no. s/he was trying to be a slum lord. 4 people in a lounge room and another 4 in the main bedrooms rings bells. soup anyone?
Renting out IP to more than 6 people+ ?
- Thread starter JohnHenry
- Start date
no. s/he was trying to be a slum lord. 4 people in a lounge room and another 4 in the main bedrooms rings bells. soup anyone?
Sounds to me like like 4 bed dorm hostel.
Or a family with a lot of kids...
If this is a slum landlord, they must be slum tenants.
I wonder if the landlord where your friends live have any idea they have eight people living in the apartment.
....or he is insisting on cash so there is no tangible record of how many people he has stuffed in there!
....or he is insisting on cash so there is no tangible record of how many people he has stuffed in there!
It's bad enough LLs are seen by everyone else as greedy people, but we seem to be quick to assume the worst of each other as well.
Kathryn, did you really read the initial post and not think it was a bit "suss"?
We cannot shove four people in the living room on bunk beds, another four in the kitchen in the corner and do this legally unless they are part of one family.
If he doesn't know that, then he really should not even be contemplating being a landlord, and really needs a PM.
Of course, if he really doesn't care about the legalities, he will do whatever he wants to.
We cannot shove four people in the living room on bunk beds, another four in the kitchen in the corner and do this legally unless they are part of one family.
If he doesn't know that, then he really should not even be contemplating being a landlord, and really needs a PM.
Of course, if he really doesn't care about the legalities, he will do whatever he wants to.
Wylie,
I took the OP at face value. There is no mention of bunks in the kitchen.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with maximizing the use of a property in this way. The tenants must not mind either. Maybe the tenants do not have references, or they do not want to sign a lease for 6 months...whatever.Nobody is forcing them to accept these conditions.
If these people were all cousins, instead of just flatmates, is it ok then?
If a tenant rents a unit, and takes in boarders/roommates..is it acceptable or legal then?
I didn't think he was trying to do anything illegal, just asking questions like many others here who also have no clue about their RTA.
A few years ago, whiile we vacationed in Melbourne, Rob and I stayed at a private home.
They rented out 3 bedrooms in the house, each with 2 single beds. They also had a granny flat in the back with 4 single beds in it.
Make your own breakfast, was included in our price of $300 week.We stayed 2 weeks.Others in the house had the full meal package, and all meals were provided.I don't know what they paid. I don't even know if they were declaring the income.
I took the OP at face value. There is no mention of bunks in the kitchen.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with maximizing the use of a property in this way. The tenants must not mind either. Maybe the tenants do not have references, or they do not want to sign a lease for 6 months...whatever.Nobody is forcing them to accept these conditions.
If these people were all cousins, instead of just flatmates, is it ok then?
If a tenant rents a unit, and takes in boarders/roommates..is it acceptable or legal then?
I didn't think he was trying to do anything illegal, just asking questions like many others here who also have no clue about their RTA.
A few years ago, whiile we vacationed in Melbourne, Rob and I stayed at a private home.
They rented out 3 bedrooms in the house, each with 2 single beds. They also had a granny flat in the back with 4 single beds in it.
Make your own breakfast, was included in our price of $300 week.We stayed 2 weeks.Others in the house had the full meal package, and all meals were provided.I don't know what they paid. I don't even know if they were declaring the income.
....or he is insisting on cash so there is no tangible record of how many people he has stuffed in there!
Everyone is assuming that the person they are paying is the landlord.
It may be an enterprising chap sub-letting.
I think you were ripped off massively, paying $300 per week. Landlord (or head tenant who may have been sub-leasing illegally) was making huge money. Have you added all that up? He may well have been paying $300 for the whole house and making all the extra as pure profit.
And it is illegal. Unless he had fire doors, exit signs and all the other stuff that would have been required to have that number of unrelated people live in one house.
as you'd probably know Wylie, in Brisbane at least, you can only rent to one 'household group'. renting by the room is a no no for standard resi. I'm sure other councils throughout oz have similar rules. let's not even get into 'legal height'.
if Kathyrn can't see the OP for what it was then she needs a Labrador.
It was a middle aged married couple,renting out rooms.
We were pleased to only pay $300 a week, which included breakfast and the use of the kitchen. It would have cost a lot more for us to stay at a motel.
We knew exactly what we were paying for, before we arrived. We had booked this accommodation 2 months in advance.
I still think you were being ripped off... not because of the price you were paying, but because they were clearly stuffing people into a house not designed for that number of unrelated people, and with (I'd guess) no approval for being a boarding house.
And middle aged married couples can do illegal stuff too
.
There are so many things wrong with this plan it's difficult to know where to start.
