2 people sharing w/2 individual AST contracts, how do you do the inventory?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    2 people sharing w/2 individual AST contracts, how do you do the inventory?

    If a house is shared by 2 individuals who each have their own AST contracts, and they share "common areas", how would you manage the inventory?

    How would you manage costs against damage in common areas, when T moves out, assuming each T would move out at a different date?

    #2
    It is almost impossible to pursue damages in common areas - the tenancy agreement is for exclusive possession of one room and it is only that room where you will find it easy to convince a judge that the tenant caused the damage.

    If you have 'proof' that's different.

    Rooms let this way usually attract a rent premium which allows the landlord to cover the costs of minor maintenance / damage issues.

    Comment


      #3
      I agree with Snorkerz. You cannot divide the cost of damage to communal areas between all Ts who live there, unless they have a joint tenancy contract. Given that they do not, you and your agents, contractors, et., have had unsupervised access to the common areas and any damage could (arguably) have been caused by you as much as by them.

      Be fair.
      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
        Given that they do not, you and your agents, contractors, et., have had unsupervised access to the common areas and any damage could (arguably) have been caused by you as much as by them.

        Be fair.
        This question is for a hypothetical situation for the future.

        Comment


          #5
          And so was my answer. You will note the use of the modal verb 'could'.
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment


            #6
            I find it hard to pass up a discussion on grammar. Please excuse me. :-)


            Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
            And so was my answer. You will note the use of the modal verb 'could'.
            In that case the sentence should have been:

            Given that they do not, you and your agents, contractors, et., will have [have had] unsupervised access to the common areas and any damage could (arguably) be [have been] caused by you as much as by them.

            All in good spirits :-)

            Comment


              #7
              The use of the perfect conditional would have been equally valid, however the modal 'could', in pragmatic terms, does convey the same meaning.

              I trust that settles it.
              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Bird View Post
                I find it hard to pass up a discussion on grammar. Please excuse me. :-)




                In that case the sentence should have been:

                Given that they do not, you and your agents, contractors, et., will have [have had] unsupervised access to the common areas and any damage could (arguably) be [have been] caused by you as much as by them.

                All in good spirits :-)
                Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                The use of the perfect conditional would have been equally valid, however the modal 'could', in pragmatic terms, does convey the same meaning.

                I trust that settles it.
                I wouldn't argue grammar with MTG, she's a decorator you know.
                I offer no guarantee that anything I say is correct. wysiwyg

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jta View Post
                  I wouldn't argue grammar with MTG, she's a decorator you know.
                  :-) I don't get the joke

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Bird View Post
                    :-) I don't get the joke
                    MTG was an English teacher.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Mrs Mug View Post
                      MTG was an English teacher.
                      And still am, it seems. I am frequently sent job applications to proof-read for my former students/children's friends. It amazes me the hoops you have to jump through these days even to stand a remote chance of being interviewed for even the most unremarkable of positions. You have to be 'passionate', 'inspired', 'enthusiastic', 'highly motivated' about everything under the sun. You can't just want a job.

                      And you can't afford to get your apostrophes in the wrong place.
                      'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Mrs Mug View Post
                        MTG was an English teacher.
                        Oooh, in that case, MTG, can I ask you a serious question please. Really, for my education purposes.

                        In the sentence:

                        .... you and your agents, contractors, et., have had unsupervised access to the common areas and any damage could (arguably) have been caused by you as much as by them.

                        Don't the use of the words "have had" and "have been" strictly mean that the implied action(s) took place in the past? An so therefore, the use of word "could" does not push the events to the future. It simply means that those implied events in the past could have been caused by either [them] or [you].



                        This is how I was taught. Of course I could be wrong and I seriously want to learn.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Bird View Post

                          This is how I was taught. Of course I could be wrong and I seriously want to learn.
                          For some reason, I remain unconvinced.

                          However, if you insist, you need to re-read my #3 in the context of a potential/imagined situation in which a joint tenancy is first assumed/envisaged, then rejected as not being the case, hence x is the implication. I could have put 'Imagine' at the beginning of the scenario, but in the context of this forum I didn't feel I needed to spell that out. In that context, the conditional can be understood without being stated and the use of the perfect tense does not necessarily indicate that the events being described have happened in reality. If the passage were in French, I expect some writers would employ the subjunctive mood (another indicator of potentiality rather than actuality), but that's falling out of use in English.

                          Consider this statement from a health blog:

                          [Imagine] You're out for a run. You've covered a good 5 miles and you've only had to stop once. You had a good breakfast before you set off. Now, you're beginning to feel some discomfort in your chest. What do you do?

                          A number of tenses are used in that text - including the perfect and the pretorite past tenses (see emboldened verbs) - but it does not mean that everything in it has actually happened to the reader.

                          And in the context of this forum and the answer to your question (which incidentally, we could have answered more precisely had you made its hypothetical nature clear from the outset!)... it really didn't (and doesn't) matter a flying f***.

                          Hope that helps!

                          End of free linguistics lesson. Further help given on paid basis only, or alternatively, I suggest you register with the Word Reference forum, and invaluable source of support and explanation for those keen to learn more about the subtleties of English grammar:

                          http://forum.wordreference.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6
                          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by mind the gap View Post
                            You have to be 'passionate', 'inspired', 'enthusiastic', 'highly motivated' about everything under the sun. You can't just want a job.
                            Eew. If there's one thing I'm 'passionate' about, it's the word 'passionate' (in it's modern usage). If anybody sent me a job application which used it, I reckon it would go straight into the rejects pile.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Ericthelobster View Post
                              Eew. If there's one thing I'm 'passionate' about, it's the word 'passionate' (in it's modern usage). If anybody sent me a job application which used it, I reckon it would go straight into the rejects pile.
                              I agree! Having said that, my son has just been given a reference (well, strictly speaking a testimonial as he was allowed to read it!), in which someone very well qualified and respected in the field described him as 'passionate' about the work applied for. Personally, I'd describe him (my son) as 'obsessed', but I guess that wouldn't go down too well, either!

                              BTW...any views on the non-standard spelling of its and it's, Eric?!
                              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X