Can't believe the balls on this guy!

D

Dis

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22741587-2862,00.html

Tenants Union of Victoria chief Mark O'Brien said tenants needed extra protection, as vacancy rates continued at record lows.

He said his own experience with the CAV dispute service was completely frustrating. Last November, his family applied for a rental property.

After successfully applying for the lease, Mr O'Brien raised concerns with the property manager about the fairness of several additional maintenance conditions attached to the lease, and asked to renegotiate the terms.

"While I was within my rights as a tenant to make that request, the property manager obviously had no idea of the law," he said.

"By this stage, we were already packing and preparing to move -- but instead, just before Christmas, the whole thing fell through."

After getting nowhere trying to complain to the agents, Mr O'Brien complained to CAV in January. In August he was told the complaint had been passed on.
Click to expand...

If I read this correctly, he signed the lease fully aware of the terms then immediately tried to change the terms of the lease. While he was within his rights to ask, the PM / landlord is well within thier rights to refuse. They are also within their rights to not accept his application (ie counter signing the lease contract) if he was insisting on changes to the terms.
 
Yeah I've read about this a couple times recently, and as you said - it's interesting they only pick up these points after they've signed the lease.

Why didn't the question these issues before signing? Do they only read a contract after they've signed it?!

I'm guessing the rental market is tight, and they believe if they raise these issues before hand, the PM will just move on to the next applicant. That may be, but it still doesn't mean you can start re-negotiating once you have agreed to the terms.

You can't accept and sign a contract for a new car for $30k, then afterwards start telling the dealer that he has to thrown in free a/c, window tinting, floor mats, rear spoiler etc. Surely these things are mentioned before you agree to the price and sign the contract! Should the purchaser be allowed to complain of the dealers conduct if he refuses these demands?

They'd get laughed at if they did a newpaper article on that, what's different with a tenancy contract?
 
Dis said:
If I read this correctly, he signed the lease fully aware of the terms then immediately tried to change the terms of the lease.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the article that suggests a lease had been signed that the applicant subsequently tried to renegotiate. It just says he successfully applied for a lease..
 
duncan_m said:
There's nothing in the article that suggests a lease had been signed that the applicant subsequently tried to renegotiate. It just says he successfully applied for a lease..
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, it's not entirely clear. I made the assumption he signed it as well. Why else would he be packing his bags ready to move in, no longer searching the rest of the market for a place to live, and then be so shocked that he didn't get it?

After successfully applying for the lease, Mr O'Brien raised concerns with the property manager about the fairness of several additional maintenance conditions attached to the lease, and asked to renegotiate the terms.
This could be the next day or a month later.
"While I was within my rights as a tenant to make that request, the property manager obviously had no idea of the law," he said.

"By this stage, we were already packing and preparing to move -- but instead, just before Christmas, the whole thing fell through."
This means he was certain he was moving in without question, and would be some time after they reached the agreement on the lease. If he had raised these issues the day after they reached agreement, the PM would have said 'no sorry, we'll look for someone else.' To me it seems he signed the agreement, PM was under the impression he was moving in, a month (?) passes and just before he's due to move in he decides it's not fair he has to maintain gardens (or whatever his maintenance issues were) and starts trying to alter the conditions he agreed to.
Click to expand...

Even if he didn't sign the contract, he should have raised any issues he had the day he agreed to take the place - not the week before he moved in, when the PM assumed she had a tennant that had already agreed to all the conditions.
 
steveadl said:
Now that you mention it, it's not entirely clear. I made the assumption he signed it as well. Why else would he be packing his bags ready to move in, no longer searching the rest of the market for a place to live, and then be so shocked that he didn't get it?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because he had a verbal acceptance of the application and was yet to get back together with the Agent to sign the formal lease?

Lets not tar and feather this guy on the basis of a poorly written, unclear article..
 
duncan_m said:
Perhaps because he had a verbal acceptance of the application and was yet to get back together with the Agent to sign the formal lease?

Lets not tar and feather this guy on the basis of a poorly written, unclear article..
Click to expand...

True. But I wouldn't be agreeing verbally to any contract (house rental or otherwise) if I found it unacceptable. The time to raise concerns is when you are discussing the terms, not agree to whatever they want just assuming you can change your mind later without the other side having a problem.

As you said, the article isn't very clear, but I still get the impression this is what happened.
 
steveadl said:
True. But I wouldn't be agreeing verbally to any contract (house rental or otherwise) if I found it unacceptable. The time to raise concerns is when you are discussing the terms, not agree to whatever they want just assuming you can change your mind later without the other side having a problem.

As you said, the article isn't very clear, but I still get the impression this is what happened.
Click to expand...

