Family rent question

blueberrygerry

Two siblings jointly own a rental property.

Single adult child of sibling (A) rents it at a reduced rate, using housing benefit. Rent has always been paid on time. Rate of rent has not altered for five years +.

Tenant usually works part time, but stepped away from job late March due to concern for health of themselves and young child during outset of virus problem. Concern was based on potential proximity in workplace to others outside of their own household and risk of infection.

Sibling (A), the parent of tenant, requests agreement from sibling (B) to a rent reduction of approx 50%, to alleviate subsequent financial burden, due to covid uncertainty during April, May and June. The reduction is agreed for three month spell, after which it will be reviewed.

Some weeks later, it comes to attention of sibling (B) that tenant had been socialising with friends, both outside and inside of rented property, holding parties with numerous others, who had posted images / comments of drinks, drugs etc on social media.

Sibling (B) was unhappy about this and feels taken advantage of, and as result, considers the rationale provided for agreed rent reduction was undermined.

Sibling (B) calls sibling (A) to make known their disappointment and also to state that while they will honour the agreed three month rent reduction, they will not agree to extending it. Sibling (B) also makes it known that if sibling (A) wishes to continue with any reduction in rent, that they can cover it themselves for their child. The funding of the agreed rent reduction is comfortably affordable for sibling (A) 

The question is.....

Was sibling (B) wrong to be offended by actions of tenant, and, in deciding not to extend rent reduction beyond June, with ongoing virus situation?

JReacher1

What would sibling B do if Sibling A refuses?  I imagine it can be quite difficult to evict a tenant when one of the owners doesn’t agree with it. 

Also I think the rent reduction and socialising are unrelated. You can have no money but still have friends round to your house.  It doesn’t cost anything. 

blueberrygerry

Ok.
So the agreement to reduce rent should be based on financial circumstances only, no matter how or why any financial difficulty came about yes? The fact that a reduction was agreed on basis of tenant wanting to remain free of contact with others in workplace, and then choosing to have contact with others socially is acceptable?

Just looking to see what views of others may be, as to whether sibling "B" was overreacting in not wanting to continue with funding reduction.

blueberrygerry

JReacher1 said:

What would sibling B do if Sibling A refuses?  I imagine it can be quite difficult to evict a tenant when one of the owners doesn’t agree with it. 

Also I think the rent reduction and socialising are unrelated. You can have no money but still have friends round to your house.  It doesn’t cost anything. 

There was never any talk of eviction. That was not on agenda.

warby68

Its probably not wrong to be a bit offended but probably better, on the whole, not to express the judgement. You're in mixing of money and family territory, never easy.
3 months of 50% rent is a decent concession. You could stick at that without a reason.
Too late now unfortunately.

Mojisola

blueberrygerry said:

Tenant usually works part time, but stepped away from job late March due to concern for health of themselves and young child during outset of virus problem. Concern was based on potential proximity in workplace to others outside of their own household and risk of infection.

Some weeks later, it comes to attention of sibling (B) that tenant had been socialising with friends, both outside and inside of rented property, holding parties with numerous others

I would feel I'd been taken for a ride too.

The tenant used health anxieties as a reason to reduce the rent and yet has socialised with groups of people.

It's a very difficult situation but the ultimate solution is to say you want to sell the house - either the other owner can buy you out or you will have to spend money forcing a sale.  It's likely to end up with family relations deteriorating whatever happens.

blueberrygerry

Can you explain "stick at that without a reason" 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean on that.

warby68

blueberrygerry said:

Can you explain "stick at that without a reason" 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean on that.

I just mean not going into your reasons for refusing any further concessions but like I said, its too late now you already have.
Perhaps I should have said 'you could have stuck at that without a reason'

blueberrygerry

Mojisola, yes, that seems to be the issue.

Tenant and parent request reduction based on fears of proximity with others, which meant avoiding work, leading to reduced cash. Sibling "B" agrees, but then feels arrived at lack of social distancing by choice, which they feel undermines reason behind reduction of rent.

There was never any discussion around eviction. It would never come to that. 

blueberrygerry

warby68 said:

blueberrygerry said:

Can you explain "stick at that without a reason" 

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean on that.

I just mean not going into your reasons for refusing any further concessions but like I said, its too late now you already have.
Perhaps I should have said 'you could have stuck at that without a reason'

Why do you assume I am sibling B?

blueberrygerry

blueberrygerry said:

Mojisola, yes, that seems to be the issue.

Tenant and parent request reduction based on fears of proximity with others, which meant avoiding work, leading to reduced cash. Sibling "B" agrees, but then feels arrived at lack of social distancing by choice, which they feel undermines reason behind reduction of rent.

There was never any discussion around eviction. It would never come to that. 

Should say aggrieved.