Search results

not necessarily. as the agent is the face to the tenant, any request would go to the PM. as far as the tenant is concerned, the agent is the lessor. if the PM doesn't supply it, the owner cannot be held accountable unless there is a written trail expressly stating not to.

yes that's correct but until anyone can see the act in full it's ambiguous.

it doesn't matter - the point is, the act clearly states "the lessor" - defined as. therefore, any part of any contract in contradiction of this will be scrubbed. lessor - a person or entity that grants a lease to another; a person or entity that leases property as a landlord. you will...

thankyou for the clarification - i did mean it that way. cheers mate - always on my heels - keeping me keen. :D

a contract is null and void if it requires any signing party to operate outside the law. as a citizen or entity of a country it is your right (not privilege, but right) to be afforded protection under said country's laws. you cannot technically "sign your rights away" willingly or unwillingly...

no biggie - i'm just used to reading fine print and understanding the intent behind changed/changing definitions. this way teh act gives tenants all the rights in the world without directly penalising the owner, who generally has no contact with their tenant. although giving out names and...

the word owner has been replaced with the word lessor. that means that if you have an agent, they are the lessor. they are acting on behalf of the owner to let the property then they will wear the responsibility because the definitions have now clearly been changed.

it's the socialising of the world come to head. all for none and one for all.

well then - time to rent out houses room by room with no official lease.