Outdated names on lease - implications ?

H

hwd007

I have checked my lease agreement and one of the names on the lease agreement is outdated. i.e. one of the two people named on the lease, is no longer a tenant and the new tenant is not named on the lease.

What position does that put the lease in ?

Can that effect Landlord Insurance coverage ?
 
Last edited:
You should definitely look at updating the lease with the new tenant signing it. It's normal to update the lease in this instance. The insurance company probably would look for a reason not to pay out any claim so you don't want to give them one.
 
Definitely get the new tenant on the lease, quick smart. Right now he has no legal obligation to you and the original tenant is at great risk should the new tenant damage anything, as it is the original tenant who has signed the lease.

Also, the person who has left is in a precarious position. What if the new person trashes the place. The two who have signed the lease will be left to rectify things, or lose their bond, or worse if the damage is substantial.

The person no longer living there could well find himself being chased by an insurance company for money to repay damage he knows nothing about.

Did the now-gone tenant get his bond back?
 
Ahh thanks for the extra advice. I hadn't thought of that situation of the old tenant being liable. I have requested the agent add the new tenant to the lease ASAP. I'm not sure about the bond situation. I will have to follow that up.
 
The agent said the new tenant has signed a bond transfer form which has the same legal power as being named on the lease. I'm not sure this is entirely true. For example, is the sub tenant liable to me for the rent or to the head tenant ?

I'm wondering if this is where risk management might come into play. i.e. if the head tenant does not have the capacity to meet their rental obligations and I have no direct agreement with the sub tenant, except for the bond transfer. Thus if things really go sour, I have to chase the head tenant for all the rent owed, while the sub tenant could jump ship on the rent and get their bond back, which I understand, is only to cover for damage, not to cover for rent.

Any comments in this ?
 
I'm guessng that a bond transfer form for a new tenant, does not offer the same legal coverage as a name on the lease. i.e. it only covers bond, not rent obligations ? Any views on that ?
 
The lease is the legal document that spells out everything, so having a stake in the bond doesn't carry any weight as far as obligations to the landlord in my opinion.
 
ozperp said:
As per post of 26th March: VICTORIA! ;)
Click to expand...

Oops - missed that - thanks ozperp



Can't help then - in NSW a bond transfer does work - as verbal lease are ok (but not recomended) and if the occupant is paying rent then a lease is in place - check with the rental authority in VIC (office of fair trading??)
 
Oh yes State is Victoria. You see at this stage, just one of the two tenants are named on the lease. Thus I might have thought that the agreement for rent from the second tenant not named on the lease, is between them and the tenant named on the lease. i.e. not between them and the landlord. Thus I'm thinking only the tenant named on the lease is legally responsible for the rent. This though I'm not sure of.

I'm awaiting a reply from VCAT. I'm not sure what the Bond Transfer Document covers. i.e. just bond obligations ? or both bond and rent obligations for the second tenant not named on the lease ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Purchased a new property with current tenants, looking to renew lease.
Replies
2
Views
2K
rchad
R
T
Rent increase
Replies
14
Views
3K
Tranquilo
T
O
Name on Lease Agreemnet
Replies
5
Views
4K
Paul@PFI
Paul@PFI
E
Legal issues on tenant agreement
Replies
6
Views
2K
Perp
Perp
M
Department of Housing lease - experiences?
Replies
4
Views
1K
chilliblue
C
Back
Top