Money Moral Dilemma: Should our mate cover the deposit lost on our house share after he pulled out?

Ath_Wat

lucypilates said:

Morally yes, perhaps he should repay you all. 

But then also morally, he has also lost his deposit and if he does pay you all back, he will be considerably more out of pocket. He clearly doesn’t have money to spare so this would be very hard on him and should he really shoulder ALL the fall out from this JOINT risk you all took??! 

I say let it go, all learn from the experience and try to keep the friendship unsullied … in a years time, that deposit will mean nothing but friendship will .. 

It wasn't supposed to be a risk, though.  It was a holding deposit to tell the landlord they wanted it.  These are generally very short term.  If any one of them was unsure, they should have told the others they were unsure and let the house go.

It was not "we might want this house", it was "we do want it, here's the first payment."

Agent57

Definitely, he should pay. What's the moral dilemma?  

You say: "We found a five-bedroom house to rent that we all agreed on, and paid a holding deposit of £530.", but further on, it sounds like one of you paid the deposit on behalf of the five and three reimbursed and one didn't.  

When the deposit was handed over did one, or all of you, sign anything?  

All should have paid their share of the deposit at the time or very soon after regardless of whether the the flat share went ahead or not.

Maybe you had a lucky escape.  Imagine sharing a house for years with someone like that.

DennyK

Someone commented earlier:

“We booked a caravan for a week with another couple and we paid the deposit.  When the time came to pay the balance, the other couple said they were holidaying with family instead.  We had to pay the whole of the balance ourselves. They didn't offer to pay us a penny.  We thought they should,.  However we said nothing for the sake of friendship.”

 I appreciate it’s horses for courses, but what struck me was that a decent friend would not have done this in the first place. I’d have jettisoned them, as they were clearly willing to fleece you AND to lose your friendship if you challenged them. 

On the original post: yes he should pay. He made a commitment, he’s an adult and he needs to understand that “I changed my mind” isn’t a get out of jail free card. Again, he’s willing to dump your friendship by screwing you all over, so why would you want someone untrustworthy and dishonourable in your life. 

At the risk of sounding outdated (actually, I don’t care), I think that the concept of honourable behaviour has fallen away - in terms of “honour” being part of the bedrock of character. I speak to my mid-20s friends and they look at me as though I’m insane. One even said “being kind is being weak, these days”. Appalled at that sentiment in itself, but pointed out that kindness and honour are not synonyms. 

Rant over. 

Afourteen

Looks to me that you have made an expensive lesson. So have you asked the LandLord if he will give a refund - he might if you are prepared to wait until he has another group/family in place. It may only be a partial refund but any moneys back is better than none. 
When you came together as a group I guess you made a verbal agreement to rent and split the bills equally, really what you should have done, even with close friends, is have set up a contract between yourselves with agreements about return of deposits, rent payments and how the household bills are funded.

As others have said, you should have continued to take the property and advertise for a replacement person. From your initial wording it seems there is a 'lead' tenant with the others contributing; or did you each have an individual agreement with the landlord and an equal devision of payments? That actually could make a difference to the outcome.   

Ath_Wat

I think all those saying they should have taken the house and advertised for a replacement should realise that covering the individual rent for a month would cost them more than the lost deposit.  Therefore if took them a month to fill that room, they would be worse off, and living with a stranger.  I am not sure that that's a clearly better course of action than letting it go and finding another.

ginger_chocolate

He should have first offered to help you find a replacement person to take his room. Bit late for that now, so he should pay up.

That said, I don't think finding a third person is as straightforward as people are making out. An agreement to move into a house share with two friends you know well is a very different proposition to advertising for a complete stranger to move in with you. 

Ringo90

hazyjo said:

Don't see how it's any different to, say, buying a house, spending money on surveys, solicitor, etc, and someone pulling out. Nothing would be reimbursed.

These sorts of decisions on "what if" scenarios should be made before paying anything. Unfortunately, lesson learned. Try asking, but it's definitely not worth losing a friend over. 

Well, except here there is only one person who pulled out, and 4 more who kept their commitment, so I don't see why it should be their lesson learned?

Yes it would be nice if he paid, but I wonder what contingency plan was in place in case one lost their job or couldn't pay and they'd all moved in. Would they all have been up s-creek? Was trying to say that surely there must have been some discussion regarding what would happen if one person wanted to leave or dropped out. The obvious solution is to replace them and perhaps that should've been explored.

It's not about being nice. It's his duty. If they had gone ahead and rented the property as joint tenants, and one of them lost their job, he would be liable to pay his share in some way, not his mates. They could have chipped in for him temporarely to help him but ultimately he is responsible to pay for himself, not his friends.

chardir

5 of you chose to pay £106 deposit each. 1 pulled out (and lost their £106). The remaining 4 could have rented as 4 or looked for another fifth housemate. Instead they chose to pull out and lose their £106 deposits also. So I would say each is liable for their own deposit.

However, this is a "moral" dilemma. The friend pulling out after you'd made an agreement clearly let things get too far along before changing their mind. So the moral/kind thing to do would be for them to offer to pay back the others deposits also.

CathWat

He should certainly offer and you would be ok to ask.  If it doesn't feel comfortable asking, then you can still be friends but in future, make sure he pays upfront for his share of anything

Ath_Wat

chardir said:

5 of you chose to pay £106 deposit each. 1 pulled out (and lost their £106). The remaining 4 could have rented as 4 or looked for another fifth housemate. Instead they chose to pull out and lose their £106 deposits also. So I would say each is liable for their own deposit.

However, this is a "moral" dilemma. The friend pulling out after you'd made an agreement clearly let things get too far along before changing their mind. So the moral/kind thing to do would be for them to offer to pay back the others deposits also.

Again, they would have to find a new housemate who could move in immediately and pay for the first month, or they would be losing more money by not pulling out.  How likely do you think that is?  And if moving that fast (although we don't know when they planned to move in) how much vetting could they do?  And if they moved in as 4 they would be losing more than the lost deposit every month. There's zero guarantee they could have saved money by moving in; they were placed in a position where losing money was by far the most likely option and they chose the path that was safest.