Lodger underpaying by 31p, would you make a fuss?

Gorgeous_George

I agree that the email sounds a bit daft but when the loidger ignores verbal communication, the OP had no choice. I'd be looking at a solicitor's letter with the legal fees added to the 31p.

But og course, I'd have a new lodger by now and my former tenant would have no matching underwear to wear and no mug to drink from.

Another option is to change the rent by rounding down and increasing the rent at the next review by enough so that she wants to leave.

GG

Pee

Northern girl, I've had a lot of lodgers and I think all of them would say that I am one of the most laid back landlords BUT it only works like this if you are in charge and have someone's respect. As long as you know that you are in charge, there is no need to make a fuss about anything, as soon as you feel you are not in charge, 31p is a windup.

Having lodgers is not a business, it's a way of life. It suited me very well, I needed to live with other people rather than withdraw into myself and become selfish... it was liking doing a second degree!!

bandraoi

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I agree that the email sounds a bit daft but when the loidger ignores verbal communication, the OP had no choice. I'd be looking at a solicitor's letter with the legal fees added to the 31p.

But og course, I'd have a new lodger by now and my former tenant would have no matching underwear to wear and no mug to drink from.

Another option is to change the rent by rounding down and increasing the rent at the next review by enough so that she wants to leave.

GG

I don't think you can even bring that amount to the small claims court, so there would be no point in a solicitors letter.

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

roses wrote: »

Would you be happy if Tesco short changed you?

If Tesco over charged me by 31p on my monthly shopping bill of £300, would I go back to the shop and make a fuss about it? No..

Its difficult to say what we'd do in this situation if you're not a landlord or a tenent I guess (i'm neither so feel free to assume my opinion invalid;) )

tbs624

carolt wrote: »

No, no!!!! That is just SO wrong?!!!

Don't you know that the landlord is the Master, He Who Must Be Obeyed, whilst the tenant is part of the feudal serf class, who must always do exactly what they're told?

Didn't they teach you that at serf/tenant school? :eek:

Whatever next, people might start to think tenants were actually normal people paying for a service!

Carol - it seems as though you are letting your personal anger about BTL LLs get the better of you. You highlighted one bit of Northern-girl's post but look again at the rest:

Northern_girl wrote: »

..Who is in charge? Erm, no one. The lodger rents the house and expects certain things in return. The landlord rents out a house and expects rent in return. It's a two way relationship and they both have a contract to keep to and to find a way to live together peacefully....

My emphasis. It is daft to fall out over a nominal sum *but* it's not the LL who is in the wrong here. This has nothing to do with "serfdom" or inequality - the OP arrived at a figure that was acceptable to her, the lodger agreed to pay it. No-one made her sign up - she was entirely free to go elsewhere.The lodger quite simply hasn't kept her part of the deal. That's not the behaviour of someone who wants to be seen as "normal" and an equal party to a semi-business relationship. It's the behaviour of someone who is small-minded. People who renege on agreements that they have made , whether formal or otherwise, in a small way or a big way, cheese me off.

There is also obviously a greater sense of unease for the OP about this T, than just the 31p.

chewmylegoff

personally her request to reduce the rent and her comments about getting another lodger in to make her rent lower, and her idea to then split the bills 50/25/25 would bother me.

the 31p issue wouldn't concern me at all.

only a lodger - i'd kick her out tomorrow without notice and get someone in who isn't so annoying.

carolt

Hey, for 31p, I just can't be bothered to argue anymore.

Just still astonished the OP can.....

RobertoMoir

carolt wrote: »

No, no!!!! That is just SO wrong?!!!

Don't you know that the landlord is the Master, He Who Must Be Obeyed, whilst the tenant is part of the feudal serf class, who must always do exactly what they're told?

Didn't they teach you that at serf/tenant school? :eek:

Whatever next, people might start to think tenants were actually normal people paying for a service!

Your over-done sarcastic reply might work if the tenant was actually paying the agreed price for the "service" and this was an argument over them using 31pence more of the hot water than the LL anticipated. If that were the case, I'd be the first to suggest that the LL concerned acquire a life.

There's something else going on here with a lack of respect, an implied challenge to the LL in the overall behaviour of the tenant here.

Maybe you need to pull your head out of whatever prejudices you clearly have about LLs and actually think about this situation based on its own merits, not those of whatever horrible personal experience you've clearly suffered and which is obviously colouring your replies.

schnide

Regardless of what you do and don't do, I empathise - it's entirely the principle, and the fact that she is deliberately underpaying you by an amount small enough to offend.

carolt

RobertoMoir wrote: »

Your over-done sarcastic reply might work if the tenant was actually paying the agreed price for the "service" and this was an argument over them using 31pence more of the hot water than the LL anticipated. If that were the case, I'd be the first to suggest that the LL concerned acquire a life.

There's something else going on here with a lack of respect, an implied challenge to the LL in the overall behaviour of the tenant here.

Maybe you need to pull your head out of whatever prejudices you clearly have about LLs and actually think about this situation based on its own merits, not those of whatever horrible personal experience you've clearly suffered and which is obviously colouring your replies.

The implication of "lack of respect" is that the landlord is entitled to some sort of extra respect - I don't believe that.

They are entitled to the 31p, yes.

But respect cuts both ways; I think emailing someone you live with over 31p is phenomenally rude, actually.