Can't believe the balls on this guy!

[kathryn d]

This is a great thread.
As many have mentioned, they have signed the lease, many the day they moving in.

I was thinking about our leases.

Most of our applications are submitted online. Rob is adding a box "to check" that they have read, and accepted, the property rules, which we also have available online.

Last week we made our 11 unit building (2& 3 bedrooms units, unfurnished) Dog Friendly.
A current tenant who has had their dog in a kennel since August was given permission to bring his dog to the apartment. We have added a monthly pet surcharge for dogs.
We also informed the other tenants in our building of our decision, and that all applications to bring a dog to the apartment building will be at our discretion.

Yesterday we had an irate tenant tell us we were not allowed to change the rules.This particular tenant has a 3 bedroom.He has 3 little kids and a wife.They also rent out a bedroom for extra money. The place is always in an absolute mess.He never pays his rent on time.When they moved in they stated they were allergic to cats...then the cats were disposed of.
However in the phonecall he was upset because when he asked to being allowed to have a dog when he moved in, we refused him.
If he was to ask now, he would still be refused, as he has a history of not paying his rent.The surcharge would make it even more difficult. ($75 per month extra)

His lease expires Feb 29/08. As far as I'm concerned , it will not be extended.

 

[evand]

I was posting more to Simon's comments on the article rather than the article itself.

As for yada yada devil in the detail. I'm more a big picture guy and dislike detail. (Its the pm's business, i don't want to know about it). I've been in business/investing so long i don't rue much at all.

In fact, even if i did it wouldn't bother me much. I've spent pretty much my whole working life 'putting out fires' as the saying goes.

Too much yada yada for me.....the devil is in the yada yada.

 

[natmarie73]

I can't understand why anyone would start moving house before the lease is signed, or sign a lease without reading every bit of fine print. Is it that hard to pop into the R/E office to read and sign a lease or requesting it be faxed/posted to you for signing? Surely they could even request to see the lease when putting in an application so it dosn't even get to this stage.

 

[s_t]

Of course not - you live and breath this property stuff - buying, leasing out etc. This makes you 'contract aware' and of course you would do as you suggest (as would I now!).

I'm not stupid, but had no experience in this area. Many people don't. I'm sure there are other areas of living, where you also are a bit naive (not being personal - that applies to everyone). I do think agents should be more careful in how they put forward the 'you've got the place' spin. It leads to a false sense of what has actually been done.

I can't understand why anyone would start moving house before the lease is signed, or sign a lease without reading every bit of fine print. Is it that hard to pop into the R/E office to read and sign a lease or requesting it be faxed/posted to you for signing? Surely they could even request to see the lease when putting in an application so it dosn't even get to this stage.

 

[Dis]

Of course not - you live and breath this property stuff - buying, leasing out etc. This makes you 'contract aware' and of course you would do as you suggest (as would I now!).

The "victim" in the article is the chief of the Tenants Union of Victoria. I believe he would be reasonably "contract aware" when it comes to residential leases.

I can't understand why anyone would start moving house before the lease is signed

Agree. Equally I cant understand how a REA would allow anyone to move into a property before they signed a valid lease.

 

[tubs]

And more to the point, I dont think he would have been able to take the matter to CAV until he HAD a valid signed lease in place.

Its a shame that this is coming from the head of the group that ADVISES tenants

 

[lizzie]

taking all of the above assumptions into consideration - what really gets me is that he's complaining because his negotion fell thru which, as already said, the landlord was under no compunction to comply with his requests.

in today's market i am sure the next person along would happily sign without negotiation. "extra protection" is going to make no difference - if you sign you've agreed to the conditions, if you haven't signed then move on to the next person.

sounds like a spoilt teenager that didn't get what they wanted.

 

[Dis]

Mr O'Brien has kindly clarified the situation in this edition of the TUV newsletter:

http://www.tuv.org.au/pdf/tenant_news/tn_19_Spring_2007.pdf

.....it came with two pages of
standard conditions plus two or three pages
of additional conditions, many of which were
unclear or unfair (or just plain stupid!). The
most ridiculous was the requirement that we
notify the landlord of anything that might
create a problem for his insurance. Such a
condition might be fine, assuming that the
landlord had insurance and that we would
have any idea of what it might cover!

Perhaps the landlord would provide him with a copy of the insurance policy....hmmm

 

[poppy]

The most ridiculous was the requirement that we
notify the landlord of anything that might
create a problem for his insurance.

I'm pretty sure we have a condition like that in one of our leases. It doesn't sound that ridiculous to me. And as Dis suggested if he was that concerned he could have asked for a copy of the landlord's insurance terms and conditions. However to me it would be reasonably clear what sort of things I would need to report under this clause - eg locks or other security devices not working, tenant going overseas and leaving the property vacant for a long time, smoke detectors that don't work etc.

 

[wylie]

I don't have any issue with wanting my tenant to advise of anything that might affect my insurance. It is just plain common sense and what an insurance company expects of everyone who has a policy.

This guy sounds like a tosser to me if that is something he is going to complain about.

Wylie

 

[ermen]

Too much yada yada for me.....the devil is in the yada yada.

You'll rue the day when a potential Tenant who hasn't even read the Lease accuses you as a Landlord of being dishonest / screwing them over when they see something in the paperwork they don't like.....based on their perceived expectations of something they dreamt up or who knows what, but certainly nothing on paper.

Any Tenant who actions anything without having
1. Applied in writing
2. Been told they were successful in their application
3. Been issued with a copy of the wording of the Lease
4. Read fully
5. Understood fully
6. Agreed fully
7. Signed the Contract of Lease, and then most importantly
8. Been provided with a fully executed original version of the written Lease

.....then....and only then, should they start committing themselves to actioning anything in their private lives.

Why ?? Because until step 8 is complete, it's not "in the bag".

The attached article is simply someone who got to somewhere between stage 2 and 3 and assumed he was past step 8.

I'd be interested to know the age and property qualifications of the writer of the article.

It is possible for to go to steps 2/3 and assume step 8 under the principle of estoppel

 

[Dazz]

Yes indeed ermen - very clever - brilliant suggestion, and whilst you argue the toss for the next 5 years all the way up to the High Court over some irrelevant legal principle based on flimsy verbal nonsense issued from some already sacked PM, the Landlord has entered into a written, executed Lease with a tenant who has agreed to the full written terms laid down by the Landlord.

I'd suggest you possibly estoppel with someone else, I don't wanna dance.