Allowing existing tenant to sublease.

[LeoT]

How many properties are advertised as "$450 per week for 1 person, $475 per week for a couple, $500 per week for 3 people"?

Before a lease is signed, the landlord has the choice to sign up a tenant or not after all DD, and they have the right to know exactly how many ppl are moving in. Then all is agreed. If 3 ppl are agreed and signed on, and then 5 months later 2 more want to join by a sublet, that's a completely different situation. If some investors are happy to charge same rent for 3 or 5 ppl then that's fine. Im not.

Leo

 

[Rixter]

No. Fail. Extra terms are not enforceable in a lease if it opposes what the Act specifies. This is common knowledge.

Oh doh....goes with out saying - its common knowledge.

 

[perthguy]

I don't understand the difference between market rent and number of renters. I just had a trio leave one of my properties. At the time it was rented, the per week price was the same whether it was 1, 2, 3 or 4 people who applied (3 bed house). I turned down an offer from a person who was up front that they would run a boarding house with 8 to 10 people but I see this as an entirely different situation to a couple taking on one extra tenant. At the time, I signed up 3 people to a 3 bedroom house. It seemed entirely reasonable to do this. If they had applied to take on one extra person, I would not have refused their request.

 

[Perp]

Well, for a start...

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) s 27 - Invalid terms

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) s 28 - Harsh and unconscionable terms

 

[LeoT]

Well, for a start...

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) s 27 - Invalid terms

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) s 28 - Harsh and unconscionable terms

Hey Perp,

I agree, I'm not disagreeing with the law (obviously I cant). Again, having a law doesn't always mean its understood or applied by a lay person. And for me personally, I have no trouble asking for increased rent if a home with 3 bedrooms tenanted to an agreed amount of ppl at signing time is suddenly increased after the lease. Everyone is different.

Leo

 

[Perp]

I agree, I'm not disagreeing with the law (obviously I cant).

Cross-posts. I was more responding to Rixter, who seemed to be suggesting that what D.T., hobo-jo, and I, had asserted, perhaps wasn't true.

 

[LeoT]

no probs mate

Leo

 

[Rixter]

Cross-posts. I was more responding to Rixter, who seemed to be suggesting that what D.T., hobo-jo, and I, had asserted, perhaps wasn't true.

Perp see post 22 this thread.

 

[Perp]

Perp see post 22 this thread.

I thought that sounded like sarcasm! If it wasn't, no wukkas.

 

[tonyc00]

Hi

I really appreciate the time and thought that everyone has taken in responding to my query.

The responses were through, and where appropriate, the logic / rationale behind the answer was explained by reference to legislation, or by reference logic or to just plain decency.

Judging by the number of responses which say that I should agree to the additional tenant without increasing the rent, I think that individuals in the SS community are kind, supportive and have a very generous nature.

I will let the agent know that the additional person can move in immediately without any increase in rent - it was churlish of me to have decided otherwise.

Hopefully that decision will dispel any impending bad karma from my earlier (wrong) decision.

Many thanks

Tony

 

[Nick Valsamis]

Just to add a point on increasing the price.

Eg. If you are renting a property at a price, but then say to one family that they have to pay more because they have an extra person then that's indirect discrimination.

The best way to do it legitimately is to advertise with a price range, whereby the low range of the price is market price which openly allows for people to put an offer in at a higher price. This is effective but depends on the quality of the property and desire for that property by potential tenants.

 

[sydprop]

I would want them added to the lease. Then you always know who is in the house and they all have skin in the game.

 

[Rixter]

If it wasn't, no wukkas.

Of the Furries variety.

 

[Rixter]

I would want them added to the lease. Then you always know who is in the house and they all have skin in the game.

I've had a few people over the past 16 years asking if a friend of the existing tenants can move into the property. Never had a problem with them and have always added them to the lease for risk management purposes.

 

[wobbycarly]

This is a moral question your asking and everyone has to do what they see fit.

If its me personally I would not ask increased rent for a baby but I would if the tenants want to sublet to Joe blow. A baby has no earning capacity for one and Joe blow does. A baby hardly takes up room, causes wear and tear or is going to complain about a cracked tile.

Leo

Got kids?

 

[luce.rocks]

Yes, you should let them. Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 238(3): "The lessor must act reasonably in failing to agree to the transfer or subletting." i.e. you have to have a decent reason. If they don't think your reason is adequate, they can apply to QCAT for an order under s 239, and I believe they'd be likely to get one, for three people to live in a three bedroom property.

Interesting. I'd never heard of that before. Save me googling - any ideas if it's the same in NSW?

 

[Perp]

Interesting. I'd never heard of that before. Save me googling - any ideas if it's the same in NSW?

Yep. Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) s 75(2)

 

[Nick Valsamis]

Well actually in NSW you can choose. As long as the lease agreement states the maximum number of occupants, then you are in control and have the right to allow or decline any additional tenants.

 

[luce.rocks]

Thanks Perp and Nick.

 

[Perp]

Well actually in NSW you can choose. As long as the lease agreement states the maximum number of occupants, then you are in control and have the right to allow or decline any additional tenants.

There's a legal obligation that you act reasonably; you can't say no on a whim. Reasonable justifications for declining would be things like violation of body corporate rules, it violates planning rules, it creates a fire risk, the proposed new tenant has a bad rental history, etc. You can't just "choose" in the sense of having unrestrained freedom to decline. See s 75(3), where it gives examples of what the law considers "reasonable".