In principle, the person who signed is responsible for handling it. Unless the original contract specifies how such situations should be handled, the landlord generally will not throw away leftover items to avoid potential claims for damages. If the left-behind items truly cause trouble, a more common method in practical operations is to first pack up the items, then send a formal letter demanding the person come and collect them. If they still take no action, these leftover items will be treated as abandoned waste.

When a group of people rent together and send only one representative to sign with the landlord (let's call him Person A), Person A is regarded as a sublessor in the legal relationship, acquiring the right to sublease, meaning he can sublease and collect rent from it. At this point, the legal relationship is that a lease is established between the landlord and Person A, and another new lease is established between Person A and the other two tenants.
Looking at the above scenario, the person who can handle the former tenants' things is Person A, not the landlord. The question then becomes whether Person A made an agreement with the other two tenants on what to do if such a situation occurs. Regulations related to rental housing have exemplary provisions regarding left-behind items, such as moving out before the handover; otherwise, failing to move out will result in the items being treated as abandoned waste.

Another scenario is like the one in this question: one person represents the other three to sign with the landlord. In this case, Person A needs to be responsible, because legally speaking, the landlord has no relationship whatsoever with the other two tenants. Unless the contract stipulated how to handle this at the time, the landlord basically will not throw away remaining items to avoid potential claims for damages. If a large amount of remaining items really causes trouble, a more common method in practice is to pack them up first and send a formal letter urging the person to pick them up. If they still take no action, the items will be treated as abandoned waste. Going back to the beginning, waste treatment should be a matter of agreement. If there is no prior agreement, legally there is no such thing as a default standard rule—the tenant's and landlord's things belong to their respective owners and cannot be discarded casually, so signing a written contract remains essential.

In addition, many people nowadays buy books from bookstores, the ones with orange covers and 13-line vertical layouts on the inside. It is fine to buy such written forms, but as modern university students, you should be able to cross-reference the statutory provisions, look at online information, and especially check the promulgated mandatory and prohibitory provisions to see if the written form incorporates all mandatory items. Because this is civil law, many things are not explicitly regulated, and after all, those are old-style materials that have not been revised. Therefore, signing such a contract leaves many matters unaddressed.

It is recommended that the three of them sign a single contract together. Signing separate contracts is also possible, but with separate contracts, there are concerns since the subject matter of the house is the same. In the end, signing one contract together is better. If everyone signs separately and the rent paid by each person is different, how should water and electricity bills be agreed upon? Once these are agreed upon, a lessee does not need to be responsible for other lessees.
Each of you establishes your own debtor-creditor relationship with the landlord. If you all sign a single contract together, does that mean you have to take responsibility for what someone else does? Signing individually is also possible, but it is recommended that the three sign one contract together while clearly writing out the terms—that rent is paid individually and utility bills may be split evenly.

They cannot charge intermediary fees because an intermediary must hold a business license. However, for such intermediaries, there is another concept, which is a contract known under the Civil Code as brokerage (intermediation). This refers to when you need something and engage in that activity. In fact, a sublessor may not charge exorbitant intermediary fees in the capacity of a broker because they lack a brokerage license, but a sublessor can legally collect rent. For example, renting a family-style suite from the head landlord (the original landlord) for 30,000 NTD per month, and then subletting the rooms for a total of 36,000 NTD by charging 12,000 NTD per room—this is permissible. However, the extra 2,000 NTD is not an intermediary fee; it is rent.
The reason this is permissible is that the head landlord collects 30,000 NTD from them, and regardless of whether the rooms are successfully rented out or not, the head landlord always gets paid. Person A simply bears the risk of whether each individual room can be rented out. If your landlord is also your broker, it is not legally prohibited in practice. Whether the rent plus intermediary fees collected matches market rates, and whether you personally received relatively better value in return, are things to consider. Additionally, the landlord must declare their income, as both intermediary fees and rent are parts of their income.

