Allowing existing tenant to sublease.
- Thread starter tonyc00
- Start date
If I may be so bold, I believe Rixter's referring to the fact that you now have more people to pursue if things go wrong. Tenants are jointly and severally liable for their debt - e.g. if they stop paying, or trash the place. Therefore, the more people you have legally responsible for such consequences, the better your chance of getting your money back.
But... this is becoming somewhat of a theoretical advantage, in my experience. If three people are named on the lease, I've seen Tribunals make orders with each tenant responsible for one-third of the debt - instead of the three of them being jointly responsible for the whole debt - and that somewhat defeats the purpose. :/
I've even seen one of two tenants turn up, and say "the other one is responsible for all of it", and the Tribunal make an order only against the absent party. Grrrrr.
Hi Tony, yes as per Perp's post. You are increasing possible avenues for chasing damages/debt should things ever go pear shape from a tenancy perspective.
I'll add that when they all on the lease - they have a direct financial interest in the bond you hold. It is formal and all tenants are clear on their responsibilities (as outlined in the lease).
On top of the risk management purposes already mentioned, if you have someone just join the existing tenants without being on the lease, what happens if your tenants move out? You are left with someone you've not vetted or checked living in your house, not on a lease, no paperwork at all.
We had this happen to us, where two young men invited a third young man to share the cost without asking our permission. The third person caused a ruckus in the street and we suggested the first two move before becoming embroiled. Luckily the third person moved when the initial two moved. Had he decided he wasn't moving out, we would have had a very tricky situation.
In similar situations, we always add the new person to the lease so that we have more power should things go wrong.
We had this happen to us, where two young men invited a third young man to share the cost without asking our permission. The third person caused a ruckus in the street and we suggested the first two move before becoming embroiled. Luckily the third person moved when the initial two moved. Had he decided he wasn't moving out, we would have had a very tricky situation.
In similar situations, we always add the new person to the lease so that we have more power should things go wrong.
Last edited:
Happened to my folks a few years back QCAT treated ONE lease on one prop as two leases.
NSW is different which is what I was referring to.
Read at the link below if you do not believe me.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rta2010207/s75.html
That's the precise legislation that I quoted, and which supports my position.
That's the precise legislation that I quoted, and which supports my position.
Sorry but I don't know what you are reading but if you need it more clear, read the below link under reasonable refusal where says you can refuse if it exceeds the amount of occupants stated on the lease. If the tenants sign the lease with 2 max occupants then that is the limit unless the landlord agrees to change it.
www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Tena...ncy/Subletting_requests_from_your_tenant.page
I understand; I just would have thought that it's still subject to the landlord acting reasonably. If the lease says maximum 2 occupants and it's a 3 bedroom home, I imagine that the Tribunal would find that a maximum 2 occupants was an unreasonable imposition.
But maybe your Tribunal is way more badass than QCAT.
If the rule wasn't like that then the number in the tenancy agreement wouldn't mean anything. So this way the landlord has some control in who lives at their property, but at the same time it's important to keep the tenant as happy as possible so you would still allow a request if it is reasonable.
It could be possible that the tribunal may make an exception if necessary. Eg. maybe one of the tenants family members is experiencing some hardship and needs a place to live or maybe the tenant lost their job and can't afford to pay the rent and needs someone else to share the cost of the rent.
It could be possible that the tribunal may make an exception if necessary. Eg. maybe one of the tenants family members is experiencing some hardship and needs a place to live or maybe the tenant lost their job and can't afford to pay the rent and needs someone else to share the cost of the rent.
Similar threads
