Undeclared phantom tenant... what to do?

In Qld? More than 5? unrelated parties is breach of class 1a fire reg afaik, and either needs to be classed as 1b ('boarding house' - different regs and requirements) or what type of dwelling is this exactly? Fascinating if it's true what the PM said, I'd like to learn.

 

Yeah this is quite a different scenario the the OP's situation legally. Potentially there would be an actionable breach in something like this.

 

Perhaps Wear and Tear might be something you would want to look at?
Are they breaking things?
Are they being noisy?
Are they attracting vermin?

If the answer is no then move on.
I hope this helps

 

I had a tenant with a “boyfriend” who was clearly living there but was never put on the lease. It was so much fun when he damaged the property and terry sheer wouldn’t cover it as the tenant “invited the guest” to the property and was not on the lease. Also had 2 dogs, pictures of dog bowls in the backyard but the tits on a bull property management agency in Belmont just sat back and ignored it all. Chew marks on window sills and ****** on curtains, was fabulous!! They were fired for their incompetence, feel really sorry for other landlords trusting their properties with them.

 

Didn't read the whole thread but basically if the extra tenant gets mail sent to the mailbox or has belongings in the home like furniture and clothes you can pretty much assume they're living there, having people over for vacation is different to having someone there as a permanent resident and yep, it can make your insurance void in some cases. You might be able to ask the neighbours if you suspect something fishy is going on or attend the property inspections but other than that it's hard to prove who is living there.

I'm surprised at some responses on this thread and makes me wonder how much money people lose due to negligence.

 

Have a read, most of the comments are saying how ridiculous it is to be bothered by two people instead of one 'potentially' living in a one bedroom property.
Sure there is a point it becomes unreasonable, but a couple in a one bedder?? Most here struggle to see the big deal... myself included.
Why even limit the lease to one in this scenario is my question, but the OP has gone awol

 

Having tenants in a home that haven't been vetted is a big no-no in my opinion and it begs the question of why wouldn't you just ask the PM if there isn't anything to hide ? You don't know anything about this other possible tenant, unemployed or employed, they could burn your house down and then the insurance company says sorry the neighbours and or police told us you had a tenant in the home that wasn't listed on the lease, or they could trash your home like they had done to a previous LL, and they were blacklisted on the tenant database.

 

I think we can safely assume that this person isn't coming back.

 

All related. Mum n dad and kids and boyfriends/girlfriends and grandma n grandpa.Large dual occupancy home.

 

Based entirely on every property I have ever rented the PM is not interested in whoever else lives there if I am the sole lease holder.

There is usually a 'maximum number of tenants normally resident' box on the lease which I always change from one person to however many I like (I usually sublet a spare room in a house share arrangement).

Not one PM has cared in nearly 20 years, one has asked for a name if I had another tenant in mind - however usually I dont at the point I sign the lease.
So far as I see it, as the lease holder I am responsible for whatever another tenant does to the property if I am the only one listed.

I think your concen about insurance void if someone in the house wasnt on the lease is either misplaced, or at least removed from normal practice.
I dont have insurance so I can't comment, I'm simply speaking from experience as a real world tenant.

 

Who is this mystery insurance company that refuses to pay out if a person living in the house isn't on the lease? I've checked the two big providers (Terri Scheer and EBM) and both their PDS' contain no such exclusion, and given those two are underwritten by AAI and QBE respectively, the policies would be largely similar to every other insurer on the market - excepting maybe some tiny brands like Woolworths Insurance (no wait, even they don't exclude that...)

Surely that person is just plain trespassing and can be moved along by police?

 

Last time I applied for Woolworth, it excludes on the number of people in a home and if you have more than 3 people in a home from not of the same family, can't remember the other insurer that said all tenants need be on lease and not going to spend hours searching for it, but anyway so what happens if you have someone that's blacklisted for trashing homes in your rental, it only takes one person and all your rent is gone for the next few years ?

 

How does it work when the landlord has issued the rules to the tenant and the PM has confirmed the rules are being adhered to? Why is the landlord responsible for an invasive investigation that is potentially illegal into something out of their control?
If there is evidence that the rules are broken, is it not the situation the insurance company pays out to the landlord and then chases the tenant? Seems pointless having an insurance that doesn't provide compensation even when the rules are adhered to.

 

To list another person on a tenancy who does actually hold the lease does not involve any background checks on that person, only the leaseholder, and any listed tenant who does not hold the lease is not required to even show ID so any hypothetical checks would be pointless.
Furthermore, if you have already let the property to someone are you later going to veto who they choose to live with? I've never noticed any such provision on any lease I've signed beyond limiting the 'number of persons ordinarily occuping' the property.

If anyone begs to differ in opinion then all the best to you, but that is what has been communicated to me from PM's anytime I have brought the matter up while signing a lease.... so I would reason that is what is probably happening with your property too.

If was the landlord I would personally find it all a whole lot easier dealing with just one accountable person (leaseholder) than every individual who might move in a for a few months at time here or there.

 

This is LL life, most people 'hope' everyone does the right thing but it opens up a can of worms. Who would be at fault if someone not on the lease goes back into the house and damages it or steels things with an unsolicited spare set of keys you don't know about, while the original tenant on the lease vacated. How would you explain that to the Insurer when you and RA are the only people with the keys to the home ?

Sounds like a lazy PM to me, I always ask for checks. Maybe if you've known the tenants for many years to be good people and say like they have a family member moving back in with them or a new partner, I wouldn't bother.

 

Call it lazy PM if you will, but just because you ask I doubt you are getting. And that's from having signed around 14 leases over the last 20 years.
I couldnt care less as I am the tenant, but as is often the theme here, I suspect there is a major disconnect between what PMs are doing and what you/owners think they actually do.

If the keys are not of the registered variety there is nothing wrong with getting them cut. I usually do so I have a spare set.

As far as insurance is concerned, there are either signs of forced entry or there are not. In the latter case you have a problem, but I dont see how having someone listed versus not listed is going to prevent this.

 

I'm not aware of any state that gives you a say in who moves in with the tenant once the lease has been signed, subject to any rules against subletting and maximum occupancy. I'm certain I've seen @thatbum cover this on a few occasions on this forum (and others) that having family or partners move in is not a sublet, and you have precisely zero power to prevent it or force the additional tenant to go on the lease (hence why I'm skeptical any insurer really imposes that requirement).