Logic behind an increasing fee for roommates?

[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.