QLD Number of adults on the lease

Hi

For QLD, is there any advantage for me as a landlord to include grown up children on the lease rather than have them as approved occupants? The children are still financially dependent on the parents, however are couple of years older than 18.

Thinking through examples - in case of rental non-payment or eviction for example, is it better to have more adults in the household for me as landlord to argue against rent reduction, or going before rent tribunal to claim that the children could provide additional financial support if necessary - that is, find work.

 

If the children are financially dependent on the parents I'm not sure how you intend to also claim the children can provide financial support.
It's one or the other isn't it?

 

Probably not quite relevant, but in Victoria the government is currently offering cash to tenants in hardship. I think it's paid to each person on the lease, even if they're all on the same lease.

I could be wrong about this. My hardship tenant only has the husband on the lease, the wife and kid aren't listed.

 

We can say "financially dependent" here on the forum, but the legal meaning of this could be different and I am not sure how it is even established. How am I supposed to know officially if they are dependent or not? This question is somewhat moot because this is not what I am after.

I am trying to find out if having all adults on the lease provides additional deterrent. For example, in case of rental defaults will all the adults go onto TICA database? In this case it is better for me to list the adult children on the lease.

 

I'm not sure what the benefit is of trying to hold the kids accountable for thier parents failing to make good on the rent.

I left home when I was 20 but I didnt have any involvement in my parents financial affairs whatsoever (nor did my peers) which is probably why I'm struggling to grasp what it is you hope to achieve.

If you have concerns about these potential tenants maybe just let the property to someone else instead

 

It won't provide any deterrent (if they can't pay, they can't pay) but will stuff up the lives of the financially dependent kids if there is a default by the parents. Such compassion!

 

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here, or people read what they want to read. The adult children are living in the house. It's not like they are elsewhere and adding them to the lease if they are not living there will provide some sort of perverse security.

These are all adults, part of one family, living in a rented house. The only two choices are really: all adults on the lease, or, dependent adults are "approved occupants".

 

If the kids (18+ adults) are financially dependent on their parents - eg studying why should they be responsible for their parents debts? If they are financially independent then that is a different matter.

 

Why are these pseudo-moral arguments even relevant?

I would say that its clearly better for a lessor to have as many names as they can on the lease as tenants. I can't think of any downsides off the top of my head.

Not because of anything weird to do with financial hardship or rent reduction arguments either - purely because its more options in terms of debt recovery. Same reason why banks want more signatures on their loan agreements. Shrug.

 

Without these "pseudo-moral" arguments society becomes little more than a war with the stronger taking advantage of the weaker and there is always somebody "stronger" than ourselves.

It would appear from your post that you would happily throw a young adult potentially seeking to improve their chances in life under the proverbial bus to alleviate the risk of losing a few hundred dollars.

 

Sure, I guess it appears that way if you equate putting them on the lease to quashing their chances in life.

I'd then be surprised that you don't take more issue with any time a lessor asks for money from a young adult though.

 

The original post does read along the lines of 'is there anyway I can have the kids on the hook if thier parents miss the rent'?

I'm sure that's not the intent, but if it is then it does highlight what's wrong with people these days (ie can I do this rather than should I do this).

I suggested a middle ground of just finding other tenants if there are concerns here. What happens when a 17 year old turns 18 in thier last year of high school? Off the the PM to add thier signature to the lease?

Maybe I just hold on to old fashioned societal norms and a sense of coexistence that is no longer relevant.

 

We always make sure that all parties over 18 have applied and are either listed as approved occupants or leaseholders. Young adults between 16-18 can also be on the lease but don't need to be.

There is an advantage to having more responsible parties, but I wouldn't force financially dependant adults to be leaseholders unless it was specifically necessary. The biggest reason we do it is usually so the kids can build a rental history.