Shared housing in Brisbane - how many unrelated people are allowed?

No haven't run it past a lawyer, but it's nothing too complicated. We just have an anexure which stipulates the proportion of rent each tenant is responsible for. They all sign the same tenancy agreement. They all sign up for the same period, same conditions, all on the one agreement. And if one leaves we just substitute the tenants rather that writing up a new lease each time.

I'd be surprised if it was counted as multiple tenancy agreements due to the rent being shared by the tenants and that share being documented on the tenancy agreement. But I don't know 100%
Yeah, thinking about it more, they're just roommates. Provided there are no more than 4, it should be fine.

Pinkot, how many tenants do you have, and on how many leases? When do the leases expire?

If you don't have them on leases, then the bad news is you certainly are running an illegal backpackers, but the good news is that you can get them out quicker...
 
Yeah, thinking about it more, they're just roommates. Provided there are no more than 4, it should be fine.

Pinkot, how many tenants do you have, and on how many leases? When do the leases expire?

If you don't have them on leases, then the bad news is you certainly are running an illegal backpackers, but the good news is that you can get them out quicker...

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure it's no more than 5 unrelated tenants in the one property, not no more than 4. Unless they've changed it, which they better not have :p
 
Yes still 5 at moment.

Council is about to launch an Originating Application (test case) to determine the lawful use of a house. Started based on renting out granny flats but may well deal with the wider issues. They have engaged a Queens Counsel and Junior Counsel to run the case and I expect it will be very thorough.

Once lodged I will post more info, they have been working on preparing since July and may not even lodge this year. Will be big and expensive. If Council win a would expect a huge number of Enforcement Notices to go out. If the lose then it will benefit current uses, the new City Plan 2014 is very particular.
 
Yes still 5 at moment.

Council is about to launch an Originating Application (test case) to determine the lawful use of a house. Started based on renting out granny flats but may well deal with the wider issues. They have engaged a Queens Counsel and Junior Counsel to run the case and I expect it will be very thorough.

Once lodged I will post more info, they have been working on preparing since July and may not even lodge this year. Will be big and expensive. If Council win a would expect a huge number of Enforcement Notices to go out. If the lose then it will benefit current uses, the new City Plan 2014 is very particular.

The thing I don't understand, is why does council have to go to court to work out what they can demand? Can't they just create whatever policies they want, put them in the city plan, and then enforce them?
 
The thing I don't understand, is why does council have to go to court to work out what they can demand? Can't they just create whatever policies they want, put them in the city plan, and then enforce them?
Our laws are of two types:
* statute law - these are the laws written by the government
* common law - these are the laws that are created by court decisions

The idea of common law is that the statute law can't possibly take into account every possible circumstance and combination of circumstances that could be possible, so frequently the Courts have to make a decision where one law would suggest they act one way, and another law suggests they should act another. They have to look at all the various laws - planning laws, property law, tenancy laws, discrimination laws, and possibly even Constitutional issues etc. - and decide which should prevail in a particular situation.

Once a Court's made a decision, every other Court at the same or a lower level is obliged to interpret the same set of facts in the same way. (That's what's known as "setting a precedent".)

So in Queensland, for example, we have the Magistrates' Court, the District Courts, and the Supreme Court (from lowest to highest).

If the Magistrates' Court makes a decision that interprets something in a certain way, all subsequent Magistrates' Court decisions on the same issue have to do it the same way.

But if it's appealed to a higher Court, then the District Court could decide to "over-rule" the interpretation of the lower court, and then the District Court's interpretation would prevail over all future District Court and Magistrates Court decisions. The District Court's decision could be over-ruled later by the Supreme Court, and then that would become the new binding precedent.

It sounds like what's happened is that somewhere along the line, a Court has interpreted the planning laws in a way that Council and State Government don't like, limiting their ability to take action against people who are acting contrary to what they want - like you. :) There's no point them going after rogue landlords, if there's been a decision which shows that if you dug your heels in and they had to take you to Court, they'd lose.

Things have evidently gotten bad enough that the Government's decided to appeal a decision to a higher court, to try and get a new precedent set, so that they can take firmer action and know that the Courts will support it.

I am not a lawyer (not that I like to brag badoom tish) and this is not legal advice, but a likely imperfect summary of how these situations arise.
 