The landlord's son can take back the property but cannot raise the rent. Prohibitory and mandatory provisions differ by only one thing, which is the first article: the prohibition against agreeing to waive the contract review period. Consumer Protection Law provisions applicable to B2C transactions involve a contract review period. If your landlord is a business operator, our experience is typically that the terms constitute a standard form contract, and the text is densely packed. Therefore, the law stipulates that business operators must provide consumers with a certain period for contract review.
If you have a fixed-term lease of under five years (not exceeding five years), and the landlord changes hands, they must still honor your lease until it finishes and cannot arbitrarily alter the conditions within the contract. The rent cannot be changed, and other conditions cannot be changed either, because rent conditions are actually not just about money—there are many other conditions, and changing them can be a disguised way of replacing the previous function.

It is unreasonable, and not only is it unreasonable, but such an agreement is also void. As mentioned earlier, this falls under mandatory and prohibitory provisions. Whoever the earner of the income tax is—which is the income earner—that earner should be the landlord. Therefore, the landlord cannot shift the rental income tax they ought to pay onto the tenant, making this agreement invalid, and they should declare it themselves.
As for the land value tax and house tax, if the relationship is a B2C relationship, the terms explicitly state that these fees cannot be directly shifted onto the consumer to bear. If they are, it means the provision is void. However, if it is a non-consumer relationship, it can be agreed upon. The contract might stipulate that the lessee pays the house tax; but whatever amount you actually pay, regardless of the form it takes, that fundamentally remains the landlord's obligation to pay. If shifted to the tenant to pay, in my understanding, it simply forms part of the rent. Therefore, this part must be agreed upon. In principle, if not agreed, the lessor pays; if specified, it can be assigned to the lessee in a non-B2C relationship, but for both parties' comprehensive income tax portions, such shifting remains entirely invalid.

This part is addressed in the residential lease model contract promulgated by the Ministry of the Interior, which states that the amount charged by the landlord today cannot exceed the highest electricity rate charged by Taipower for that month. However, this raises the issue of verification. Under current conditions, landlords sometimes charge 5 NTD, 5.5 NTD, or even 6 NTD per kilowatt-hour, while Taipower's summer electricity rates can exceed 6 NTD per kilowatt-hour.
Consequently, although our lease contract prescribes this, frankly speaking, it seems permissible. If you encounter an unreasonable landlord, simply do not sign with them in the first place. If you sign and they subsequently raise the electricity fee, that is not allowed—everything must follow the contract. But if the contract stated from the beginning that electricity costs 6 NTD per kilowatt-hour, under such circumstances you have two choices: the first is to turn to property management companies (social housing providers). Because property management companies are business operators, it means they might comply more closely with relevant regulations. Otherwise, you can choose to be a smart consumer, bravely refusing to sign such overpriced agreements. If you sign anyway, you must take responsibility for your own choice.

Currently, it appears that lease agreements govern not only the amount of rent but also the method of payment. However, paying six months in advance feels a bit unusual because it's not that paying six months at once cannot be agreed upon—in practice, there are many instances where we agree to pay a larger lump sum of rent in exchange for a discount. If you feel comfortable with that, you can do it. However, a very important and significant rule for lessees is that if you fall behind on rent totaling two months, the lessor can terminate the lease.
Suppose it is truly agreed to pay quarterly or semi-annually, every time you pay quarterly or semi-annually, it complies with the agreement. Therefore, lessees must pay attention to this part. You still need to calculate whether it is cost-effective. Quarterly, monthly, or annual payments actually impose a relatively heavier burden on the lessee, and such terms are usually proposed by the lessor because it relieves them of the risk of indefinite rent collection delays. Such arrangements present this problem because if too much is paid upfront and both parties can request early termination of the lease, you would have paid in advance while facing early termination, eventually requiring a settlement and clarification of the rent.

