2-3 other people, so I really have nothing to compare it to.Yes, Liquorbox. Yes I am.

[Talakeal]

Do you have any sort of lease agreement with Bob (or anyone), or can you move out at any time?

If you can move out, does that mean you are looking for an alternative?

No lease yet.

[Peelee]

No lease yet.

That's the best news you could have said! Granted, I wish you weren't in this situation at all and still had your old place (from what it sounds like that would have been ideal) but oh man signing a lease with the kid sounds like it would be a nightmare waiting to happen.

[Liquor Box]

No, but if I charged them rent instead of my grandmother charging them rent than I'd be a pretty ****ty person.

Not if your grandma was ok with it. She's letting you use her house, and if you use it by renting it our (or some rooms out) then there's nothing wrong with that.


But Bob is getting more than simply his $500 in rent. We have discussed several times how the math doesn't add up. Bob is profiting from his friends by having his rent be entirely subsidized by them and also gaining extra money on top of that. None of them is from his father. I don't know why you are now regressing to Bob only getting the flat $500 rent and breaking even when you agreed he was profiting.

Yes, he is definitely making a profit (or trying to). We don't need math, Bob outright told Talakeal he's looking for a profit.

They are paying the rent that the room is worth (or less). Bob is paying his father less than what the apartment is worth. Bob is profiting because he is underpaying his father, not because he's overcharging his roommates.


No, but as mentioned earlier, I am a landlord, and shockingly, I did a great amount of research to determine both my legal duties and responsibilities and also fair pricing, so I know more than the average layman. I used the lawyer example because I'm a fan of reduction to absurdity and I figured you'd appreciate the legal version

No offense, Talakeal, but...Yes, Liquorbox. Yes I am.

I get that you being a landlord and having paid attention to market values might make you something approaching an expert in the locality where you live or own property. But I struggle to see how that would help you know market values in an entirely different market. Has Talakeal even told us what suburb of New York the apartment is in?


No lease yet.

That's great. That gives you the choice to stay where you are if you think it is a good deal. Or move elsewhere if you don't think it's a poor deal or feel that Bob isn't someone you want to live with. Which do you think you'll choose?

Is Bob going to ask you to sign a lease? If not, that's even better, because you can stay as long as you want and move out after giving reasonable notice. That was the main reason why I always preferred to sublease off someone even if it cost more slightly more - if my circumstances changed I wasn't liable for a full year's rent.

[Peelee]

Not if your grandma was ok with it. She's letting you use her house, and if you use it by renting it our (or some rooms out) then there's nothing wrong with that.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of subletting for profit.



Yes, he is definitely making a profit (or trying to). We don't need math, Bob outright told Talakeal he's looking for a profit.

They are paying the rent that the room is worth (or less). Bob is paying his father less than what the apartment is worth. Bob is profiting because he is underpaying his father, not because he's overcharging his roommates.
As previously stated, I am renting out our apartment for severely under market value (less than half, potentially about a third at the moment. Haven't checked recently and as I don't intend to raise the amount anytime soon I don't see the need to). My tenant has a job. He is making zero profit from me. He is making 100% of his profit from his job. The cash flow between us is a one-way stream, from him to me. The apartment is a loss for him. It is simply not as great a loss as he would have anywhere else.

Bob is making zero profit from his father. I do not know how to explain this any more simply.

ETA: Also, Bob is overcharging his roommates, because, again:
I fundamentally disagree with the concept of subletting for profit.



I get that you being a landlord and having paid attention to market values might make you something approaching an expert in the locality where you live or own property. But I struggle to see how that would help you know market values in an entirely different market. Has Talakeal even told us what suburb of New York the apartment is in?
I assume by "New York", you mean "Denver"?

Also, he gave us relevant information to make informed determinations. Again, real estate is all about location. A million dollar house in San Francisco is a 300k house in Birmingham, AL, is a 100k house in Centerville, AL, and even then it varies based on location within those areas. And that's for the exact same house. This is a worse place in a worse location with worse amenities and worse number of roommates than a slightly more expensive place which is larger, in a better location, has more amenities, and carries fewer roommates.

[Liquor Box]

As previously stated, I am renting out our apartment for severely under market value (less than half, potentially about a third at the moment. Haven't checked recently and as I don't intend to raise the amount anytime soon I don't see the need to). My tenant has a job. He is making zero profit from me. He is making 100% of his profit from his job. The cash flow between us is a one-way stream, from him to me. The apartment is a loss for him. It is simply not as great a loss as he would have anywhere else.

Bob is making zero profit from his father. I do not know how to explain this any more simply.

