Student co-renter rips off the house

macman

Comms69 wrote: »

Well it's debateable if it's been sublet, but even if we agree that.


It does not mean the new tenant has no rights.

OP told us that Mandy moved someone else in, who is paying her £150pm more than the rent paid by the other tenants. That sounds like subletting to me!
The new 'tenant' is not a legal tenant, so she has no rights at all. She is effectively a visitor, and the LL can remove her if they wish.

pimento

If you have a surname she should be easy enough to find.

I once tracked down a bloke who sold some non-existant festival tickets to me son on Facebook. I found him and sent a LBA to his dad. I received a cheque by return.

Comms69

lookstraightahead wrote: »

Comms. They read contracts just like any typical person in this country. Badly. My daughter is a straight A student with very little common sense and I agree with what you are saying, but it does require more clarity. I will await your passionate response ...

Yes but why would you not teach her?

Basic contract law is more important than half the nonsense one can get a qualification in.

I just find it shocking how I’ll prepared young people are, compared to other nations especially.

My only other experience is of russia and students there study shorter hours and typically have broader knowledge than the UK.

Yes the education system is an absolute joke. But I talk to my eldest, 11, about law, politics etc.

pimento

I'd probably be angry enough to give her a CCJ. I doubt I'd get the money but she would have credit problems for a few years.

Comms69

macman wrote: »

OP told us that Mandy moved someone else in, who is paying her £150pm more than the rent paid by the other tenants. That sounds like subletting to me!
The new 'tenant' is not a legal tenant, so she has no rights at all. She is effectively a visitor, and the LL can remove her if they wish.

Wow....

the landlord CANNOT REMOVE ANYONE! That is not up for debate.

It might be subletting, but at this point it’s not clear. She definitely has rights, but they may be contractual ‘lodger-esque’, rather than statutory.

spadoosh

Comms69 wrote: »

Actually it!!!8217;s parents failing to educate their children who are now ADULTS.

Can vote; can!!!8217;t read a contract.... it!!!8217;s pathetic

Because we dont see hundreds of people (lets assume at least some are adults) here everyday falling foul of contracts.

The problem with contracts is they tend to be written or covered by lawyers. Im sure youre well aware of legalese being so aware of contracts. The definition of it is 'the formal and technical language of legal documents'

That suggests to me that it requires a professional to properly decipher such a document. I know i dont understand fully most of the contracts ive signed simply because they use language that is completely alien to me or the alternative, use language im aware of that means something else entirely in legalese.

Theres a reason they use such language, its to force joe bloggs who doesnt fully understand a language theyve never come across before to seek the professionals. You see it keeps highly paid people in jobs (well theyre clearly pretty clever!) .

However as always its easier blaming parents who are ignorant of such things.

Right ok so we keep blaiming parents and i can guarantee this will continue in perpertuity. It will happen year in year out. Where as simply outlawing contracts that shift liability from someone who is actually liable for something to someone who really should not be liable for something would stop it immediately and mean that thousands of student everyyear dont either need to seek independent advice on renting a student house (Really to rent a place for a few years you expect someone to learn legalese? bearing in mind even if they where studying law they could easily have signed said contract before the course has started!) or end up leaving uni with CCJ's.

Its alright being a smarty and thinking im all right jack they should be smarter and whilst i assume youre in the top end of cleveryness you surely must be aware that there will be people below you who arent as able to understand or for that matter thoroughly check something which is blatantly designed to take advantage of students for the benefit of the landlord.

spadoosh

Comms69 wrote: »

Yes but why would you not teach her?

Basic contract law is more important than half the nonsense one can get a qualification in.

I just find it shocking how I’ll prepared young people are, compared to other nations especially.

My only other experience is of russia and students there study shorter hours and typically have broader knowledge than the UK.

Yes the education system is an absolute joke. But I talk to my eldest, 11, about law, politics etc.

How do you expect someone to teach something they dont know?

Comms69

spadoosh wrote: »

How do you expect someone to teach something they dont know?

By learning about it? It’s a fundamental responsibility of parents to prepare their children for adulthood

Smodlet

It is a bitter lesson to learn, no-one would deny that but no-one, not students, their parents/guarantors nor anyone else should sign contracts until or unless they understand every single word contained therein. If they do, they take the consequences and for goodness' sake, there is enough advice out here on the interweb so there really is no excuse... Presumably, if someone is actually incapable of understanding a contract, even in this day and age they would not be considered university material... Would they?

Comms69

spadoosh wrote: »

Because we dont see hundreds of people (lets assume at least some are adults) here everyday falling foul of contracts.

The problem with contracts is they tend to be written or covered by lawyers. Im sure youre well aware of legalese being so aware of contracts. The definition of it is 'the formal and technical language of legal documents'

That suggests to me that it requires a professional to properly decipher such a document. I know i dont understand fully most of the contracts ive signed simply because they use language that is completely alien to me or the alternative, use language im aware of that means something else entirely in legalese.

Theres a reason they use such language, its to force joe bloggs who doesnt fully understand a language theyve never come across before to seek the professionals. You see it keeps highly paid people in jobs (well theyre clearly pretty clever!) .

However as always its easier blaming parents who are ignorant of such things.

Right ok so we keep blaiming parents and i can guarantee this will continue in perpertuity. It will happen year in year out. Where as simply outlawing contracts that shift liability from someone who is actually liable for something to someone who really should not be liable for something would stop it immediately and mean that thousands of student everyyear dont either need to seek independent advice on renting a student house (Really to rent a place for a few years you expect someone to learn legalese? bearing in mind even if they where studying law they could easily have signed said contract before the course has started!) or end up leaving uni with CCJ's.

Its alright being a smarty and thinking im all right jack they should be smarter and whilst i assume youre in the top end of cleveryness you surely must be aware that there will be people below you who arent as able to understand or for that matter thoroughly check something which is blatantly designed to take advantage of students for the benefit of the landlord.

Tenancy contracts, like many others (99.9% of what a consumer will see) do not require training or knowledge of legalese.

The fundamentals of contracts - ie joint and severable in this case - require very basic explanation.

None of this ‘takes advantage’ of students; it’s supply and demand. And whilst yes I may be near the top end; it does not mean that we or the state should play nanny to everyone else. It’s called personal responsibility; something much lacking in young people.