Originally rented to a tenant back in early 90's. This tenant over time has been spending less and less time at the unit (one to twos month a year for past four years). The reasons given have been related to family issues out of state, and work. We agreed upon allowing another roommate. We have provided section 6.14 each time the roommates change (on average a new roommate every 12 months). We believe the tenant is taking advantage of the rent controls within San Francisco, and that since we allowed a roommate once, that we can no longer say no.
All the roommates have gone out of there way to limit interaction with us, except the last roommate. We are handling the roommate no different than any other tenant in the building. This roommate would like to be a co-tenant and we have no issue with that, since we directly interact and deal with her. The roommate has suggested that she is actaully paying the full amount of rent to the original tenant, and the original tenant pays us. Given we are in a rent controlled area, and San Francisco is very tenant friendly, we do not see a difference between having the roommate included on an updated month to month agreement with both individuals. We do not see any negative with regards to including the new co-tenant. Is there a reason not to do this. San Francisco rules seem to not provide any obvious reason not to do.
The original tenant does not want the roommate as a co-tenant, and will not agree to sign an updated agreement. Can not we as landlords request and expect that if the original tenant wants to have the roommate, that we can have both on the agreeement. Is this not possible? This roommate was selected by the original tenant, and we took the roommate through the review process no different than any tenant in the building and all was good.
In San Francisco, if we allow a roommate we provided a section 6.14 and the roommate is not on the agreement, how is this different from subletting. The rental agreement does not allow subletting. Are we subletting without knowing it?
All the roommates have gone out of there way to limit interaction with us, except the last roommate. We are handling the roommate no different than any other tenant in the building. This roommate would like to be a co-tenant and we have no issue with that, since we directly interact and deal with her. The roommate has suggested that she is actaully paying the full amount of rent to the original tenant, and the original tenant pays us. Given we are in a rent controlled area, and San Francisco is very tenant friendly, we do not see a difference between having the roommate included on an updated month to month agreement with both individuals. We do not see any negative with regards to including the new co-tenant. Is there a reason not to do this. San Francisco rules seem to not provide any obvious reason not to do.
The original tenant does not want the roommate as a co-tenant, and will not agree to sign an updated agreement. Can not we as landlords request and expect that if the original tenant wants to have the roommate, that we can have both on the agreeement. Is this not possible? This roommate was selected by the original tenant, and we took the roommate through the review process no different than any tenant in the building and all was good.
In San Francisco, if we allow a roommate we provided a section 6.14 and the roommate is not on the agreement, how is this different from subletting. The rental agreement does not allow subletting. Are we subletting without knowing it?