Your tenant is receiving a service (housing) from you, which is worth more than what he is paying for it. He is getting excess value from you, even though he hasn't monetised it.

Bob is in the same situation vis a vis his father - he is getting extra value because the service (housing) he is getting from him is worth more than what he is paying for it. He has chosen to monetise this excess value by selling it to his roommates. But the excess value is still created by him paying his father less than the value he is receiving from him


I assume by "New York", you mean "Denver"?

I have no idea why I thought we were talking about New York all this time.


Also, he gave us relevant information to make informed determinations. Again, real estate is all about location. A million dollar house in San Francisco is a 300k house in Birmingham, AL, is a 100k house in Centerville, AL, and even then it varies based on location within those areas. And that's for the exact same house. This is a worse place in a worse location with worse amenities and worse number of roommates than a slightly more expensive place which is larger, in a better location, has more amenities, and carries fewer roommates.

I think when Talakeal says it's in a worse location he means it's in a less convenient location for him, not that it's a less desirable neighbourhood. If you look back at his earlier posts, he note that the location is bad because it is a longer commute to work.

Also, you are comparing that to Talakeal's current place. Talakeal has said that his current place is itself a good deal.

[Peelee]

Your tenant is receiving a service (housing) from you, which is worth more than what he is paying for it. He is getting excess value from you, even though he hasn't monetised it.
Correct. He is getting value from me, but not any profit. If he monetized it (which would severely displease me), then he would be getting profit from whoever he monetized it with. Not from me.

Bob is in the same situation vis a vis his father
Given my response above, I agree.:smalltongue:

I have no idea why I thought we were talking about New York all this time.
I almost made a joke about non-Americans always thinking the US is smaller than it really is.:smallwink:

I think when Talakeal says it's in a worse location he means it's in a less convenient location for him, not that it's a less desirable neighbourhood. If you look back at his earlier posts, he note that the location is bad because it is a longer commute to work.
That's fair. We don't know which is in a better location, market-wise. The rest of the criteria do still stand, however, and even assuming equal location, my overall point still stands.

Also, you are comparing that to Talakeal's current place. Talakeal has said that his current place is itself a good deal.
No, I am not comparing to the place he is moving out of that he would prefer to stay in. I am comparing it to the alternate place he mentioned.

[Liquor Box]

Correct. He is getting value from me, but not any profit. If he monetized it (which would severely displease me), then he would be getting profit from whoever he monetized it with. Not from me.

Given my response above, I agree.:smalltongue:

At this point I feel like we understand each other here, we are just using the word profit slightly differently.

Leaving the word 'profit' out of it. It's his Dad whose missing out on what he might otherwise be getting. If not for Bob, Talakeal would be paying market rent, so even assuming he is paying market rent now, he's not missing out on anything. So Bob's is making money because his father is missing out on charging more.


I almost made a joke about non-Americans always thinking the US is smaller than it really is.


Non-americans think US is just LA and NY because that's where so much TV is set.

No, I am not comparing to the place he is moving out of that he would prefer to stay in. I am comparing it to the alternate place he mentioned.

You mean where he says "Paying market value would get me a much nicer place much closer to work, like the one I already had before this came up." That mentions niceness and closeness to work. But it doesn't mention amenities or number of roommates. He mentioned those things only in comparing his current place to Bob's place.

[Vinyadan]

You're driving up the cost housing without providing anything that the landlord doesn't already offer. Again, that is nothing but a useless middleman increasing cost on the end consumer. I find it absolutely detestable and will protest it every chance I get.

In various European countries, getting your own subletter without an explicit authorisation by the owner is illegal. Of course, Europe is large and has many different legal traditions, so you have noticeable differences (in some places for example you only need authorisation if you are subletting the whole of the apartment, but not if it's just a part of it).

Interestingly, if I understand correctly, in Germany charging your subletter too much can end up making you punishable for rent profiteering (Mietwucher), if the subletter can prove that you also relied on a scarcity of available apartments. That's not limited to subletting, however.


There is unfortunately a lot of that going on. I hear a lot of people complaining when new games consoles, or for that matter concert tickets, are released, all of them are sold in seconds, then they are up for sale at inflated prices on, typically Ebay, other electronic market places doubtless allow the same.

It's an old problem with admission tickets to concerts and games. Magically, a certain quantity always ends up in the hands of resellers. When the numbers are eccessive, sometimes you find out that the primary seller was part of the scheme and was getting a share from the overpriced reselling.