Our laws are of two types:
* statute law - these are the laws written by the government
* common law - these are the laws that are created by court decisions

The idea of common law is that the statute law can't possibly take into account every possible circumstance and combination of circumstances that could be possible, so frequently the Courts have to make a decision where one law would suggest they act one way, and another law suggests they should act another. They have to look at all the various laws - planning laws, property law, tenancy laws, discrimination laws, and possibly even Constitutional issues etc. - and decide which should prevail in a particular situation.

Once a Court's made a decision, every other Court at the same or a lower level is obliged to interpret the same set of facts in the same way. (That's what's known as "setting a precedent".)

So in Queensland, for example, we have the Magistrates' Court, the District Courts, and the Supreme Court (from lowest to highest).

If the Magistrates' Court makes a decision that interprets something in a certain way, all subsequent Magistrates' Court decisions on the same issue have to do it the same way.

But if it's appealed to a higher Court, then the District Court could decide to "over-rule" the interpretation of the lower court, and then the District Court's interpretation would prevail over all future District Court and Magistrates Court decisions. The District Court's decision could be over-ruled later by the Supreme Court, and then that would become the new binding precedent.

It sounds like what's happened is that somewhere along the line, a Court has interpreted the planning laws in a way that Council and State Government don't like, limiting their ability to take action against people who are acting contrary to what they want - like you. :) There's no point them going after rogue landlords, if there's been a decision which shows that if you dug your heels in and they had to take you to Court, they'd lose.

Things have evidently gotten bad enough that the Government's decided to appeal a decision to a higher court, to try and get a new precedent set, so that they can take firmer action and know that the Courts will support it.

I am not a lawyer (not that I like to brag badoom tish) and this is not legal advice, but a likely imperfect summary of how these situations arise.

Great explanation, thanks for taking the time to write that!
 
What Perp said is pretty much spot on.

Council have changed the new plan to clear this up. But eveything that is already being used as such is under current planning scheme. Council does not just want to stop this happening in the future, they want to stop all those currently doing so. Having a superior court decision means they can slap people with Enforcement Notices with substantially less risk that someone like me will come along and appeal that notice in Planning and Environment Court. Depends on the wording if the judgement though, if I can find any holes I would still appeal.
 
Great explanation, thanks for taking the time to write that!
You're welcome. Once I learned this, I thought: "Why don't they teach this to everybody in school?" I still think they should.

It comes up a lot periodically - e.g. when there's an unpopular High Court decision - and talkback radio hosts (who may not know better) and politicians (who surely do) whine that "Courts should impose the law rather than make it".

Well, our system is set up - by design! - such that the Court's decisions forms part of our body of law, so the only way the Courts could avoid making laws is by not making decisions. :rolleyes:

But politicians would prefer to make headlines rather than educate people about how our system works...
 
You're welcome. Once I learned this, I thought: "Why don't they teach this to everybody in school?" I still think they should.

It comes up a lot periodically - e.g. when there's an unpopular High Court decision - and talkback radio hosts (who may not know better) and politicians (who surely do) whine that "Courts should impose the law rather than make it".

Well, our system is set up - by design! - such that the Court's decisions forms part of our body of law, so the only way the Courts could avoid making laws is by not making decisions. :rolleyes:

But politicians would prefer to make headlines rather than educate people about how our system works...

Lol the thing is they probably did teach me this in school and it went in one ear and out the other.
 
What Perp said is pretty much spot on.

Council have changed the new plan to clear this up. But eveything that is already being used as such is under current planning scheme. Council does not just want to stop this happening in the future, they want to stop all those currently doing so. Having a superior court decision means they can slap people with Enforcement Notices with substantially less risk that someone like me will come along and appeal that notice in Planning and Environment Court. Depends on the wording if the judgement though, if I can find any holes I would still appeal.

I really hope council get their butts kicked. People should have the right to rent their property, or rent a granny flat, when safe and reasonable to do so without council sticking their nose in and making arbitrary rules.

I just love how governments harp on about the cost of living, but then council comes in and removes affordable housing options for people.
 
I really hope council get their butts kicked. People should have the right to rent their property, or rent a granny flat, when safe and reasonable to do so without council sticking their nose in and making arbitrary rules.
Not exactly... those rules were there, you just ignored them. :p

Having spent 10s of thousands upgrading my property to comply, it would annoy me if they didn't pursue you.
 
Back
Top