1) Building Code of Australia
* you have to have a certain number of non-habitable rooms (ie living rooms, dining rooms, etc - rooms without beds in them that aren't kitchens or bathrooms) for each habitable room (bedroom)
* each bedroom has to have a certain number of square metres per intended occupant
* there need to be a certain number of toilets and showers per intended occupant
2) Local council regulations
* as per what others have said, you can usually only lease to a single household, and if somebody else is going to organise lots of sub-tenants, they're not going to want to pay top dollar to the landlord - THEY will want to be the one to profit from it, not the landlord
* the head tenant, if they decide to sub-let, takes on all the same responsibilities as a landlord has when they let, so they'd run into all the same obstacles outlined in any case
* if you want more than one lease in place, you require special zoning, or permission for a "special use" in residential zoning, and you're extremely unlikely to obtain it
3) State government
* fire regulations - as others have said, the level of fire regulations imposed once you get above a certain number of tenants becomes quite onerous
4) Deciding "to heck with the regulations, I'll do it illegally"
* insurance will be invalid
* mortgage can be called in at any time due to lack of insurance coverage
* can and hopefully would be prosecuted, and hopefully would be sent to jail (certainly a possibility with regards to willing and fragrant breaches of fire regulations, as would be the case with the outlined scenario - fire safety is taken extremely seriously)
* leases would be unenforcable, so if tenants decide not to pay you, or trash your property, there's sod all that you can do about it, no recourse to landlord insurance
Is that enough to deter you?
1) Building Code of Australia
* you have to have a certain number of non-habitable rooms (ie living rooms, dining rooms, etc - rooms without beds in them that aren't kitchens or bathrooms) for each habitable room (bedroom)
* each bedroom has to have a certain number of square metres per intended occupant
* there need to be a certain number of toilets and showers per intended occupant
2) Local council regulations
* as per what others have said, you can usually only lease to a single household, and if somebody else is going to organise lots of sub-tenants, they're not going to want to pay top dollar to the landlord - THEY will want to be the one to profit from it, not the landlord
* the head tenant, if they decide to sub-let, takes on all the same responsibilities as a landlord has when they let, so they'd run into all the same obstacles outlined in any case
* if you want more than one lease in place, you require special zoning, or permission for a "special use" in residential zoning, and you're extremely unlikely to obtain it
3) State government
* fire regulations - as others have said, the level of fire regulations imposed once you get above a certain number of tenants becomes quite onerous
4) Deciding "to heck with the regulations, I'll do it illegally"
* insurance will be invalid
* mortgage can be called in at any time due to lack of insurance coverage
* can and hopefully would be prosecuted, and hopefully would be sent to jail (certainly a possibility with regards to willing and fragrant breaches of fire regulations, as would be the case with the outlined scenario - fire safety is taken extremely seriously)
* leases would be unenforcable, so if tenants decide not to pay you, or trash your property, there's sod all that you can do about it, no recourse to landlord insurance
Is that enough to deter you?
CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH. CASH.
If you ignore the other rules why would you bother with the ATO?
Maybe they did have approval.
I don't know.For us it was irrelevent.We just wanted affordable accommodation.
If it is illegal for unrelated people to share, I think that is wrong, and laws should be changed. That's a completely different issue though.
I think calling a LL a slumlord is wrong, because they are offering alternative accommodation. If the fire code is being adhered to, what is the problem?Income is being declared to ATO.
I don't know.For us it was irrelevent.We just wanted affordable accommodation.
If it is illegal for unrelated people to share, I think that is wrong, and laws should be changed. That's a completely different issue though.
I think calling a LL a slumlord is wrong, because they are offering alternative accommodation. If the fire code is being adhered to, what is the problem?Income is being declared to ATO.
I would assume the fire code is NOT being adhered to. It would be fairly obvious to see. How do you know the income is being declared to the ATO?
As in Canada, every State in Australia has their own rules.
I did a bit of checking, and came across this.
http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/new_laws_rooming_accommodation.cfm
Quote:"The Act does not apply to providers of rooming accommodation where the provider lives on the premises and there are fewer than four rooms available for rent. "Quote
Rob and I offer all types of accommodation.
We don't have this type,as yet. Where we live, it isn't the norm to have 4 people share a room.
Would I? Yes !!!
We would make it an attractive alternative.
However, we would always follow all the rules that govern it.
IMO the OP was asking how to legally do this.
Yes, it can be difficult, and maybe not worth it. That is only a question an investor can answer for themselves.
I did a bit of checking, and came across this.
http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/new_laws_rooming_accommodation.cfm
Quote:"The Act does not apply to providers of rooming accommodation where the provider lives on the premises and there are fewer than four rooms available for rent. "Quote
Rob and I offer all types of accommodation.
We don't have this type,as yet. Where we live, it isn't the norm to have 4 people share a room.
Would I? Yes !!!
We would make it an attractive alternative.
However, we would always follow all the rules that govern it.
IMO the OP was asking how to legally do this.