It is invalid; it falls under the provisions regarding prohibiting the reporting of rental housing expenses and stating that the tenant must pay if rental income tax increases. Normally, people would not say 5%, as 5% refers to the business tax, which is the item required if you need an invoice. Let me clarify further: rental income tax is usually 10%. If there is no consumer relationship and the landlord demands a fingerprint and an extra 5% tax, the normal tax rate is 10%, and withholding tax is also 10%. Therefore, it is normally presumed that this definitely does not involve a consumer relationship, meaning reporting it to the Consumers' Foundation might be ineffective because they will not handle it. Can you call the police today? Theoretically, no. As long as you state that this provision is invalid, you can go ahead and apply for the housing subsidy and declare it when filing your income tax.
You usually do not encounter such situations, but offices like mine or the JRF might. When the National Taxation Bureau assesses rental income tax, the arrangement is usually structured like this: if the lessee is a corporate entity, the company is actually required to directly withhold 10% of the income tax on behalf of the lessor (withholding it upfront) and then issue a tax statement, allowing you to pay it directly for them. That money does not disappear; legally, that money still belongs to the lessor, functioning somewhat like salary withholding, but only corporate entities need to do this. If you are individuals, this withholding of income tax is handled by the lessor.
Applying for a rental housing subsidy does not require the landlord's consent. You can just tell them that if they do not agree, you will report them for tax evasion. Taxes work this way: Taiwan's taxes are not excessively heavy, but there are indeed many people in society who do not want to pay taxes. The National Taxation Bureau operates on the principle that if they discover someone evading taxes, they will reasonably and seriously suspect whether you have evaded taxes previously—tax evasion is not a sudden impulse; people who evade taxes usually have done so before. Therefore, tax law prescribes that the statute of limitations for assessing any related taxes is five years, but if it is malicious violation, two more years are added. Thus, landlords are afraid because if you report them, they will be reassessed going back seven years from the current year, which may involve not only tax issues but also late fees and administrative fines. This can be considered a last resort.

Our maintenance obligations are also divided into two types: in consumer relationships, mandatory provisions dictate that the lessor is responsible for maintenance in principle. In non-consumer relationships, it is "subject to agreement"; if you do not agree otherwise, the lessor remains responsible for maintenance. However, if you have agreed otherwise and written it into the contract, it can exceptionally become the lessee's responsibility, or if the damage is not normal wear and tear of the building but is attributable to the lessee, naturally you must fix what you broke. If the lessor is obligated to maintain but fails to do so, we can urge them but cannot withhold rent. You can set a deadline for them to fix it by a certain date; if they fail to fix it within that period, you can hire someone yourself and deduct the cost from the rent.
I think regarding this noise issue, does it meet the criteria for the lessee's early termination of the lease under the first subparagraph: "The rental housing fails to meet the agreed residential use, requires repair, and despite the lessee setting a reasonable deadline for urged repairs, it remains unrepaired," or does it constitute a "major defect"? Could the noise you mentioned possibly fit this situation—meaning there is a defect, and that defect is not directed at you, but at downstairs, yet downstairs keeps coming to bother you? If this condition is met, early termination of the lease is indeed possible.
Let me share something regarding noise. One of our attorneys has actually won litigation of this type, where a neighbor was constantly and incessantly noisy. Noise issues should be evaluated according to actual municipal regulations. In principle, these are very detailed rules, typically stating that noise levels must not exceed 60 decibels before midnight, and long-term noise must not exceed 40 decibels after midnight. Everyone's perception of noise varies, but our living spaces entail a right to residential peace and quiet, a right recognized by the Constitution.
I can only say that some people might be very sensitive while others are not. Frankly, my experience is that old buildings really cannot help it; their sound insulation is truly poor. Under such circumstances, who should be held accountable? It may ultimately come down to contacting the Environmental Protection Bureau. If your downstairs neighbor insists on going to the EPB to see whether the decibel level violates the law, they can do so. Police officers called to the scene are also in a difficult position because, frankly, this does not fall under their jurisdiction, nor do they have equipment to determine whether you are violating the law. I can only say that if you are doing nothing yet the noise exceeds limits, then I believe it may lead to the situation I am about to discuss.
This refers to the fact that after giving a formal notice, you can terminate the lease early; otherwise, this situation might remain extremely distressing for you because it is difficult to determine liability. Pipeline issues usually mean that using the pipelines generates loud noises, and this part is truly not attributable to you. Frankly speaking, this is also a part of your residential peace because you end up constantly being scolded, and your neighbors keep calling the police. Facing such a situation, I believe you should use the grounds I mentioned today to communicate directly with the landlord about early termination of the lease, otherwise this situation will likely remain quite distressing for you.