[Dr.Samurai]

My greater perspective on this is that, even apart from increased costs due to increased tenants (a very real reality BTW), it just seems intuitive that the rent would go up with additional roommates.

When you are a renter, you don't suddenly get the privilege of marketing and renting out the property as if it was your own. Renters don't become landlords by virtue of signing a lease.

It's not your property and the idea that you become a mini co-landlord that also gets to profit and benefit from the property financially by incurring additional wear and tear and utility expenses for additional rental income that won't go to the landlord is way beyond reasonable.

The exceptions might be if your tenant can no longer afford to be there on their own (assuming circumstances change or something), or if you can't rent the place out to begin with without having a roommate situation. The latter case probably being the norm in many places.

[Dragonus45]

It's not your property and the idea that you become a mini co-landlord that also gets to profit and benefit from the property financially by incurring additional wear and tear and utility expenses for additional rental income that won't go to the landlord is way beyond reasonable.

Usually yes, I find the issue complicated when there isn't a traditional lease structure in place in any sense and it's just a family member with cheap access to a house turning a profit off it. Usually with the specific knowledge and permission of the family member who owns the house.

[Liquor Box]

When you are a renter, you don't suddenly get the privilege of marketing and renting out the property as if it was your own. Renters don't become landlords by virtue of signing a lease.

It's not your property and the idea that you become a mini co-landlord that also gets to profit and benefit from the property financially by incurring additional wear and tear and utility expenses for additional rental income that won't go to the landlord is way beyond reasonable.

You may be speaking from a 'how I think thing should work' perspective rather than a 'this is how things do work by law' perspective, but subject to any local laws or specific provisions in the lease a renter can act as a landlord themselves with respect to subtenants. That is the was things often play our where I live. Speaking from the perspective of having been a subtenant on several occasions, I found that system quite beneficial to me.

[Bundin]

No lease yet.

So, what happened in the end? Contacted the father, declined and moved elsewhere, moved in anyway because of <reason>?

Curious people want to know :)

[Talakeal]

So, what happened in the end? Contacted the father, declined and moved elsewhere, moved in anyway because of <reason>?

Curious people want to know :)

Found someplace else.

[Peelee]

Found someplace else.

I choose to believe it is better.

[Keltest]

I choose to believe it is better.

One would assume he wouldnt voluntarily pick one that is worse.

[Liquor Box]

One would assume he wouldnt voluntarily pick one that is worse.

A few people did suggest he do that, out of principal.

[sluggerbaloney]

More roommates = more wear and tear on the apartment

[Talakeal]

I choose to believe it is better.

So, found a new place. Paid an application fee and was approved. Accepted landladies terms, had a check made out for deposit and first month. Arranged a move in date and hired movers.

Landlady sent me an email asking when I wanted to meet to sign the papers on Tuesday. I responded Saturday at Noon. She responded that she wanted it sooner, how about Wednesday evening.

I told her I worked nights and couldn’t do Wednesday, how about Thursday. I then went to work, came home, and went to bed.

Woke up early in the afternoon and saw an email from the landlady sent the previous evening saying Thursday was no good for her how about Friday at 7:30.

I sent an email saying Friday at 7:30 is fine. She immediately responded saying that she was rescinding her offer and had already signed a different tenant due to my “lack of communication”.

So, she knows I work nights, but freaks out because I respond to one of her emails the next afternoon instead of the next morning?

On one hand, incredibly pissed and stressed out about breaking our arrangement at the last minute for effectively no reason… on the other hand I think I dodged a bullet by not having to deal with her as a landlord.

[Peelee]

So, found a new place. Paid an application fee and was approved. Accepted landladies terms, had a check made out for deposit and first month. Arranged a move in date and hired movers.

Landlady sent me an email asking when I wanted to meet to sign the papers on Tuesday. I responded Saturday at Noon. She responded that she wanted it sooner, how about Wednesday evening.

I told her I worked nights and couldn’t do Wednesday, how about Thursday. I then went to work, came home, and went to bed.

Woke up early in the afternoon and saw an email from the landlady sent the previous evening saying Thursday was no good for her how about Friday at 7:30.

I sent an email saying Friday at 7:30 is fine. She immediately responded saying that she was rescinding her offer and had already signed a different tenant due to my “lack of communication”.

So, she knows I work nights, but freaks out because I respond to one of her emails the next afternoon instead of the next morning?

On one hand, incredibly pissed and stressed out about breaking our arrangement at the last minute for effectively no reason… on the other hand I think I dodged a bullet by not having to deal with her as a landlord.

Also, as a landlord (of a single unit, to be fair), application fees are bull****.