Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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."Risk management purposes" - can you please briefly elaborate.
Hi Rixter
Thanks for your comments, and everyone else for his/her valuable advice.
But I'm curious now when you say, "added them to the lease for risk management purposes.".
"Risk management purposes" - can you please briefly elaborate.
Many thanks again.
Tony
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'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
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".
That's the precise legislation that I quoted, and which supports my position.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.
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.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