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.

[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..."

[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.

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 [ie living there for free]? 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/b...ess-and-unfair

but we don't desire to admit that, because it is 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.