Landlord’s “Creepy” Logbook Sparks Outrage Over Tenant’s Boyfriend Visits
A bizarre and unsettling situation has emerged in the rental market, highlighting a landlord’s intrusive behaviour and questionable practices. A tenant, Ryan, found himself at the centre of a dispute when his landlord, Malcolm, revealed a meticulously kept logbook detailing every instance of his boyfriend, Josh, staying overnight at the property. This revelation was coupled with an attempt to retroactively increase Ryan’s rent, sparking outrage and accusations of illegal and invasive conduct.
Malcolm’s initial communication with Ryan was via text message, where he stated he would be adjusting the rent. The message outlined his interpretation of a clause in the tenancy agreement, specifically Clause 6.3, which reportedly limits overnight guests to a maximum of three nights per calendar month. Malcolm claimed this limit had been exceeded, citing his observations of Ryan’s boyfriend, Josh, staying over more frequently.
Ryan, seemingly unfazed by the initial notification, casually confirmed that Josh had indeed been staying over on several occasions. However, the situation escalated when Malcolm pointed out that Josh was not listed as an occupant on the tenancy agreement. It was at this juncture that Malcolm unveiled his “log,” a document he claimed to have been keeping to monitor guest activity.
“I have to say I was not expecting this type of arrangement at the property,” Malcolm stated, revealing a tone of disapproval. When Ryan inquired about the nature of this “arrangement,” Malcolm explained his rationale for the rent increase.
The landlord asserted that he maintained “respectable property” and had certain standards to uphold. He then declared an additional charge of £200 (approximately AU$375) per month, to be backdated to April. To substantiate his claim, Malcolm attached a copy of his logbook to the text message.
The contents of the logbook were alarming and highly detailed, painting a picture of extreme surveillance:
- Tuesday, 4th April: “Lights on past 11 pm. Two shadows visible.”
- Saturday, 8th April: “Two sets of footsteps on stairs between 11 pm and midnight.”
- Sunday, 9th April: “Additional towel on washing line.”
- Friday, 13th April: “Male voice audible from garden.”
- Saturday, 14th April: “Two coffee cups on kitchen windowsill 8 am.”
Ryan was understandably stunned by the level of detail and the implication that his landlord was actively monitoring his private life, even listening for voices in the garden. He confronted Malcolm, questioning his actions and stating, “You’ve been standing outside my property logging my boyfriend’s voice from the garden.” Malcolm defended his behaviour, labelling it a “routine visual check.”
He further elaborated on his motivations, explaining that he had a “particular type of tenant in mind” when he purchased the property and wanted to ensure everyone was “comfortable with the arrangement going forward.” When Ryan pressed him on what he meant by “particular type of tenant,” Malcolm vaguely responded, “Someone who respects the property and the surrounding neighbours, Ryan. That’s all I mean.”
Undeterred, Ryan challenged the legality of Malcolm’s actions, firmly stating that a landlord cannot legally charge additional rent for a guest. He declared his refusal to pay the £600 (approximately AU$1,100) in backdated charges. Ryan also indicated his intention to investigate why the landlord had suddenly begun logging overnight stays shortly after Josh had spent Christmas with him.
Malcolm, seemingly unswayed by Ryan’s objections, claimed to be “confident” in his decision, citing his brother-in-law, a conveyancing solicitor, as a source of legal support. However, Ryan quickly pointed out the flaw in this reasoning, explaining that conveyancing deals with property sales, not tenant law.
Ryan then escalated the confrontation by demanding the contact details of Malcolm’s other tenants, suggesting a desire to compare notes on how consistently the guest clause was being enforced. Malcolm’s refusal to provide this information was met with a firm declaration from Ryan that his “solicitor will be in touch. And NOT a conveyancing one. Malcolm.”
The heated text exchange was later re-shared by UK property strategist Jack Rooke, who publicly decried the landlord’s logbook as “creepy.” The video documenting the exchange garnered over 125,000 views, with many viewers expressing shock and condemnation of Malcolm’s behaviour, labelling it as “crossing the line,” “illegal,” and “creepy.”
Comments from social media users reflected a strong sentiment of disapproval:
- “Never mind a solicitor, I’m calling the police after that text,” one user suggested, highlighting the perceived seriousness of the landlord’s actions.
- Another recounted a similar experience: “I had a landlord try to do this to me. Tried to charge my friend the same amount as rent as I was paying. I simply ignored it and nothing ever came of it.”
- A third user unequivocally stated, “That landlord is way WAY out of order.”
While the majority expressed dismay, some found dark humour in the situation:
- “An additional towel is hilarious, as if one person only has one towel in their house,” one commenter remarked.
- “The cups on the windowsill sent me so hard,” another added, finding amusement in the mundane details logged by the landlord.
The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of clear tenancy agreements, respectful landlord-tenant relationships, and the legal boundaries that protect individuals’ privacy within their rented homes. The extreme and intrusive nature of Malcolm’s “logging” has undoubtedly crossed a significant line, prompting widespread calls for accountability and greater awareness of tenant rights.