Call the police. The Tobacco Hazard Prevention Act stipulates that smoking is prohibited within a certain distance of densely populated public places. This means that as long as someone smokes on the balcony and the smoke drifts down, they violate these regulations. If you can smell their odor inside your home, they have definitely violated this rule. Call the police, and they will fine the offender.

I recall that the Rental Housing Market Development and Regulation Act stipulates the landlord has an obligation to provide these documents. They are obligated to provide their property identification so you can apply for these documents, and they must record this in your residential lease contract.
Actually, I haven't applied for this myself and should look it up carefully. I don't know what documents must actually be provided, but I know statutory rules and actual practice may have some gaps. Just tell them that if they don't provide it, you will report them for tax evasion. As for the second half, it is completely invalid—anyway, they cannot make such demands on you.
During the fixed-term lease period, the landlord can do nothing to you. If you renew and the landlord adds the cost into the rent, my advice is to return to the market. It's not just their house; Taiwan's vacancy rate is high, and houses are everywhere. You can just rent somewhere else. But as long as they sign a contract with you, the contract matters—that agreement, that rent agreement remains valid, and they cannot raise your agreed rent simply because of actions you take afterward.

Theoretically no. In legal terms, a handover is a handover. Legally speaking, the landlord ought to come and check the property with the tenant, and the landlord delegating this to the new tenant implies they acted as an auxiliary in performing the debt fulfillment. Therefore, if something wasn't checked during the handover at the time, legally speaking, the handover is already complete and this matter is over. You might think, "Doesn't that make things extremely unsafe for me as the new tenant?" If such a situation occurs, you should coordinate with the landlord to change the locks, as changing the locks is relatively inexpensive anyway.

Yes, that forms part of the property's defects. What we call a defect means that the delivered property under usage conditions must meet ordinary quality standards. Therefore, normal daily noise that bothers someone hypersensitive may not count. But if it is truly excessive, producing a constant booming sound, even if it cannot be repaired—such as noise caused by neighbors—frankly speaking, this is none of your business, and the lessee has no responsibility to handle neighboring disputes. Thus, if the property delivered to the lessee fails to meet ordinary residential quality, under such circumstances, after giving a formal notice and failing to improve, you can terminate the lease early.

If the contract states that the lessor needs to make repairs when property defects exist, a water heater failing to heat in winter constitutes a property defect. Therefore, at this point you must urge the landlord to make repairs. There are two paths for repairs: one path is that you urge them to repair and set a reasonable deadline. If the landlord continuously delays repairs, you have two choices: one is to terminate the contract, which is not attributable to you and requires no compensation; the other is to repair it yourself and deduct the repair costs from the rent.

No. As long as it is an illegal sublease situation, I believe the rule "purchase does not break lease" will not apply. So how should C's rights be protected? The special sales legislation stipulates that I have encountered situations where the person signing is not the homeowner—meaning the actual owner of the house is Person A, but Person B comes to sign. In many cases, this Person B is their child, friend, or real estate agent, but there are also cases where Person B lacks authorization from Person A. The regulations state that the lessor has an obligation to provide the lessee with proof that their source of rental rights is legal. Under such circumstances, you must be cautious. In subleasing situations, they have an obligation to provide you with a copy showing that Person A agreed to the sublease.
How to protect yourself: you must request proof if they are the primary owner, or authorization from the owner. In sublease situations, you actually have the right to view their lease agreement with the former landlord, including the lease term and whether subleasing is permitted. You can refuse to sign until confirmation is made, and since an illegal operation has no grounds to refuse showing you, if they lied without securing authorization, that constitutes fraud.

There are many places offering legal consultation. The Consumer Protection Committee also provides legal consultations. You can go to the basement of the Taichung City Government where legal consultations are available, the Land Administration Bureau provides rental-related legal consultations, local courts provide services through the Bar Association, and the Legal Aid Foundation offers them at fixed times rather than daily. In Taichung, many offices of legislators and council members may also provide free consultations.