Unbelievable! Tenants to be able to sublet in NSW!

Maybe I'm clueless...what's so bad about it?
If the tenant is able to sublet and get a higher price for each room...what's stopping us, as investors doing the same thing?
 
This is already law from what I understand. I am about to email my realtor to see what this is about but damn if this hasn't boiled my blood!

I think you'll find that tenants have been able to sub-let for quite some time (years) Daniel - and the sky hasn't fallen in yet ;) - and property went up 12% in Sydney last year in spite of it - stay cool :)
 
Did you read the article? They can paint the walls BLACK if they so want to, then they leave in six months and YOU pay for the repaint.

They can sublet rooms, which means they could legally place 6 people (say 3 bedrooms shared between couples)....imagine the repair bills, electritcy, water etc etc and wear and tear.

I also doubt you can raise your rents that much higher if at all. I am now reading in how it works in NY and paris and the stories to see what its like there for investors.
 
I think you'll find that tenants have been able to sub-let for quite some time (years) Daniel - and the sky hasn't fallen in yet ;) - and property went up 12% in Sydney last year in spite of it - stay cool :)

Serious? You mean I can have 6 people in my house without me knowing?
 
Did you read the article?
I tend not to read the tabloids but have just now so I can respond - old news really - known about it for months.

They can paint the walls BLACK if they so want to, then they leave in six months and YOU pay for the repaint.
Sure they can do that now, but they have to put it back when they move on. OK so worst case scenario is the place needs a repaint at end of tenancy - I tend to do that anyway for presentation and rent maximisation. A lot of tenants I see would not be bothered paying for a can of paint. And those that are, if they want to personalise it a bit, they'd be inclined to stay longer = less vacancy = a good thing for a LL.

....imagine the ..... electritcy, water etc etc
Tenants pay for these now anyway. I have no issues.


I also doubt you can raise your rents that much higher if at all.
Ah the media is doing a marvellous job at the moment softening tenants up for rental increases. Makes it soooooooooo much easier to raise the rent every 6 months.

I am now reading in how it works in NY and paris and the stories to see what its like there for investors.
Yawn .....
 
Last edited:
Serious? You mean I can have 6 people in my house without me knowing?

Yes, serious but under present laws they need to seek LL's approval....so you'd know about it........if they tell you :p

Daniel, you need to relax a bit. Investors are in the capital growth business not the rental business. Tenants are just there to help you hold proprerty long enough for the CG to kick in so you can refi cash out or LOE or sell down to realise profits. Yes, they can be a pain sometimes but you need to focus on the higher goal and why you're doing it in the first place.
 
Did you read the article? They can paint the walls BLACK if they so want to, then they leave in six months and YOU pay for the repaint.

How many owner occupiers have I seen with black walls? Why, none. I wonder why? Because most people are fairly normal and prefer neutral colours. Why assume tenants are psychos?
 
Did you read the article? They can paint the walls BLACK if they so want to, then they leave in six months and YOU pay for the repaint.
Yes, I did read the article. There's nothing stopping your current tenants from doing exactly the same thing.
You will still have names on a lease, even if they are subletting...so you will still have people to chase and to hold responsible.
They can sublet rooms, which means they could legally place 6 people (say 3 bedrooms shared between couples)....imagine the repair bills, electritcy, water etc etc and wear and tear.

I also doubt you can raise your rents that much higher if at all. I am now reading in how it works in NY and paris and the stories to see what its like there for investors.

Although it's probably not preferable... I really don't see the stress about it. A family with 6 kids could cause just as much 'wear and tear' but I don't understand the hassle when you can depreciate stuff anyway?
Also what's insurance for if it isn't to cover your ****?
And if tenants are somehow enticing other tenants to sublet rooms at a higher price of what you can get for the whole place...then obviously you CAN get the rent higher. ;)
 
Serious? You mean I can have 6 people in my house without me knowing?
My understanding is that this isn't legal now, and won't be legal in future. Just as before, tenants have to have the landlord's permission to sub-let. The only difference is that landlords must not unreasonably withhold permission.

So say Jim and Jane take out a lease together on a 2 bedroom unit. Jane has a great income, Jim's is not quite so strong. They break up, and Jane moves out. Jim can't afford the unit by himself, but he has a mate, Dave, who's willing to move in and pay half the rent.

Previously, landlords could say "Sorry, Dave can't move in", or - worse - they could say "Sure, we can add Dave to the lease, but because Jane has the stronger income and assets, we're not releasing her from the lease". Therefore Jane retains liability for any rent unpaid, or damage done, by Jim and Dave.

I believe the intention of the current legislation is that the landlord would not be able to "unreasonably" refuse permission for a) Jim to move in, and b) Jane to be released from the lease.

I don't think it would be considered unreasonable for a landlord to refuse sub-letting where the number of occupants substantially increases.
 
Yes, I did read the article. There's nothing stopping your current tenants from doing exactly the same thing.
You will still have names on a lease, even if they are subletting...so you will still have people to chase and to hold responsible.

