There is no 6 year tenancies though. It's a unlimited tenancy with a possibility to sell after 6 years.
There is no 6 year tenancies though. It's a unlimited tenancy with a possibility to sell after 6 years.That doesn’t conflict with any RTA rules to allow a replacement, it just makes it transparent when the 6 year joint-tenancy to occupy the property will end
So I don't understand how that works.the new person joining into the tenancy should sign a new or amended lease that clearly shows the start and end dates of the existing tenancy.
Sorry yes, terminology wrong. I know we now have rolling 6 year minimum tenancies (TMD).There is no 6 year tenancies though.
I think that is just the new person confirming that they are joining the existing tenancy which starts a new cycle at year 6.So I don't understand how that works.
If one house-mate leaves, the RTB register must be updated. If the landlord agrees to a replacement tenant, the RTB register must be updated. The RTB registered TMD start date doesn’t change, only the individuals in occupation with the landlords authorisation.So I don't understand how that works.
I would think it is very important to carefully document all changes to the tenants. The days of casual and undocumented replacements are now long gone. In fact, based on the original issue in this thread, you should do your best to completely avoid replacement tenants for a number of reasons, the least important of which is the ability to reset the rent.If the landlord and original house-mates signed a contract (lease agreement) and the parties have changed, is it not a good idea to update the contract so every signatory to the contract knows the position. For example, if a large landlord sold a block of rented apartments, I’d imagine the new owners would want that documented with their individual tenants. Why not document it when there’s a change in the tenants.
If the lease doesn't allow sub-letting (or licensees), it seems that that is one area where the lease is actually binding.The remaining tenant then hands the second set of keys to anyone of their choice without reference to the landlord except the RTA requirement to notify him in writing, and that person can then request to join the tenancy after six months occupation and the landlord can’t reasonably refuse. That’s the RTA tenancy rules covered.
Apparently, if they are a licencee for 6 months, they are then entitled to be added as a tenant. The landlord can reasonably refuse, but we know the view the RTB would take of that.The person living in the property would just be a licensee, not a tenant. If licensees were not allowed by the lease, then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable by the landlord to refuse to add the licensee to the tenancy.
Right, but if the tenants broke the no-licensees rule, would it still be unreasonable to refuse?Apparently, if they are a licencee for 6 months, they are then entitled to be added as a tenant. The landlord can reasonably refuse, but we know the view the RTB would take of that.
Exactly. The RTB is extremely pro-tenant and wants to avoid evictions at all costs (we've seen that even with non-paying and disruptive tenants), so it could decide that as the illegal licensee has been residing in the property for 6 months plus, paying their share of the rent and causing no trouble, it is unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to add them as a tenant.I mean the RTB can do anything. They might say that the tenants breaking the rule shouldn't be used to remove rights from the licensee.
Which is why I don't do them.hot water with house shares and tenant replacements
The RTB can only decide things based on the legislation. They cannot make stuff up. Unfortunately they can be wrong in their interpretation of the legislation. (eg about date of delivery post/email )Exactly. The RTB is extremely pro-tenant and wants to avoid evictions at all costs (we've seen that even with non-paying and disruptive tenants), so it could decide that as the illegal licensee has been residing in the property for 6 months plus, paying their share of the rent and causing no trouble, it is unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to add them as a tenant.
The RTB might also decide that the overall no-licensee/no-subletting clause is unfair because it means the remaining tenant or tenants would have to pay the entire rent, remove it and allow the licensee to become a tenant on that basis.
Another alternative is to decide that they can't do anything with the licensee as they have no jurisdiction in that area. The landlord's only option then will be to try to evict the tenants for breach of the lease and their illegal licensee along with them. I think we know where that will go where the RTB is concerned - it is a small breach and eviction is unnecessary.
If the legal system was balanced, this wouldn't be an issue. It is very obvious at this stage that it is not.
Very wise and I think that is the only way going forward for landlords who are staying in the PRS - one and two bed properties rented only to singles or couples.Which is why I don't do them.
The RTB Tribunal can decide what ever it wants. It should of course follow the legislation, but the practical reality is that it doesn't have to. The reason for this is that the landlords only option is to appeal the decision and take a case against the extremely well funded RTB to the expensive High Court. If the landlord loses, they pay their own costs and the RTB's costs as well. Plus, even if the landlord wins, the RTB have the financial wherewithal to appeal to the Court of Appeal.The RTB can only decide things based on the legislation. They cannot make stuff up. Unfortunately they can be wrong in their interpretation of the legislation. (eg about date of delivery post/email )
Yes and so many different rules that a landlord can trip on.The three or four bed with tenants coming and going is just too risky.
Another unforeseen consequence is that landlords will only hold and rent one and two bedroom houses or apartments and rent to singles or couples. Replacement tenants should be much less of an issue there.
What a pity the Department of Housing and the left wing academics didn't sit down and fully think through their cunning plan.
I think so too. Even a two bed to a couple is risky. They could split up and the remaining partner would want to rent out the second bedroom.I think 1 bed apartments are going to be like gold now.