Would you accept this lease? Aussies react to outrageous landlord condition
- Replies 0
Renting a home often comes with a few compromises—budget constraints, limited availability, or location trade-offs. But sometimes, the conditions attached can leave prospective tenants completely blindsided.
One recent listing has sparked confusion and criticism, with many questioning how such an arrangement could even be considered legal.
What appeared to be a simple rental offer has turned into a striking example of the challenges renters face in Australia’s tight housing market.
A rental listing for a two-bedroom apartment in Nelson Bay, about two-and-a-half hours north of Sydney, had prospective tenants raising their eyebrows.
The $380-a-week unit offered scenic ocean views from the third floor, a huge balcony, and a spacious living area—yet came with a rather unconventional catch.
Anyone who signed the lease would only be allowed to live in the property 85 per cent of the time.
Tenants were expected to vacate the apartment around 30 days over a six-month period so the landlord could use it herself.
‘You will be expected to vacate the property so the owner can use the apartment for her sole use about 15 per cent of the time, about 30 days over six months, mainly Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights,’ the listing read.
The listing described the landlord as a ‘working professional from Sydney who loves this weekender to come to when time permits’.
Despite the limitations, the ad tried to paint the unit as a ‘fabulous’ coastal retreat just 500 metres from the heart of Nelson Bay.
But the lease conditions stunned many, with people online questioning who would agree to such terms.
‘I’d like to think with such an insane condition that it’s really cheap,’ one person said.
‘I can’t imagine anyone agreeing to that disruption, unless there was a house-swap going on so the renter could stay in the owner’s place in Sydney,’ another added.
One commenter found the situation particularly unsettling, writing: ‘I’ve actually never seen this. Can you imagine having to leave your house... and the landlord sleeps in your bed.’
Leo Patterson Ross, CEO of the Tenants’ Union of New South Wales, warned the arrangement could lead to legal complications.
‘This practice is likely to lead to disputes with confusion and frustration around the actual usage,’ he said.
‘We need listings sites like flatmates.com.au (which is owned by the REA group) to ensure listings are compliant with relevant laws and this may require regulation of the sector from Fair Trading NSW.’
The rent also excluded internet and utility bills, and required a minimum lease of three months.
Although the terms were far from standard, many believed the landlord would have no trouble finding someone to take it.
‘Accommodation is f*** scarce at the bay. I’ve no doubt this person will get someone to agree to this. It’s really gotten way too out of hand,’ one commenter said.
Photos of the property showcased the expansive views and bright, modern space, leaving many disappointed by the landlord’s imposed restrictions.
In a previous story, we covered how some renters are being hit with surprise charges that seem almost impossible to justify.
These unexpected fees have left many questioning their rights and the fairness of rental agreements.
To learn more about these shocking charges and what you can do, read the full story here.
With rental conditions like these, it’s hard to imagine many tenants agreeing to such an arrangement. What would you do if faced with this situation?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
One recent listing has sparked confusion and criticism, with many questioning how such an arrangement could even be considered legal.
What appeared to be a simple rental offer has turned into a striking example of the challenges renters face in Australia’s tight housing market.
A rental listing for a two-bedroom apartment in Nelson Bay, about two-and-a-half hours north of Sydney, had prospective tenants raising their eyebrows.
The $380-a-week unit offered scenic ocean views from the third floor, a huge balcony, and a spacious living area—yet came with a rather unconventional catch.
Anyone who signed the lease would only be allowed to live in the property 85 per cent of the time.
Renters face surprising terms in coastal apartment listing. Image source: Flatmates
Tenants were expected to vacate the apartment around 30 days over a six-month period so the landlord could use it herself.
‘You will be expected to vacate the property so the owner can use the apartment for her sole use about 15 per cent of the time, about 30 days over six months, mainly Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights,’ the listing read.
The listing described the landlord as a ‘working professional from Sydney who loves this weekender to come to when time permits’.
Despite the limitations, the ad tried to paint the unit as a ‘fabulous’ coastal retreat just 500 metres from the heart of Nelson Bay.
But the lease conditions stunned many, with people online questioning who would agree to such terms.
‘I’d like to think with such an insane condition that it’s really cheap,’ one person said.
‘I can’t imagine anyone agreeing to that disruption, unless there was a house-swap going on so the renter could stay in the owner’s place in Sydney,’ another added.
One commenter found the situation particularly unsettling, writing: ‘I’ve actually never seen this. Can you imagine having to leave your house... and the landlord sleeps in your bed.’
Leo Patterson Ross, CEO of the Tenants’ Union of New South Wales, warned the arrangement could lead to legal complications.
‘This practice is likely to lead to disputes with confusion and frustration around the actual usage,’ he said.
‘We need listings sites like flatmates.com.au (which is owned by the REA group) to ensure listings are compliant with relevant laws and this may require regulation of the sector from Fair Trading NSW.’
The rent also excluded internet and utility bills, and required a minimum lease of three months.
Although the terms were far from standard, many believed the landlord would have no trouble finding someone to take it.
‘Accommodation is f*** scarce at the bay. I’ve no doubt this person will get someone to agree to this. It’s really gotten way too out of hand,’ one commenter said.
Photos of the property showcased the expansive views and bright, modern space, leaving many disappointed by the landlord’s imposed restrictions.
In a previous story, we covered how some renters are being hit with surprise charges that seem almost impossible to justify.
These unexpected fees have left many questioning their rights and the fairness of rental agreements.
To learn more about these shocking charges and what you can do, read the full story here.
With rental conditions like these, it’s hard to imagine many tenants agreeing to such an arrangement. What would you do if faced with this situation?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