My understanding is that if your tenant sub-lets, you won't have the names on a lease, but your tenant will have a lease of his own with his chosen tenant and he takes on the responsibilities of being a landlord.

In Queensland just recently we had the case where of three original tenants on the lease, only one was left in the house. He had asked us if we were happy for him to get another person in, and we were happy to do so and asked that we meet the new tenant and add that person to the lease. He got someone in, but we never met her and the name was never added to the lease. He then happened to mention (during a phone call about something else entirely) that he was interviewing that night for a second extra person.

We were faced with a situation whereby this original chap was likely to head off overseas (he had told us this was his plan) some time during the lease and we would be left with a lease with the names of tenants long gone and two strangers who we had never met, not on a lease, in our house. Not good!!

I called the RTA who told us that our remaining tenant, in organising to sub-let without our permission was, firstly, in breach of the lease, and secondly, taking on all the responsibilities of being a landlord himself. He should have organised paperwork for these people, taken a bond (I think) and had the same rights and responsibilities as we had with him.

In the end, we didn't renew the lease, the two that were already there left and found a cheaper rental. They left the house as it was when they went in, paid a professional cleaner and no problems at all, but it could have turned bad if he chose badly.
 
Last edited:
Just as before, tenants have to have the landlord's permission to sub-let. The only difference is that landlords must not unreasonably withhold permission.

As I understand it, things have been that way in Victoria for quite some time. Good to see NSW starting to catch up ;)
 
I called the RTA who told us that our remaining tenant, in organising to sub-let without our permission was taking on all the responsibilities of being a landlord himself.

I wonder if the RTA is able to enforce this, as the way I see it, he would be responsible for the rates, insurances, and all other responsibilities of a conventional resi landlord?
 
I wonder if the RTA is able to enforce this, as the way I see it, he would be responsible for the rates, insurances, and all other responsibilities of a conventional resi landlord?

I am not sure of how this would have worked, but I just knew that we were not interested in having two "squatters" with no paperwork and no financial risk to them should they decide to trash the house. I don't think that would happen, but it could have.

I didn't enquire any further into just what his responsibilities would be, because we just were not interested in continuing on with the situation as it was developing. Having said that, he had been a great tenant for three years and the second person was very nice (my brother met her while mowing). I just think someone who sub-lets in this way has no idea of the responsibilities and financial risk they are actually taking on.
 
Investors are in the capital growth business not the rental business.


Now there's a statement that a few hundred thousand investors around the country, especially the elderly Landlord's who rely on the income to live on, might slightly disagree with.


Tenants can be a pain sometimes but you need to focus on the higher goal and why you're doing it in the first place.


Indeed. The ol' "look at the big picture" defence rarely cuts the mustard.


DanielG, I'd suggest reading the RTA in your particular state, cover to cover, rather than gleaning knowledge from some broke 21 y.o. journo who failed half her course at Uni.

What's next?

Jump on the Tenant Advocate Union website in your state for the latest news on what extra powers they are trying to secure for the Tenant. It makes for fun reading.
 
I'd like to do a poll. For those who own your own home, have you ever painted your walls black? If not, why not?

Off topic but it's interesting you should ask this. I have never painted a wall black in my life and never would but only a couple of weeks ago we were having a look through an open house for sale and they had done just that. You would think it would look awful but it didn't. It wasn't a shiny black more a textured look and the other walls were white. There were two big pictures on the wall, simple drawings of (almost) nudes in muted shades of black, grey and white. Between the pictures was a black TV cabinet, with a big black plasma TV. The room had pale polished floors and spashes of red, cushions etc on the black lounges. It was a media room and it looked absolutely lovely.
 
How many owner occupiers have I seen with black walls? Why, none. I wonder why? Because most people are fairly normal and prefer neutral colours. Why assume tenants are psychos?

You would be surprised. A friend of mine had his tenants move out and without his knowledge they had decided to paint the bathroom snot green and rip out the carpets that were fine and replace them with lino, this was all done on the cheap DIY. It does happen, this house was less than 10 years old and didn't need a thing done to it.
 
DanielG, I'd suggest reading the RTA in your particular state, cover to cover, rather than gleaning knowledge from some broke 21 y.o. journo who failed half her course at Uni.
LMAO re standards of journalism... so true.

I find it interesting that whenever I read an article in the press on a topic with which I'm very familiar, it's full of mistakes, half-truths, or "errors by omission". One has to assume that the level of accuracy is similar on other topics, and not rely on the media to "inform" you.
 
I suggest, Daniel, that you take a chill pill.

Sure tenants can do all sorts of bad things. Many do! But the reality is that most are normal average people just looking for a place to live. Most will pay the rent and keep the place in a reasonable condition. Some will not!

I suggest that if the article is a concern to you that you ensure that you have landlord insurance on your property(s) to cover you for those kinds of unforseen events. Heck, even without subletting, I'd be getting landlord insurance.
 
Top