Replacement tenant

Hi,

I have a 1-year rental contract with the landlord himself in sydney and still got 7 months left. However, I recently purchased a unit to have the stamp duty exemption from the govt. :eek:
The landlord allowed me to find a replacement tenant and was able to find one. I told the landlord that I will take care of all the procedures needed to make it more convenient on his side.
I told the replacement tenant that the tenancy will run only until August (7 months more).
I am filling out the forms (tenancy agreement, etc) on behalf of the new tenant. However, I haven't spoken to the landlord yet if he would prefer someone to take over for another 1 year lease instead of just continuing my current lease.

Would anyone experienced this or be familiar with this situation?:(
 
You only have to worry about the lease to the time it would have been finishing anyway. You could call the landlord and ask him if he wants to offer a twelve months lease, but he may be happy to have the lease finish when it should have and then he can review the rent.
 
Sounds like you've formally asked the landlord is it OK if you sub-let the property, and he has said yes.

If that is case, then you are still the Tenant, responsible for paying the rent to the Landlord for the next 7 months until your Lease runs out.

Obviously, being the Tenant, you are only authorised to sub-let to the sub-Tenant for the term of your tenancy.

The sub-Tenant will pay you, and then you are still liable to pay the Landlord.


You remain the Tenant....nothing changes there.


If you don't want or understand this, then give the Landlord the required notice....but with a fixed term lease this doesn't apply.


If you wish to play it by the book, your only option to get out of paying in full is to do what you are doing...sub-letting, which he cannot refuse.

Of course, your other options are as follows ;

1. Pay the Landlord the full 7 months in rent owing 'til the end of your term, thereby discharging your liability in full. Tenants never go for this one, as it would obviously be the honourable thing to do. Tenants always go for what is easiest, and then cheapest for them. What they legally obligated themselves to usually means not a jot.

2. Just up and leave, pay him nothing, then let him to chase you, which will put the full weight of the law back on him, to store all of the **** you leave behind, chase you for rent owed and have to advertise...but be restricted in what he can ask.

Most Tenants go for option 2, cos it's far easier for them. Life has become whatever is easiest and most convenient for them, rather than what they promised to do upfront..


Kudos for sub-letting and trying to play by the book. My only question is, why did you sign up to a 12 month term, only to drastically change your mind only 5 months later. Was the stamp duty exemption such a big surprise ??
 
The landlord allowed me to find a replacement tenant and was able to find one. I told the landlord that I will take care of all the procedures needed to make it more convenient on his side.(

I read this is meaning that instead of the landlord advertising for a new tenant to take your place for the remainder of the lease, you have found a new tenant, and that the landlord will be signing a lease with this new tenant.

Is that right?

If so, then you are obliged to "replace" yourself only until the end of the tenancy you were signed to.
 
Kudos for sub-letting and trying to play by the book. My only question is, why did you sign up to a 12 month term, only to drastically change your mind only 5 months later. Was the stamp duty exemption such a big surprise ??

Thanks for the info. Technically, it is a replacement which means the new tenant will pay directly to the owner and a new agreement will be prepared. But based on your response, it makes me wonder if it is easier to "sub-let" where the new tenant will pay me while i continue paying the owner. Which means there are no new forms or documentation needed. I will research more on this.

Regarding your question... Yes, aside from the stamp duty (which I only came to know during the last quarter of the year since I only moved to Australia this August), there are also other factors. Sometimes, people tend to make quick and weird decisions in life.:eek:
 
But based on your response, it makes me wonder if it is easier to "sub-let" where the new tenant will pay me while i continue paying the owner. Which means there are no new forms or documentation needed. I will research more on this.

A new lease agreement will be needed for a sub-lease as well...
 
I read this is meaning that instead of the landlord advertising for a new tenant to take your place for the remainder of the lease, you have found a new tenant, and that the landlord will be signing a lease with this new tenant.

Is that right?

If so, then you are obliged to "replace" yourself only until the end of the tenancy you were signed to.

Sorry but I found this confusing. How can I be obliged to replace myself only at the end of the tenancy if the landlord approved me of finding a new tenant even before the lease period ends? It is a mutual agreement between the landlord and myself. Else, I wouldn't waste my time advertising the unit and looking for a replacement if there is no other option but to finish the lease.:confused:
Not completing the lease is a different story ;)
 
Sorry but I found this confusing. How can I be obliged to replace myself only at the end of the tenancy if the landlord approved me of finding a new tenant even before the lease period ends? It is a mutual agreement between the landlord and myself. Else, I wouldn't waste my time advertising the unit and looking for a replacement if there is no other option but to finish the lease.:confused:
Not completing the lease is a different story ;)

Because if you just up and left, he could chase you to pay for the remaining period left to run. No longer.

Don't forget if you sub-lease you take on the full responsibilities of being a landlord, and all that entails. If the replacement tenant plays up, you sort it out.

I would NOT be doing that. If you have found a tenant to replace yourself and the landlord is happy to take that tenant on, then you have done very well.
 
The current tenancies act allows you to break a lease if you and the landlord have agreed the 'break fee' clause which limits how much you would pay if you broke the lease ie 6 weeks rent if you broke before 50% through the lease and 4 weeks if more than 50% through.

Traditionally you would be responsible for the entire reletting fee (advertising, agent letting fee, lease preparation costs etc). The landlord will still need to approve your replacement and sign a new lease for the balance of your term unless they wish to have a longer term with the new tenant. This gets you off the hook with the landlord.

If you sought to sublet the premises, you would still be liable to pay the rent if the sub-tenant didn't pay you. You would also need to chase the sub-tenant. You can only offer a sublease for a period which is less than your remaining term.
 
I thought that if you (as the original tenant) sub-let the bond is held in your name and the new tenant you have found. Happy to hear I'm wrong though...
 
With us, we have our tenants sign an "act as agent" form , and we do all the work for them..including collecting the rent from the sublessee.We only charge the original tenant $25.
At the end of the lease, and everything is good..they get their bond back.
We have both leases expire at the same time.
 
I think that here (last time I checked with the RTA when we were faced with tenants wanting to do this) the RTA told us that the tenant takes on the responsibility of being landlord. I'm guessing that means the bond would be lodged in the name of the original tenant and the sub-lessee.

Doing it any other way would not stand up should things go wrong. I'm guessing here but it will be there on the website of whichever sate the original poster is wanting to sub-let in, and those are the rules that need to be followed.
 
Back
Top