Hi Newbie,
We had a ‘problem’ tenancy just as you describe operating in our block for several years. A corporate organisation arranged to lease a residential apartment and were referred to as ‘the tenant’ but no individual actually resided their full time – just a passing parade of casual groups staying for periods ranging from a couple of nights to several weeks, usually arriving and departing very late at night or early mornings. Noise and rubbish were often a problem. The unit owner was uncooperative and the letting agent insisted that all was above board and legal. The secretary communicated our concern that this arrangement was in breach of the zoning, and also contravened as a special by-law we had in place to prohibit short term letting. The letting agent was rude and dismissive and the strata manager basically passed the buck. The other committee members sadly had no stomach for an NCAT challenge (which seemed the only recourse available) and the situation was left unresolved.
After 3 years the corporate lease was terminated and a regular tenancy is now in place. Since the matter was never properly tested it remains unclear as to what the legal standing is regarding this type of arrangement. Given the current manufactured ‘confusion’ regarding short term letting – where people seem to be putting about fake news that ‘it’s all legal now anyway’ – I suspect this type of irregular letting will proliferate until a clear legal precedent is set. I take some hope from the recent post by Jimmy T regarding higher court judgements but there always seems to be a louder argument from the other side.
I realise my post does not really provide you with a plan to defeat the problem, except to say that the registering of a by-law prohibiting a lease under 3 months (or even 6 months) has certainly helped us in regard to other instances of short term letting in our block. However, it is this corporate work-around tactic that seems to be the grey zone. Who knows how things might pan out now if a number of residents decide to flout the by-law given the current manufactured ‘confusion’?
Regards,
Braveheart