how is rent calculated if tenant leaves before end of periodic tenancy

[GillsMan]

You're welcome - and don't worry, you started nothing!

There's one on every forum

Trolling me again? Shocker. Grow up, eh? I was trying to be helpful.

There's really no need to continually snipe about me. Seriously, I was only trying to be helpful, I think you're the only person who had a problem with the way I re-presented sound advice.

Please, back off a bit eh? This is beginning to feel a bit like bullying, given that I'm relatively new on here and you're anything but. I like coming on here, and I'd like to contribute more but it's not much fun when you act the way you do. And I'd really appreciate if you kept your snidy remarks about me to yourself.

[mind the gap]

Thanks all,

looks like I started something there. Either way it all works out the same. cheers guys

You're welcome - and don't worry, you started nothing!

There's one on every forum

[Mark1564]

Thanks all,

looks like I started something there. Either way it all works out the same. cheers guys

[GillsMan]

You seem very mixed up, as well as rude (your use of 'for ****'s sake' on the forum as well as in your pm is hardly appropriate, now is it?) However, as I said in my response, you are welcome to your opinions about me; because I have no sense of who you are, I am not affected by what you think. I would though prefer you not to tell me them by private message. For a number of reasons, it achieves nothing, really. I think we must simply agree to differ.

It wasn't like I was being abusive in the PM though (despite your best efforts to make it appear as though I was). Meh, you're a piece of work tbh. Don't worry, you'll not be getting any further PM's (though you could have communicated this wish in PRIVATE (maybe you should look it up as you obviously don't understand the definition of this word). Now, haven't you got another thread to ruin with a pointless comment about grammar, someone getting a saying slightly wrong, or your not being able to understand fairly basic concepts which everyone else seems to understand?

Sigh, if only you cut that nonsense out and stick to the helpful comments which everyone can see you have in you. Oh well, if only there was world peace! Sadly, there'll always be keyboard warriors on message forums.

[mind the gap]

Wait a second - that PM was like last week for a start. And I sent it in private for a reason. But seeing as you're insinuating that I did the cowardly act of sending you an abusive PM, what i actually did was refute your accusation that I was gratuitously rude; say that I found you very helpful on the forums, but also condescending and rude; and called you a valuable resource. I said that I would apologise if I was "gratuitously rude", but that I genuinely didn't think I was.

So get your facts straight before you refer to a PRIVATE message.

Nothing confusing about my original post. It simply added to something someone else said.

You seem very mixed up, as well as rude (your use of 'for ****'s sake' on the forum as well as in your pm is hardly appropriate, now is it?) However, as I said in my response, you are welcome to your opinions about me; because I have no sense of who you are, I am not affected by what you think. I would though prefer you not to tell me them by private message. For a number of reasons, it achieves nothing, really. I think we must simply agree to differ.

[GillsMan]

There was no intention on my part to do anything other than highlight the confusing nature of your post. If you dislike being 'trolled' as you call it, (although most would just call it being challenged on a point of clarity!), then please stop wasting my time telling me by private message how much you object to my contributions to this forum! There is, of course, no obligation to read them. Given their apparent effect on your blood pressure, perhaps you should just ignore what I put.

Perhaps that can be an end to it.

Wait a second - that PM was like last week for a start. And I sent it in private for a reason. But seeing as you're insinuating that I did the cowardly act of sending you an abusive PM, then, for the benefit of other people who didn't read it, what i actually did was refute your accusation that I was gratuitously rude; say that I found you very helpful on the forums, but also condescending and rude; and called you a valuable resource. I said that I would apologise if I was "gratuitously rude", but that I genuinely didn't think I was.

So get your facts straight before you refer to a PRIVATE message.

Nothing confusing about my original post. It simply added to something someone else said.

(PS - was it your intention to admit that you're trolling me because I sent you a PM?)

[mind the gap]

Given that MTG was unable to work out that the asterisk signified a multiplication, I highly doubt she's aware of what a wild card is (so for example in SQL it usually denotes "anything", should I have covered that base as well?).

What did MTG's post add? Apart from pointless post-boosting of course. And now, thanks to her snidey little comment, we're off topic yet again. Admitedly I could have just ignored so I suppose I'm to blame as well.

There was no intention on my part to do anything other than highlight the confusing nature of your post. If you dislike being 'trolled' as you call it, (although most would just call it being challenged on a point of clarity!), then please stop wasting my time telling me by private message how much you object to my contributions to this forum! There is, as you admit, no obligation to read them. Given their apparent effect on your blood pressure, perhaps you should just ignore what I contribute.

Perhaps that can be an end to it.

[jeffrey]

OK, a bit of a clash of symbols!
The inescapable legal point is that the only valid way to apportion anything is on a yearly basis (however you depict this in symbols).
Use 365 days as the fraction's denominator, unless it's a leap year.

[GillsMan]

Given that MTG was unable to work out that the asterisk signified a multiplication, I highly doubt she's aware of what a wild card is (so for example in SQL it usually denotes "anything", should I have covered that base as well?).

What did MTG's post add? Apart from pointless post-boosting of course. And now, thanks to her snidey little comment, we're off topic yet again. Admitedly I could have just ignored so I suppose I'm to blame as well.

[theartfullodger]

Blimey, if tedious posts were banned what would so many denizens of these fora & other sites do all day???

I liked MTG's post, as I usually like MTGs' posts..

Asterisks signify multiplication, and is used in software such as Excel

surely not "is" but "are" or "can be" ?? Not to mention "Asterisks can signify multiplication amongst other things (e.g. wild cards...)

(Yup, I know, they'll be hostages2fortune of similar errors in so many of my posts....)


Cheers!


Lodger

[GillsMan]

I cannot see how this 'formula', as set out above, adds anything at all to Mrs Mug's correct and very clear explanation.(In fact, what you have written risks confusing the issue). Please explain! What do the asterisks signify, for example? And why are there two sets of brackets?

Do you mean that in this case, P = M x 12 /365 x D [where P is the appportioned amount of rent, M is the monthly rent and D is the number of days in the portion?]

Then P = M x 12/365 x 12 in this case, but Mrs Mugs' version (using words) is surely much easier to follow.

Stop trolling me MTG, it's massively tedious.

Asterisks signify multiplication, and are used in software such as Excel. It's fairly ubiquitous tbh, and I'm mildly shocked this is the first time you've come across this in, what is it now, 2010? It was just another way of confirming Mrs Mug's explanation. I was trying to be helpful ffs, just because you didn't understand my fairly basic formula, doesn't mean other people won't. Please, stop trolling me...be gone.

[theartfullodger]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

Except in leap year??

Cheers!

Lodger

[mind the gap]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

I cannot see how this 'formula', as set out above, adds anything at all to Mrs Mug's correct and very clear explanation.(In fact, what you have written risks confusing the issue). Please explain! What do the asterisks signify, for example? And why are there two sets of brackets?

Do you mean that in this case, P = M x 12 /365 x D [where P is the appportioned amount of rent, M is the monthly rent and D is the number of days in the portion?]

Then P = M x 12/365 x 12 in this case, but Mrs Mugs' version (using words) is surely much easier to follow.

[GillsMan]

Yes, =((Monthly Rent * 12)/365)*12) is the correct formula.

[Mrs Mug]

Divide monthly rent by number of days in that month then * 12

No, the correct way is to divide the annual rent by 365 and then multiply by 12 days.