Allowing existing tenant to sublease.

Hi

I would really appreciate thoughts/ advice from the SS community regarding a moral dilemma.

I have leased a 3 bedroom 2.5 bathroom to a young couple in Labrador.

Yesterday the agent phoned to say that the tenants had requested permission to allow an additional tenant to move in. The agent ran a probity check on the additional tenant - job, income etc, and all is good.

However when I asked the agent how much we could add to the rent, thinking $20 - $30 pw, I was told that we can't alter the rent until the 12 month lease expires. My response was to say "no" to the additional tenant.

I now feel guilty by saying "no", and my wife says my decision will attract bad karma.

I would appreciate thoughts / advice from the SS community - should I relent and allow the additional tenant.

Tony
 
If it is just a couple then the 3 bedroom would have been a bit too big and they had originally planned for another person to join them but didn't mention it beforehand.

So 3 people for a 3 bedroom property is very reasonable. If it helps them with paying the rent then it's a good thing also.
 
Hi

I would really appreciate thoughts/ advice from the SS community regarding a moral dilemma.

I have leased a 3 bedroom 2.5 bathroom to a young couple in Labrador.

Yesterday the agent phoned to say that the tenants had requested permission to allow an additional tenant to move in. The agent ran a probity check on the additional tenant - job, income etc, and all is good.

However when I asked the agent how much we could add to the rent, thinking $20 - $30 pw, I was told that we can't alter the rent until the 12 month lease expires. My response was to say "no" to the additional tenant.

I now feel guilty by saying "no", and my wife says my decision will attract bad karma.

I would appreciate thoughts / advice from the SS community - should I relent and allow the additional tenant.

Tony


Yes - then they can have a 'honeymoon' until the lease runs out. Soon as the lease is up, they all sign the new lease and the rent goes up - but not too much. Fair enough?
 
Why is an extra person worth more rent? The property is worth what its worth in rent... I can't really see how an extra person increases that.

If the person all checks out I would let them.
 
At least they are honest, they could probably do it anyway, many tenants sublease and many landlords and agents have no idea. Some tenants make a fortune out of realestate while the landlord makes zip. When you take over the management of your properties it is amazing all the mail that turns up for people who aren't on the lease and the stories tenants tell about how they were paying $150.00 a week cash for a shared bedroom or some-one else that is.
 
If it's a couple in a 3br house, you can't really say no to subletting.

In most states they can take you to tribunal and win, if they want to push to push the matter. It's quite reasonable for bedrooms in a premise to be occupied.

Additional rent? None. If I was your PM though I'd be vigilant on keeping it at higher end of market though.
 
Why is an extra person worth more rent?.

Its worth more rent IMO because:

1. More wear and tear of property
2. Another person to complain about something needing fixing
3. Increases risk of damage, non payment etc to property
4. In some states the landlord pays for the water bills. More ppl, more water usage.

I also include in the original lease that any subletting is subject to increased rent. When push comes to shove most tenants wont want to see it through to tribunal is my experience.
Leo
 
Would you have refused them if they'd applied together in the first place?
Would you have put the rent up if they'd applied together in the first place?

As a renter I've added extra people the lease a couple of times & never been asked for more rent. I think I would be happy they're honest & more likely to stay. If they're finding it a push you're much more likely to be on the hunt for a new tenant once the lease is up.
 
Its worth more rent IMO because:

1. More wear and tear of property
2. Another person to complain about something needing fixing
3. Increases risk of damage, non payment etc to property
4. In some states the landlord pays for the water bills. More ppl, more water usage.

I also include in the original lease that any subletting is subject to increased rent. When push comes to shove most tenants wont want to see it through to tribunal is my experience.
Leo

Disagree with this. The property is worth what it's worth based on location, size, condition, market state etc. Not worth some arbitrary amount more because they have an additional person.

