Then read the contract carefully, ask if its not discussed. This particular OP was described as a blindside by a poster not personally involved which sucks and, if facts are as presented, hints of a barn on the way down the tubes. But…BO can do it if they give HO written notice and a reasonable amount of time to move if they don’t agree.
i was responding to the what-ifs about the apartment-rental scenario mostly. Not actual OP. Though i do have an opinion about the OP… unethical!
Yeah, thats it. But its not a side hustle, nefarious, illegal or unethical, its business and most barns that offer training services in addition to board operate this way so they can meet operating expenses and continue operating. Most of these clearly define expectations on both sides in writing.
Not BOs responsibility to subsidize boarders who cannot afford ever increasing board. It IS, or should be, HOs responsibility not to take on something they cannot afford without BOs help knowing full well barns are going belly up and BOs burning out. Sad but true.
Reality is, its been at least 15 years since a required minimum of other barn services monthly started cropping up on boarders bills, something we will see more of as barns struggle to stay afloat.
2 Likes
@sascha a rental property owner CAN specify who can live in the house (and define what living is). You can’t just decided to bring someone in to live in a rental suite (unless it is allowed by your contract). I am not talking minors, but people over the age of majority who could claim rights to the property. If utilities are included in the rent, then rent can be increased to reflect the additional people in the unit. (At least in Alberta - I don’t know about elsewhere).
But my point was, you wouldn’t want someone bringing a stranger into your home…so BOs might not want people giving strangers rights to their property either. A charge offsets that risk, and reduces the likelihood of people bringing in lease riders. My barn contract specifically states that boarders are 100% responsible for guests and must be present with them. There is NO allowance for part leases in my contract. I do allow them, and I don’t charge for them, but I will only allow people I am comfortable with, and I would not hesitate to evict a client for not respecting this rule - new people are a risk, particularly people who have no financial incentive to “behave”.
2 Likes
I’ve boarded in Ontario for over 30 years and have never heard of this.
That said, some times part boarders can become a real nightmare for barn owners and other boarders, and I can see why a barn owner would want to discourage that if it wasn’t discussed prior to moving the horse to the facility.
I think, as boarders, we often forget that although we are paying, for the most part, to be in someone else’s private home. It is invasive to barn owners to have more people around who you don’t know. Most part boarders are kind of fly by night, as well, so if you open the door to one, there could be a new one every other month, as well. If it wasn’t discussed up front, I can see why it would be something a barn owner would want to discourage.
1 Like
In Ontario, this is just plain untrue. Although landlords may attempt to convince their tenants it’s a fact, it’s straight up BS. Absolutely 100% untrue.
That aside, boarding is not apartment renting.
In terms of part-boarders - don’t want 'em? Don’t have 'em. But, being clear that that is a rule right up front and putting it in the board agreement and on the waiver is a courtesy to both parties.
[quote=“Spud_amp_Saf, post:65, topic:770959”]
I’ve boarded in Ontario for over 30 years and have never heard of this.
[/quote] Ditto.
[quote=“Spud_amp_Saf, post:65, topic:770959”]
Most part boarders are kind of fly by night
[/quote] They can be, but those ones are usually gone pretty quickly. Others stick with the horse and will actually move barns with the horse if it moves. Super nice for the horse in that situation to have the continuity of both/all its people 
A “part boarder” or “half-leaser” really isn’t a guest, like a family member. When I part-boarded, it was with the agreement of the barn owner, and just like an owner, I signed a waiver and had an interview with the owner. Many barn owners allow it because the part boarder will also lesson with the trainer and bring in more income for the barn on a horse that the owner doesn’t feel needs to be “in training.” Being able to half-lease a horse is helpful for owners who just don’t have the time (or energy) to be at the barn 5-6 days a week, as well as can offset costs.
That being said, at one barn where I half-leased, the majority of the owners were people who only came on weekends, and although I had a barn owner-approved lease of three days a week, she was clearly unhappy that I actually showed up for what I paid for (unlike the majority who did not).
I can understand why a barn owner wouldn’t want to allow half-leasing, but it should be specified in the agreement beforehand with the horse owner. The barn owner certainly has the right to deny the right of owners to half-lease to specific people, based on the interview, or ask for a half-lease to be discontinued, too, based on the behavior of the rider. But charging as a general rule seems like a way of discouraging the practice, or at least would have discouraged me, if I’d had to have paid the owner for a lease, paid for lessons, and then paid a fee to the owner on top of that.
3 Likes
These things can vary by state, province or country.
Here stateside, landlords can restrict who occupies a property (within constitutional guidelines) or unit and how many may occupy it requiring everybody to be named on the lease. They can also choose to restrict or forbid subleasing.
Many properties in my area rent to “Seniors” only. Nobody under 50 for example, not taking about assisted living here either.
BOs run private businesses and may do as they wish. Hopefully they define it in a written contract/agreement… but they don’t have to.
1 Like
Agreed. However, the original poster was talking about Ontario, Canada. Our laws don’t permit that kind of discretion to landlords no matter how many people have been hoodwinked by landlords into thinking otherwise.
Your laws don’t allow landlords to prohibit occupants other than those names on the lease? That seems so crazy to me
Correct. For instance, if I rent a place as a single person and then hook up with an SO, my SO’s name does not need to be put on the lease. If I get a non-SO roommate, same deal. If I have a baby, same deal. If I have overseas family/friends stay with me for a month, same deal. If I go away for 6 months and have someone stay in my absence to house sit for me, same deal. If I have one-night stand after one-night stand, same deal.
So, correct, but not actually that crazy. It’s a perfectly sane rule that says landlords can’t be complete dicks. Except the law puts it in nicer language 
Yes it’s very different here. One could have minor children and guests no issues, but someone living in the home like a roomie or live in SO would be subject to any restrictions on the lease.
So are you saying a lease would in effect be broken if a single person ended up a cohabiting couple? How would a landlord define the difference between a long-term guest and a significant other?
In my most recent experiences, the leases specify a timeframe. At one rental my lease specified 10 days and at another 30 days. When I first moved in with Mr LS, me and my dog had to be added to the lease.
Huh, that seems bizarre to me. Lol.
But aside from the bizarreness of changing a lease for changing relationship status, how does a dog enter into a legal contract?
I am in the states and I agree with the others about leases in my part of the world.
It is not uncommon for a lease to exclude other people and for sure exclude pets.
Some leases include an additional fee for additional approved people.
Not allowing subletting is also very common.
I’m not an expert on tenant / housing laws, but my basic understanding is that generally housing can’t be refused on a prohibited basis (race for example) but housing can be refused for other things credit history / criminal history.
The dog took up more room in the lease than I did! Complete with pictures and her medical records.
1 Like
That is completely crazy from my perspective!
I still wonder how the dog entered into a legal agreement though? Swearing on the Book of Dog and applying an inky paw print? What happens when the original dog dies and you replace it with another?
Could be for the additional insurance since the person isn’t a regular boarder?
I don’t think it’s crazy for a landlord to want to “vet” how and if pets are on his/her property. Animals can be a safety risk and are extra wear and tear on an apartment and (I’m sorry to say) many people don’t take proper care of them, so having stipulations about size of dog in a tiny apartment/number of cats/medical history seems reasonable. Ditto with the number of people living on the premises.
I was considering downsizing a couple of years ago and looked at some small houses that had been bought as income properties with tenants, a few of them reeked of dog pee, dirty litterboxes, or diapers, to the point I could hardly spend more than a minute or two inside. And these were in small houses, not even an apartment. Obviously, I felt terrible for the animals, but it can be a big expense to clean up.
1 Like
