Weird subletting condition - is this appropriate or reasonable? update #27

[Cali.in.UK]

So I've been searching for a place to move in my university town over the summer. There are a lot of students subletting their flats/homes over the summer while they go home and I've been messaging with a few people. There have been quite a few (but standard) issues where the place is farther than stated in the advert, or there are other undesirable issues (it's an illegal sublet, there will be a lot of housemates, far from public transport etc.) but this one took the cake and I wanted to see what others thought.
We will definitely not live in this place because of the condition the guy mentioned that was omitted from the original advert. In the original ad it said a flat with one housemate and it is really centrally located. The person subletting the room is the guy I emailed with, after I asked a few standard questions he emailed back answers but also added this:

" I will be living mostly in [bigger city] during this time, but there'd be a few nights I may crash in the living room after work, just to forewarn you. I'm not going to be there a lot, just when I have extra shifts at work and can't get back to  [bigger city]. If this all sounds okay to you, would you like to figure out a time to come to see the room?"

What does ehell think about this? I found it really weird. We don't know this person at all. And it's not a super cheap deal or anything, pretty standard, but to have the room tenant basically say that they have an open-invite to come and go as they please? Has anyone else heard of anything like this?

[Runningstar]

I have heard second hand about this type of condition.  There usually are a lot of problems that go along with it, and I'm glad that you do not plan on living there.  Just for example, the minor annoyance of what is to be occasional sleepovers that turns into most of the time.  Then it also includes the friends of the "real" tenant who raid the refrigerator, use your belongings as if they are owned by the "real" tenant, etc.  You could end up basically living with this guy and would have no written contract against it. 

[Carotte]

It's a bit weird, but probably in his mind it's just like if the one housemate had a guest crash on the couch. He's not asking (in the mail at least, who knows in reality) to have access to his former bedroom, so it's like saying "FYI, sometimes Housemate has guest crashing on the couch, it's part of the agreement for living here that you are ok with it".

But, unlike a random guest of Housemate, Renter Guy could end up wanting to have access to his room to get his things day and night, and that's not something I would be comfortable with (baring the occasional  "oh no I forgot to pack Important document! could I swing by and get it from my room?")

Is he comming back after the summer? Then he's subletting the room but technically still thinks of the appartment as his adress.
If he's not he shouldn't come back unless he is a guest of Housemate.

[amylouky]

It's definitely weird. But, as long as he's being upfront about it, I don't think it's completely out there.
If the flat was going to be private, then I would.. but since it's already shared with a roommate (who you don't know, either) then the living room is already going to be common space.
I'm not sure I'd rule it out but there would definitely be limits. Maybe he could deduct some rent for every night he has to stay over?

[miranova]

I wouldn't agree to it, because I don't find it reasonable.  If I'm paying for the space, it's not his anymore (at least not during the time period specified) and I wouldn't want him showing up anytime he felt like it with no notice and no recourse.  When roommates in full standing have issues with guests, they can discuss them and come to agreements.  I'd feel like I was trapped in a situation where if I felt he was staying "too much" I wouldn't be able to do anything about it and I wouldn't want to put myself in that position.

I also wouldn't trust this guy, because if he thought it was truly no big deal, he would have put that condition in the initial advertisement instead of pulling an attempted bait and switch.

[siamesecat2965]

I wouldn't agree to it, because I don't find it reasonable.  If I'm paying for the space, it's not his anymore (at least not during the time period specified) and I wouldn't want him showing up anytime he felt like it with no notice and no recourse.  When roommates in full standing have issues with guests, they can discuss them and come to agreements.  I'd feel like I was trapped in a situation where if I felt he was staying "too much" I wouldn't be able to do anything about it and I wouldn't want to put myself in that position.

I also wouldn't trust this guy, because if he thought it was truly no big deal, he would have put that condition in the initial advertisement instead of pulling an attempted bait and switch.

I wouldn't agree to it ether. As you say, its not his anymore. That's the whole point of subletting. You rent a place, and in turn, rent it to someone else when you aren't going to BE there. That doesn't give you any rights to come back every now and again.

I wouldn't trust him either, and am glad you've decided not to take it.

[gollymolly2]

I wouldn't agree to it. But there are probably people out there who wouldn't mind, so I think it's fine as long as he mentioned the condition before making any agreements.

[veronaz]

I have heard second hand about this type of condition.  There usually are a lot of problems that go along with it, and I'm glad that you do not plan on living there.  Just for example, the minor annoyance of what is to be occasional sleepovers that turns into most of the time.  Then it also includes the friends of the "real" tenant who raid the refrigerator, use your belongings as if they are owned by the "real" tenant, etc.  You could end up basically living with this guy and would have no written contract against it.

I agree.

I’ve heard of such arrangements and (as mentioned) there are almost always ongoing problems.

Something should have been stated in the ad.  Instead he chose to wait and mention it as an “Oh, by the way”.  Sneaky, imo.

[GreenEyedHawk]

Even if the guy subletting has no ill intent, I just wouldn't want to put up with the hassle of that.  I'm very protective of my private space.  Good call in not wanting to live with that.

[delabela]

I don't think it's weird in a college town.  I would have been fine with it when I was a student if it came with a break on rent, I would not be cool with it as a person looking down the barrel of middle age. 

[nolechica]

I wouldn't care as much inside as out.  Around here parking is premium and if the flat only has one space, it's for my guests, as I don't drive.

[Raintree]

I guess he can ask for whatever he wants and at least he was upfront about it. You are free to accept or decline based on his condition.

I personally wouldn't go for it either. You don't know him, you don't know if it's going to suddenly turn into "My friends need to crash there" etc etc.

But I guess he was OK to try for someone who would be OK with it, and at least he didn't spring it on you after you were half moved in.

[Cali.in.UK]

I guess I'm finding misleading ads really frustrating because I'm in the process of trying to move and it takes time and energy and then the tenants mention weird conditions or important information that should have been in the original advert.
I think in this specific situation, if the flat is listed as having only one roommate but the other roommate is planning on sleeping over and hanging out, it's a bit misleading. For me personally, having less housemates is my goal so I was pretty excited to find a place with only one other housemate.
I agree with PPs saying that if someone was going to be sleeping on the couch there should be a reduction in the rent. He works at a bar or a nightclub so he would be coming back quite late so I would wonder if he wouldn't be gone by the time I woke up.

[Margo]

I think it is an issue that he (and others like him) are 'amateur landlords' - or me, it would be more of an issue because it suggests that he is still thinking of this as his home, not yours - which would leave me wondering what else he might expect. On the plus side, he did at least raise it in advance!

Have you considered putting in your own ad to see whether that works better for you?

[Cali.in.UK]

Margo - We have two ads out now (on two different sites) and we've been crossing our fingers. Nothing great yet. A lot of people suggesting alternative move-in-move-out days that wouldn't work for me, but there is still time.