Thu Jul 18

Sharehousing can be fun, but fraught with risk – and the law offers little protection. These 3 changes could help

Written by Zoe Goodall, Research Associate, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology

Anyone who’s lived in a sharehouse knows it only takes one person to send the household off the rails. Everyone’s life is affected when one housemate leaves out food, plays loud music all night or routinely uses all the hot water. Sharing a home with someone means you’re intimately impacted by their best and worst behaviour.

But what about when your housemate’s actions cause everyone to owe money, or even put everyone at risk of eviction? Sharehouse renters can be held equally responsible if their housemates cause damage, don’t pay rent, or breach the tenancy agreement in another way.

These rules were made in a context where households were generally assumed to be a family. Choosing who you live with is typical for couple or family households, but sharehousing can involve living with people you don’t know well.

Our new research ^[1], published in the International Journal of Housing Policy, reveals how existing laws and advice on renting often aren’t fair or appropriate for sharehouse situations.

Sharehousing is becoming more crucial ^[2] as the rental crisis rages on, and not just for young people ^[3]. It’s time to consider different approaches; here are three changes that could help.

The risks of sharehousing

Our recent paper ^[4] analysed government webpages that communicate rules, regulations and advice about sharehousing to private renters.

We looked for information from each state and territory government, as there are differences in tenancy law ^[5] between jurisdictions.

Across the webpages we analysed (in 2022), we ended up identifying some key risks to renters in sharehouses. These included:

financial risks (where renters risked losing money)
eviction risks (where renters risked being evicted)
dispute risks (relating to disagreements between housemates).

The problem is these risks (such as they apply to sharehouse renters) weren’t always acknowledged in existing laws and guidance.

Even when these dangers were identified, often renters were warned about these risks but not always told what to do about it.

For example, on the Consumer Affairs Victoria webpage about co-renting ^[6], it says:

When someone co-rents, they can be held responsible for the actions of the other co-renters who are listed on the rental agreement. […] If your housemate is late paying their share of the rent for a few months, both of you will be “in arrears”, and could be told to leave the apartment, even though you have been paying your share on time.

Sometimes the advice acknowledged the risk but advised renters there was no help available for people in this situation.

These risks aren’t trivial. Owing money to the landlord or being evicted can be expensive and distressing, and can also damage your rental history so it’s harder to secure your next place.

And disagreements between housemates can go beyond chores and noise, with bullying and abuse ^[7] possibilities that aren’t really considered in these regulations.

What changes could help?

Our research also identified three steps that would make housing policy fairer for people living in sharehouses. They are:

1. Create regulations that specifically address sharehousing. Recognising that sharehousing is different from family households – and the complications this can produce – is crucial. The ACT ^[8] has started to do this.

It would be good if other jurisdictions followed, so regulations address the specific issues that can occur for sharehouses.

2. Have the option of being treated as individuals. Sharehouses can be communal and friendly. They can also be formed out of necessity by people who don’t actually want to share their lives. Housing policies that give people the option to have separate tenancy agreements – rather than one that holds them equally responsible – could increase fairness.

This is already possible in some places. In Western Australia ^[9], for example, sharehouse tenants are advised that separate tenancy agreements can “avoid common complications”. This could mean the other housemates wouldn’t be blamed if one tenant caused damage or didn’t pay rent.

Other states and territories could consider introducing similar provisions.

As it is, too many states allow other housemates to be blamed if one tenant causes damage. John Arehart/Shutterstock ^[10]

3. Take inspiration from rental laws concerning domestic and family violence for sharehouses. In some states ^[11] of Australia, victim-survivors are not liable for property damage if it was caused through an act of domestic violence. Replicating this acknowledgement in a way that is relevant for sharehouses would help people who are being victimised by a housemate who is not their intimate partner.

It is worth considering whether other rental laws around domestic and family violence could be emulated for sharehouses too, to acknowledge that some sharehouses can be unsafe.

As more people are likely to move into sharehousing, and perhaps share for longer, rental laws can respond by making sharehousing less risky.

Regulations can never fix all the problems in a sharehouse. But they can potentially address some of the issues that impact people’s housing and financial security in their current and future tenancies.

Below are some of the current government webpages about sharehousing (we did our analysis in 2022, so some webpages we analysed have been changed or updated):

• ACT ^[12]

• New South Wales ^[13]

• Northern Territory ^[14]

• Queensland ^[15]

• South Australia ^[16]

• Tasmania ^[17]

• Victoria ^[18]

• WA