Would you let your tennant sublease your rooms?

There is a single who would like to rent out a home I own, but I suspect they would like to sublease the other rooms or rent them on Air BnB.
What are your thoughts on a tennant doing this? Any tips?

 

What leads you to suspect this?

More to the point, if they are going to they will, and from a practical point of view you will have a tough time proving/doing anything about it.

There was a thread running at length about this topic last year I believe.

 

No.



An example of a reasonable reason to refuse such a request may be that the Lessor's landlords insurance does not cover sub-letting and therefor it is an unacceptable risk to the Lessor.

 

@Michael Mitchell

Too much information

 

If it's AirBnB it's the easiest thing to prove.
The listing will be listed.

If it was me - I'd say no.
The rules in VIC does not allow a LL to refuse if they ask, but I'd still refuse and let them go to VCAT.
By the time it gets to VCAT, I'll find a way to end their tenancy.

This is one of the things that annoys me the most - the ability to sublet.
We're doing so much due diligence choosing a tenant for our property, just for the bring everyone who's looking to rent on Gumtree.
I just don't get it!

 

It doesn't lessen the relationship between you and the tenant - they are still responsible for the rent and care of the property.

 

Yeah, I know...
But let's be honest - I'm not into end of tenancy fights, VCAT hearing, insurance claims and stuff.

We're trying to find those tenants that believe will have a good tenancy including leaving the place in a state that wouldn't require any bond claim.
We check tenancy databases, look at their pay slips, call their references, stalk their socials.
All so we get as full picture as we can.

But then they bring into your property people who they have no idea their background, sometimes for short stay.
If one of those sub-tenants trash the place - you're up for a fight with your tenant.

They are not gonna own for it and pay a full price for the damages. Not in a million years.
They'll drag you down trying to remove themselves from the situation.

At the end of the day - tenants move on and we are left with the property to fix it.

I'm not even seeing how this section of the act help protecting tenants; if one cannot afford the rent - don't apply for it!
If your way to pay the rent is by sub letting - that's a huge problem.

 

What if the lessor was following all the same processes in deciding who to sub let to?

The head lease owner is still subject to all the conditions of the head lease.
Your agent would still be doing their inspections as per normal etc.

 

This is an interesting take, could the insurance company be acting illegally by refusing to cover a legal condition in the contract?
Has it ever been tested?

 

I would, but then if there is a market for it I would consider doing it myself.

 

That's a common statement - "the head tenant is basically the landlord for the sub-tenants".
But he's not....
The property, aka the risk, is not his.
If all hell break loose - everyone who's not owned the property will disappear, leaving us to pick up the pieces.
We might be able to collect some of the damage, but it take time and effort. In the meantime we need to fix it and somehow move on.

Why on earth the act put us in a position our property has be to allowed to used by 3rd parties?

If this ever comes up - I'll make sure to use it.
I'll allow you to sub let if you show you current landlord insurance.

 

I caught mine advertising on flatmates.com.au

 

And? Tell us all the dirty details

 

I wouldn't knowingly let someone rent an IP if they intend to sublease....but what gives you the idea that this is what they intend to do?

Just because someone is single doesn't mean they intend to sublet. If I was single, I'd want at least 3 beds for my own use.

 

Just one word in simple English, No! It only leaves the landlord with additional maintenance items adding to the list as everything in the property will wear out too quickly whilst your tenants enjoys the (additional) cashflow returns if any.

 

This is about the dumbest thing you could do as a lessor allowing "subletting".

Better to not be involved at all.

 

The headless is still accountable under his lease for damage as per normal so no risk is actually transferred. No different to renting to a family.

 

When you think about it logically... There would be no extra maintenance or wear and tear as compared to renting a 4bed home to a family of 4+. In fact a 4 bed home could easily have a family of upto 8 in it.

 

In theory - yeah.

In real life - none of us want to chase damages. It's never straight forward.
xCAT hearings, insurance claims, increase premium, tradies, lost of rent etc etc.

You have to do the same with a family, but you did as much due diligence as you can when you let them in, so you did risk mitigation to not get to a point you need to chase them.
But when they sublet - there's an inherent elevated risk, with NO benefit to you.

I'll argue that most of those who are sub letting have no idea what they are doing, don't care about their liability and does not care who's coming as long as they pay cash in hand.

What I learnt from this thread is that the way to block it, since the act it's not very helpful, is to allow it only if the head tenant follow and provide me proof they do everything they required to do as landlords (aka - sign a tenancy contract, submit bond with RBTA, provide receipts, take out landlord insurance etc).

Let's see how much they want it then.

 

Not true.
Family of 8 means 2 parents and 6 little people who listens (kinda) to the 2 parents.
The parents are well aware that if the little people are creating damage - they will be responsible.

However, in sub letting the other people are not under the control of the head tenant.
In AirBnB it's even worse - they don't care. The worse that can happen to them is low score on a website.