Thanks for posting this.

From what I understand, you were attempting to sublet to him.  He was then going to sub-sublet the apartment originally leased in your name.  If this was the case, then it would not have been a legal sublet.  This can be particularly problematic if the person damages the apartment and does not have renter's insurance.

Yes, Translator, you are right. Actually, in fact, as far as I understand, all rental contracts do not permit sub-letting, and all sub-lets are actually only between 2 parties built on trust.

Well, it is fine if the sublet is approved by the regie. I guess he did not ever sign anything  on paper?

Hello everybody, I am the david in question.

The story is not presented here properly.

I have proposed to refund Wee the price he was going to pay while not being in the flat should I be able to have official access to the flat early on.

It turned out not to be possible before the 15th. I explicitely talked with the regie about my agreement with Wee mentionning I even had already the key but they insisted it wasnt allowed and that I had to wait for my official entry "etat des lieux" scheduled on feb 15th. 

It is true that while waiting for answers from the regie it looked like I could have the flat before feb 1st, then it turned out it could be on the 4th -Wee s "etat des lieux" de sortie. Finally the regie told me I had to wait for the 15th to have access to it. 

These vaious delays have de facto changed the initial agreement which was based on the evident moral necessity to refund the previous tenant the rent corresponding to the period I would be using the flat. 

Since I wasn't granted official access to the flat, since it was forbidden by the regie to live in the flat while it was still under Wees name with no etat des lieux of entry, on which grounds should I refund anyone?

best regards, David

To be precise, i never had in mind that Wee was subletting me his flat.

I even proposed the regie to take the whole february rent myself to have the flat from feb 4th. THEY REFUSED. So Wee had to pay for half of february while I was forbidden to use the key I already had.

We didnt need to sign anything if the regie would have accepted my early take over which was the agreement.

The person subletting the apartment must live in the apartment.  He or she cannot sublet the apartment to a third party in turn.  If the regie finds out about an illegal sublet, the lease holder's will probably lose the right to rent the apartment.

If anyone has any question about this, I recommend you join ASLOCA, the renters' rights organization.

Sorry, I meant to write "the lease holder"

Translator, you are right again. But in this case which is actually an earlier take-over of the contract by another party, I had spoken to the regie and they are ok with the early move-in by David.

"he told that he had submitted 3 rental applications and had been successful in all 3. Also said that he intended to keep all 3 rentals, as he intends to rent them to his friends."

Am I the only one, who sees something problematic here? Assuming this is true, does this not run afoul of the requirement of David having to live in each apartment? Is David authorized to run a de facto regie like this? Is any revenue taxed? .. in any case, such behaviour only serve to increase the rental prices for everyone and funnel cash to even more middlemen like this.

No, you are not the only one.   Xb w did indeed provide a service by posting this information.

Thanks David for coming in to give your side of the story.

Your claim about official access baffles me. You knew this is a private arrangement between us, as I had stated in my initial email to you and even reminded you in the messages on 20 Jan that your contract date with the regie is 15 Feb. And what about the whole sub-letting to your friends? The issue is clearly not about the official access.

If you had no intention to use the apartment, then you should notify and return the key. Which you did not and even promised some form of payment to me. And now, you start to talk about access and the regie's refusal and all. So which is which?

Comon translator, you know very well the regies are not renting short term. I have friends struggling to find places to stay. Why shouldn't I give it to them? Aren't they on the same market?

Who is talking about business here except Wee claiming I owe him money for a place I couldn't even move in. The thing is I was ready to refund the rent if I could move in. I couldn't move in, so no money. What is wrong with this?

Basically you are trying to tell me I am doing something wrong while he has unsucessfully tried to sublet me a place I was not even allowed to be in?

Why do you turn things up side down?

To FerneyL: what are you writing about?

Do you know people around you struggling to find places? I do.

Do you think regies are anything else than a bunch of pribiledged playing with us?

Would you rather trust the regies to help your friends or keep what you have been lucky enough to get to help them out?

Why do you pretend being surprised that people help themselves around?

What are you pretending to know about my behaviour? It is only Wee who is complaining that his unofficial sublet business didnt work out.

besides, you are not even showing your picture.

Xb w did indeed provide a service in posting this situation.  The situation he described, along with your explanations, shows how distorted the Geneva market is. 

What is the point of renting three apartments if not to make money? This further distorts an already distorted market.

I only specified that sublets that are not declared to the regie are not legal. If you read my responses, you will see that I have never accused you of anything.  Ferney L picked up on the same issue.

As a foreigner, I would never write on an open forum that I had any intention of circumventing or breaking the law.  Participating in illegal activities is undoubtedly grounds for revocation of one's work permit.

I am in a short-term sublet myself. This is the 3rd short-term sublet the regie has allowed the lease-holder. The regie has informed the lease-holder that this is the final sublet.

This is the reason why many of us have recommended that renters join ASLOCA. Their lawyers have experience and can assist renters in securing  sublets, among other types of housing contracts.

What is the point of renting three apartments if not to make money? This further distorts an already distorted market.

When you apply for flats here you send many applications. I was inconceivably lucky and decided to keep them. For people I know. what's wrong? As I said earlier, Regies do not accept short term renting.

If you join  ASLOCA, you will learn under what conditions a regie can and cannot refuse short-term sublets.