In the same order as your points,
1. maybe. maybe not. Depends on the person.
2. All maintenance has to be done anyway, so you're just being lucky if the existing people hadn't complained about something.
3. Increases damaged risk is same as per #1. Non payment risk is probably lowered since the tenants are getting financial help from the additional person.
4. Usage is pretty rarely paid for by the landlord, except in a non metered or shared situation, so the additional usage will be for them to sort out.

Hope you had good advice before putting that extra clause in your lease, by the way.
 
A clause is a clause in any contract... once its signed off on ball all parties as being in agreeance it then becomes legally binding.

No. Fail. Extra terms are not enforceable in a lease if it opposes what the Act specifies. This is common knowledge.
 
A clause is a clause in any contract... once its signed off on ball all parties as being in agreeance it then becomes legally binding.
I would expect the Residential Tenancies Act to overrule any clause (an illegal clause is not legally binding), otherwise what's to stop a landlord writing up their own contract which completely contradicts everything in the act and finding a tenant who is desperate enough to sign?

[Edit] Pays not to leave the reply window idle for 5 minutes before coming back to type a response, beaten to the punch.
 
Ring your agent and tell them you've changed your mind and its OK.

I'm sure my tenants have an extra person. I don't care the rent is paid on time and never late.
 
Disagree with this. The property is worth what it's worth based on location, size, condition, market state etc. Not worth some arbitrary amount more because they have an additional person.

In the same order as your points,
1. maybe. maybe not. Depends on the person.
2. All maintenance has to be done anyway, so you're just being lucky if the existing people hadn't complained about something.
3. Increases damaged risk is same as per #1. Non payment risk is probably lowered since the tenants are getting financial help from the additional person.
4. Usage is pretty rarely paid for by the landlord, except in a non metered or shared situation, so the additional usage will be for them to sort out.

Hope you had good advice before putting that extra clause in your lease, by the way.


Hi Dave,

I disagree mate. Increasing the amount of tenants in a house, increases the value of the 'situation' because suddenly more ppl get to enjoy the benefits of the same size dwelling.

With regards to point 1. yes maybe , or maybe not. I tend to err on the side of maybe.

point 2. Not true. Tenants and their expectations vary greatly. Some tenants are happy with xyz which is perfectly fine and others are more pedantic and want abc done as well which can cause more headaches and more $$ for investors. Hence more tenants, more chance for this.

point 3. You could look at it your way or you could look at it the way I presented.

With regards to the clause, the main reason for it is the perceived restrictions. The law is the law, but when someone only sees one path, I rather not present them with other paths. Again, most ppl don't tend to want to go down the tribunal route. I know what your saying about the letter of the law, but laws are not always practical/realistic to enforce. The landlord can always not renew a lease if the tenant insists of moving in more tenants without payment. Then they have moving costs, trouble of finding a place etc etc. Get my drift :)

Leo
 
Hi Dave,

I disagree mate. Increasing the amount of tenants in a house, increases the value of the 'situation' because suddenly more ppl get to enjoy the benefits of the same size dwelling.

With regards to point 1. yes maybe , or maybe not. I tend to err on the side of maybe.

point 2. Not true. Tenants and their expectations vary greatly. Some tenants are happy with xyz which is perfectly fine and others are more pedantic and want abc done as well which can cause more headaches and more $$ for investors. Hence more tenants, more chance for this.

point 3. You could look at it your way or you could look at it the way I presented.

With regards to the clause, the main reason for it is the perceived restrictions. The law is the law, but when someone only sees one path, I rather not present them with other paths. Again, most ppl don't tend to want to go down the tribunal route. I know what your saying about the letter of the law, but laws are not always practical/realistic to enforce. The landlord can always not renew a lease if the tenant insists of moving in more tenants without payment. Then they have moving costs, trouble of finding a place etc etc. Get my drift :)

Leo

So when you and your young wife are expecting your first child, you expect the rent to increase as more people will suddenly be enjoying the premise?
 
How many properties are advertised as "$450 per week for 1 person, $475 per week for a couple, $500 per week for 3 people"?
 
So when you and your young wife are expecting your first child, you expect the rent to increase as more people will suddenly be enjoying the premise?

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
 
Back
Top