Yes, it can be difficult, and maybe not worth it. That is only a question an investor can answer for themselves.
registered B&B
4800sqft house,
700 sqft granny flat,
5 large bedrooms, ours 16*12
fire alarms,
fire rated doors to every room,
fire exits,
license/registration prominently displayed on the office wall,
l looked them up before we went there, and as soon as we moved in
Joy, her name is, and a joy to be around
4800sqft house,
700 sqft granny flat,
5 large bedrooms, ours 16*12
fire alarms,
fire rated doors to every room,
fire exits,
license/registration prominently displayed on the office wall,
l looked them up before we went there, and as soon as we moved in
Joy, her name is, and a joy to be around
I find when anyone makes a 'judgement call', they make it based on their own intent,
to judge someone else as criminal, with limited knowlege, one has such criminal intent
to judge someone else as criminal, with limited knowlege, one has such criminal intent
Bob... I was referring to the question posed by the original poster. It was clear to me, and seemingly, most others, that he was trying to jam as many people in as he could to make as much money as he could. He made a passing reference to "if it could be done legally" but it was pointed out quite early that it was not legal except possibly where you have pointed out, for short term B&B type accommodation, or if he spent a lot of money making such accommodation come up to legal standards. He was NOT looking for that advice in my opinion. He wanted to know why he couldn't just jam in people into bunk beds in kitchens, living rooms etc.
Perhaps what I saw, plus many others, was that his other questions (numerous) all clearly point to the fact that he has no idea about self-managing, rules for the RTA, taking of bond (he thinks he can just keep it in his bank), taxation issues etc etc. Maybe take a look at his other questions. You might see a pattern.
This was just one more "what if" question in a long list of questions, clearly from someone who has no idea (no shame in that) but when given an answer, he seemed to want to find a way around having to work with the "legal" answer.
I have no problem with where you and Kathryn stayed. I would have an issue if I was a landlord trying to rort the system, jam people in "illegally", take risks, keep bonds, not issue receipts etc etc.
That is my issue... no issue with where you stayed in Australia.
JohnHenry is in for a world of pain unless he works within the system. There are plenty of shoddy landlords out there NOT playing by the rules, but I'd hate to be in his shoes once the ATO or the fire authorities catch up with him.
There are landlords who get away with such behaviour for years, and there are those landlords who are now behind bars and grieving parents who thought their loved ones were safe in the event of a fire.
You say you would follow rules governing the type of accommodation ALLOWED in the property you were leasing. JohnHenry wants to circumvent those rules. That is my issue, and when told he cannot do that legally, he seems to want to find a way around it. The only "judgement call" I was making was the same one that most others who answered made too. I suggest you read his other questions and see what you think then.
And if indeed JohnHenry really wants to to things legally and properly, then my apologies to him. He will learn a lot by asking questions here, but he needs to get up to speed on all the rules and regulations if he wants to go down the boarding house path, and he needs to get a PM and an accountant until he knows what he is doing in those areas.
Perhaps what I saw, plus many others, was that his other questions (numerous) all clearly point to the fact that he has no idea about self-managing, rules for the RTA, taking of bond (he thinks he can just keep it in his bank), taxation issues etc etc. Maybe take a look at his other questions. You might see a pattern.
This was just one more "what if" question in a long list of questions, clearly from someone who has no idea (no shame in that) but when given an answer, he seemed to want to find a way around having to work with the "legal" answer.
I have no problem with where you and Kathryn stayed. I would have an issue if I was a landlord trying to rort the system, jam people in "illegally", take risks, keep bonds, not issue receipts etc etc.
That is my issue... no issue with where you stayed in Australia.
JohnHenry is in for a world of pain unless he works within the system. There are plenty of shoddy landlords out there NOT playing by the rules, but I'd hate to be in his shoes once the ATO or the fire authorities catch up with him.
There are landlords who get away with such behaviour for years, and there are those landlords who are now behind bars and grieving parents who thought their loved ones were safe in the event of a fire.
You say you would follow rules governing the type of accommodation ALLOWED in the property you were leasing. JohnHenry wants to circumvent those rules. That is my issue, and when told he cannot do that legally, he seems to want to find a way around it. The only "judgement call" I was making was the same one that most others who answered made too. I suggest you read his other questions and see what you think then.
And if indeed JohnHenry really wants to to things legally and properly, then my apologies to him. He will learn a lot by asking questions here, but he needs to get up to speed on all the rules and regulations if he wants to go down the boarding house path, and he needs to get a PM and an accountant until he knows what he is doing in those areas.
Last edited:
Agreed - jamming 4 people into a living room can not even be legal even if you tried as it wouldn't fit all the requirements of having locks on rooms, a certain sqm per room etc
if it was a 3 bedroom and had 3 couples yeah that would be ok borderline.
but more than 6 ppl would be pushing it a bit.
I had like 5 ppl renting my IP - 2 couples and 1 single. and it was approved by the managing agent. then again it was a 110sqm 2 bedroom with 2 toilets.
but more than 6 ppl would be pushing it a bit.
I had like 5 ppl renting my IP - 2 couples and 1 single. and it was approved by the managing agent. then again it was a 110sqm 2 bedroom with 2 toilets.