My only advice to people, as I have heard from ASLOCA, is not to participate in an illegal sublet, whether or not one is friends with the lease-holder.

I am in a short-term sublet myself. This is the 3rd short-term sublet the regie has allowed the lease-holder. The regie has informed the lease-holder that this is the final sublet.

why do you ask me why you are not finding a proper rent with a proper regie?

You can find stable situations with pragmatic individuals if only you change your logic.

My logic must accord with the law.  Perhaps you feel privileged enough to circumvent it.  I will, in fact, be taking over the lease. 

Your question assumed that I wanted more than a short-term lease at the time that I signed.  Your assumption was incorrect.

Furthermore, if it is the case that you believed you had the right to move into the apartment simply because you held the key, this shows a fundamental flaw in your logic. 

Everyone who moves into an apartment must have an "etat de lieu" completed before  the key is turned over. This is for the protection of both parties.  What you claim to be pragmatism can turn into a major problem later if the proper steps are not followed.

To David>

My policy is to not show my picture. I see nothing wrong with that. It's common practice online.

Most people in Geneva go through a lot of hassle to find housing. Your friends, although probably very nice, are not special to the rest of us, I'm afraid. It looks like you have used the credentials of having a good job and salary (scientist) to help your buddies gain an apartment faster, and, furthermore, that you will be subletting to your friends, en masse, rather than handing over the leases to them directly. Is this correctly interpreted?

In both instances, something 'wrong' seems to have happened, in that in no case did you intend to use the apartments you applied for for yourself - thus misrepresenting your intention to the current leaseholders. The fact that you apparently intend to sublet to other people usually indicates a profit. The scale is another compounding factor. If I'm wrong, please do correct me.

My opinion of regies is probably in line with the rest of Geneva's expat population.

I take it that your motives are completely benign and kind, but you cannot fault us/me for pointing out that what looks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc., *may*, in fact, be a duck (i.e. private leasing/subletting on a mass scale, for profit or not).

I understand there is a law in place requiring you to be resident in the apartment you lease. It would be safe to assume that would be to avoid this situation. You cannot be resident in more than one place at a time.

"[..]decided to keep them. For people I know. what's wrong?"

I recommend you take Translator's advice and present the situation to ASLOCA, but you can of course explain it to the regie(s) and get their opinion, too.

In any case, best of luck to your friends in their housing situation.

"Your question assumed that I wanted more than a short-term lease at the time that I signed" So you did find the solution you needed at each step. Sublet was usefull at one point; part of the market fluidity.

To come back to Wees claim, he is the one trying to sublet unofficially a place I was clearly forbidden to inhabit before feb. 15th.

Whatever I do for my friends, why do you think you have a reason to point the finger at me.

Perhaps you are assuming, again incorrectly, that I am pointing any fingers at you at all.  What you do with your friends, legal or illegal, pragmatic or quixotic, is up to you.

Xb w presented a situation that is not atypical in this market.  It is important that people be aware these kinds of situations so as to be able to avoid them.

 It is interesting, to note, however, that you continue to refer to Wees behavior while apparently failing to question your own participation in the scheme.  You appear  to damn everyone's behavior but your own.

Really are you tryng to understand?

Furthermore, if it is the case that you believed you had the right to move into the apartment simply because you held the key, this shows a fundamental flaw in your logic.

I am precisely saying that wee believed it. I asked the regie to pay his share of february to move in earlier which they refused.

Dont forget he is the one trying to extort me thje amount of the rent he had to pay for a place I didnt live in?!

I think David, Wee and the regie all misunderstood the deal between them. I have no opinion on who is right, but it sounds like they should simply meet at the regie, bringing papers, and sort it out.

Translator, FerneyL, thanks for your comments.

And please David, do not degenerate me to your level.

What I was trying to do was for someone to take over my contract from me early so that I do not have to pay double rent. My intention clearly differs from yours.

And it was fishy at first, but now I see it. First you told you "nailed" a deal with someone for 25 Jan. And then on 3 Feb you told he disappeared. Did you then mean that your FRIEND disappeared on you? Funny.

Wee, things do go very fast when you live in a place for 30 years. you know all sorts of friends. "nailing a deal" and "disappearing" are not incompatible with friendship.

Now, clearly our intentions differed as you wanted someone to subllet your place till the termination of your lease and I wanted to take over your lease.

I keep telling you I was forbidden to gain access to the flat before feb 15th.

Are you trying to tell me here I was wrong to respect the regie?

Maybe you didnt know the lease couldnt be taken over that fast or you did and I didn't get your point. In my mind money was for occupancy not for deposit.

David, do not give me life lessons anymore. You have given a big one already.

Again, i repeat, i wanted someone to take over my lease early so that I do not have to pay double rent (this you knew, and that it would be a private arrangement), but if that someone intends to help his friends find a place to stay, I do not have any issue. But when that someone backs out from the original deal, I will have an issue.

And do not talk about respecting the regie, because if you do, you will respect the rules against sub-letting.

In any case, the leaseholder until 15 feb is me, and if anything happens, I am responsible. Did it ever occur to you the risks I am taking here?

The case facts are now all here for people to read. It does seem that our points cannot converge. It is now up to others to decide which is the case.

Lastly, just a reminder about the purpose of this thread, do learn from my expensive mistake. Remember, no money, no handing over of key.