Family rent question

JReacher1

blueberrygerry said:

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.

Then there is nothing that can be done. If they refuse to accept the rent returning to the previous level your hands are tied. 

Whether the tenant is social distancing or not they aren’t working so don’t have the money. You seeM to want to make a moral judgement on their behaviour. 

blueberrygerry

JReacher1 said:

blueberrygerry said:

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.

Then there is nothing that can be done. If they refuse to accept the rent returning to the previous level your hands are tied. 

Whether the tenant is social distancing or not they aren’t working so don’t have the money. You seeM to want to make a moral judgement on their behaviour. 

No, I am not making judgements either way on behaviour.

 I am simply asking whether people would feel the same as sibling B does over why a reduction was agreed, or, whether there is no problem with the overall picture and the reduction is justified and correct and would be fair to continue.

onwards&upwards

JReacher1 said:

blueberrygerry said:

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.

Then there is nothing that can be done. If they refuse to accept the rent returning to the previous level your hands are tied. 

Whether the tenant is social distancing or not they aren’t working so don’t have the money. You seeM to want to make a moral judgement on their behaviour. 

I think the point is that they could have been working, they chose not to. 

warby68

I did read it as if you were Sibling B so apologies if that assumption is incorrect. I think it was the discussion of feelings and opinions about A and their child.
It doesn't change my response though. Probably feel the same as B but keep my own counsel given the family ties.
If I were A and well off, I'd have probably taken the hit myself and not asked Sibling B in the first place though.

Fireflyaway

I think sibling B has been very obliging and was kind to agree to a temporary rent reduction, but I also understand how they would feel a bit misled, seeing that the tenant has not really been shielding themself! I agree in light of this, no further reduction should be granted. 
Looking ahead I'd be cautious about renting to a family member. It's always a risk when family and money are linked. What if the adult child loses their job, moves in an undesirable partner, suddenly decides that late night parties are fun or adopts 10 dogs?! You could really jeopardize your relationship. 

Comms69

blueberrygerry said:

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?

Sibling B needs to not get involved in how people live there lives. 

Annisele

blueberrygerry said:

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

I'm worried about the housing benefit part of this. Between the "reduced rate" and "eviction would never happen", this starts to look like a contrived tenancy. I'd be concerned about whether housing benefit would continue to be paid in those circumstances.

I think B has a point in feeling they've been taken for a ride. But I also think this has the potential to get extremely messy.

pickledonionspaceraider

blueberrygerry said:

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?

A couple of things - Housing benefit has not dropped during COVID so not sure why a reduction in rent was needed, as tenant would have still been able to claim the same - did they advise housing benefit that they only needed 50% of the money?  

The whole situation has potential to become toxic.  I think sibling B should have kept quiet and then refused a further extension.  It comes across as v judgemental and scouring someones social media for rocks to throw - and not very adult.

The whole lot is bad though, the whole family are far too much up in each others business, everyone knowing each others financial situation and making judgements on it

If I were the tenant, I would be looking to move to somewhere, where I had more privacy and my landlord were not monitoring my actions.

TBagpuss

I thought the same as you about housing benefit now having changed, but I suppose that while the housing benefit element of the tenant's income may well have stayed the same, their total income may have fallen if they have not been working.

That said, I do think it is reasonable for B to feel taken advantage of, if they greed to the reduction on the basis that the tenant was suffering financial hardship as a result stopping work to reduce contact, but then choosing to have parties thereby unnecessarily exposing themself and their child to increased risk. 

The tricky part is what you do next. On the face of it, the rent returned to normal at the start of July. If the tenant doesn't pay, then debt builds up, but normally the way you would deal with that is y evicting the tenant and suing them for arrears, which Op suggests that they are unwilling to do.

OP could f course agree with their sibling that the sibling will guarantee their child's rent , and make good any shortfall, but ultimately the issue is between OP and their sibling, and the tenant - it isn't the siblings responsibility to pay the shortfall for their child unless they have a specific agreement to do so. 

Mojisola

pickledonionspaceraider said:

blueberrygerry said:

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 +.

If I were the tenant, I would be looking to move to somewhere, where I had more privacy and my landlord were not monitoring my actions.

And give up paying a reduced rent that hasn't changed for over five years in a home that they're very unlikely to ever be evicted from?