Question(s) on sublet agreements

[kleric]

Why are all your posts/responses just filled with insults? I expect a moderator to be more than a troll. The other commenters in this thread may still disagree with me, but are able to keep it respectful .

[Saint]

This was posted recently on another thread

It's a money-making game that everyone wants to play, as long as they think they have enough cash to do it.

A friend of my husband actually does it for a living... He used to rent older and slightly dodgy places (houses, condos, etc.) for periods of 5 years or more. Then, he'd improve the interior slightly (coat of paint on the walls, new kitchen cabinets, cheap but cheerful Ikea furniture, etc.) and then rent it out again to someone else for 2 or 3 times what he's paying for it. Then, he's pocket the difference and use the money to fund yet another flip scam somewhere else. In case you're wondering, during this period, he'd live in some other cheap rental unit somewhere (usually with cockroaches and a mouldy sofa for company) or he'd go back to his parents' place and crash in their spare bedroom (he's their only son, so they're pretty forgiving).

Eventually, he accumulated enough cash to put a downpayment on a beautiful $2.2 million Peranakan-style conservation shophouse in Katong, and just as we all thought he'd move in there with his new wife (he'd somehow managed to convince his long-suffering girlfriend to marry him). He promptly moved her, their 2 dogs, and all the household possessions that they'd purchased so far back to his parents' place, because he'd gotten such a good rental offer on his new house!

Needless to say, his wife was pretty pissed... but he says that this is the way the game is played in Singapore! Sigh...

[x9200]

Perhaps "sour grapes", but where I'm from this is illegal - and taking advantage of people is considered immoral, not just "oh, I wish I had done it first"

It is hard to believe this is illegal in any democratic system. Where are you from if this is not a secret? It would be illegal if he cheated you so for example supplied you with some untruthful information so you acted under false assumptions when you rented the room and you lost money as the result of it. If he just rented you more expensively than it looks from the costs he incurred it is neither illegal nor immoral.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Why are all your posts/responses just filled with insults? I expect a moderator to be more than a troll. The other commenters in this thread may still disagree with me, but are able to keep it respectful .

Truths can hardly be considered insults.

[kleric]

I'm from the midwest US. Exact laws vary by city etc., but in the city I'm from rent control is in effect so that people cannot be taken advantage of by artificially inflated rent, and also as legal responsibility. As said previously, the main owners can still charge whatever they like, but the reason for these laws is that a tenant is under a unique legal situation in which they do not own the property, are not responsible for upkeep or improvements (except in regards to their own security deposit), insurance, liability for property damage of lessees etc., and thus a sublet arrangement is seen as a way of recouping costs because of leaving property early, not making extra profit. In fact, there are sometimes statutes that require that the subletter must sign a lease with both the original tenant and the landlord so that it transfers responsibility from tenant to sub-tenant rather than creating an intermediary. If a company wishes to make profit via property, they must take the legal responsibilities associated with owning the property and providing the services required of a landlord.

As in a prior post, I see now that Singapore used to have similar laws to protect people from this sort of arrangement from the 50's until the mid 90's, but at that time the law was repealed/expired/whatever.

[beppi]

The rent control laws, instated by the British colonial authorities like in many other places under the pretext of protecting poor renters from exploitation by rich house owners, resulted in a severe shortage and appallingly low standard of rental accommodation, since it didn't pay to invest in residential property (other than for own use).
Phasing out these misguided laws improved the situation greatly and achieved, together with the HDB home-ownership scheme, that there is sufficient high quality housing available in Singapore today, despite its small size and quick population growth.
As in all free-market economies (I am surprised your home country USA is not among those), a contract can freely be negotiated between the two involved parties and price is determined by them alone, perhaps guided by supply and demand in the market as a whole. Morality plays only a minor part in this.

[beppi]

Why are all your posts/responses just filled with insults? I expect a moderator to be more than a troll. The other commenters in this thread may still disagree with me, but are able to keep it respectful .

I am saying the same as SMS, just more eloquently.
Please don't blame him - he's American, so it's not his fault!

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yeah, I'm a Yank, but kleric is probably a Democrat.

[x9200]

:tongue:

Yeah, I'm a Yank, but kleric is probably a Democrat.

Sorry, don't want to sound like insulting anybody but it looks more like a socialist.

[JR8]

Rent control (as described) in the US is probably a county/city zoning thing, to stop anyone renting a 4 bed house to 20 Costa Rican gardeners (as happened in one place on the street I lived in NJ).

I was amazed by some of the micro-management powers the town council had regarding your property. Like demanding you paint your house every five years, and other general matters of maintenance . Essentially even as the owner you had no right to leave your property looking a bit scruffy.

Anyway I think the thread has resolved itself. The sub-tenant believed he was paying an equal split of the rent and is furious that that is not the case. So he is fishing around to see if there is a way that he can whack the primary tenant, dressing all of this up as a question of morality. The sub-tenant is now reluctantly accepting that he is on a hiding to nothing, though I expect it is going to take him some time to drop the bone. Others readers here quickly tired of what is simply and evidently someone on a mission to 'get his own back' on someone else, but did enjoy seeing SMS accused of trolling.

[Expat_guy]

Is it morally right for a person to rent out his flat at the high rate, if he had bought the flat long back when the buying prices was really low?

[sundaymorningstaple]

Of course not! AND, if you were given the flat for free like bequeathed in a will, then, if you decide to rent out the flat you need to rent it out for free, as you have no investment in it, right?

[JR8]

Is it morally right for a person to rent out his flat at the high rate, if he had bought the flat long back when the buying prices was really low?

The sour grapes
are the ones
just out of your reach.

[carteki]

Is it morally right for a person to rent out his flat at the high rate, if he had bought the flat long back when the buying prices was really low?

Yes - no questions asked. It has to do with risk and reward. If all you do is risk the monthly rental then it is right that the reward is limited, but if you risk the full value of the property (and possible bankruptcy) then the reward should not be limited, but it seems that you don't get this concept.