Well.. usually the verbal discussion of terms on a Residential Lease extends no further than the Weekly Rental and the length of the lease..

If he applied (in the form of an Application Form) and was subsequently asked to sign a lease that said "The Tenant will be responsible for ALL repairs" he'd be well within his rights to object... and instead of a thread lambasting this poor soul we'd be shellacking the Landlord or the PM.
 
It boils down to supply and demand. when rentals are scarce the landlord holds the strings. If there was an oversupply then he wouldn't be complaining like this as he would be dictating the terms of the lease. Why does he think he deserves differently?

Didn't these people learn this stuff at high school?

Or they expect to have other people give them what they want whenever they ask. Landlords aren't faceless businesses they are individuals just like himself. he probably doesn't even consider that the PM is not the decision maker.

Maybe he should move to a socialist country where all people are equally poor and unhappy.
 
Simon, Next time you're screwed over by a RE, business, tradie or whatever. And when you're totally peed off.

He replies "Dude, its supply and demand. We pull the strings this time"

Dont complain mate, ok. :D
 
He didn't say he was screwed over. he said that they didn't wish to change the terms of the contract.

If it was an illegal contract then surely that would be part of the process.

I rented this year for the first time in years. In an area with sub 1% vacancy rates. With a dog too.

I know how hard it can be.

I am also a landlord.

I see it from both sides.

Granted there could be lots of stuff we are not aware of. One of the clauses might have been that he has to wash the PMs car each week. Surely if there was anything really unusual there it would have made the article.

But I stand by my statement that it is supply and demand. When demand for rentals is high you got to take what you can get.

Verbally accepting a property then not accepting the contract as is whilst packing your things is a recipe for disaster. Would you do that?
 
Simon said:
Verbally accepting a property then not accepting the contract as is whilst packing your things is a recipe for disaster. Would you do that?
Click to expand...

Yeah.. because thats how the process works. You fill in an application form, along with 20 other hopefuls.. you nervously wait for the Agent to pour over all of the applications, check your references and refer the final decision to the Landlord.. then 1-5 days later you get a call back from the Agent saying "Congratulations, you got the house!".. and at some point after that you go in to sign the lease, at which time any peculiarities might come to light..

Certainly in all the time I was managing my own places I never had a single applicant say "and the proposed lease, can I have a copy? So I can check it before I apply please?"..

As you suggest, in times of high demand and low supply, you're at the mercy of the "Supplier".. but thats no excuse for any unfair conditions being sprung in a lease..
 
Would be interesting to know what the conditions were. Whether it was just about getting carpets cleaned or perhaps a flea treatment cos he has a dog or if it is something unusual like repainting walls or remulching gardens etc

Guess we will never know.

I can see where you are coming from and don't necessarily disagree. I just think that this guy is head of the tenancy union so he is probably a bit of a leftie :)

People and housing do need protection I guess. If it was some sort of discrimination then he would have had a much more substantial case. But a smart PM would never give a reason, just: "We had a lot of applications and the landlord has reconsidered them all and chosen someone else. Sorry."
 
This is the issue. A landlord has not accepted a tenant under terms agreeable by both parties. The tenant then takes the matter to CAV before they even have a cantractual agreement. :eek:

Is this reasonable behaviour? The article seems to condone it.

Everytime you see an ad on TV which says "Conditions apply", should you take the supplier to CAV because you think the conditions are unfair?
 
The lease that I am currently on, I turned up to sign the lease and out came a list of by-laws and extra rules.

I was like WHAT THE!!!

Rules like you can only have 1 vehcile, if you have a second then you have to pay $15 a week to the body corp. and things that would not be obvious.
 
I suspect Duncan has got the right idea. Looking back I'm stunned at the risks I took - but didn't realise I was taking.

I've rented in quite a few places, and on every occasion it has been as suggested by Duncan - put an application in and then hear back - yes you've got the house. We then organised everything -trucks etc, cleaned the old house and then turned up at the new agent to collect the keys for the new place and sign the lease agreement. I think in one or two instance we even took the contract/lease with us and signed it whilst enjoying the new place!!!!

These were all in our 5 yr stint in Vic. Knowing what I do now, I must say the average Vic agent/manager is totally pathetic at there job.......
 
Simon said:
Verbally accepting a property then not accepting the contract as is whilst packing your things is a recipe for disaster. Would you do that?
Click to expand...

No. And i agree it is a recipe for disaster. I was replying generally that if it happened to you, you probably wouldn't accept the demand supply excuse.
 
evand said:
I meant someone using supply/demand as an excuse for being dishonest/screwing one over....yada yada
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Tenant vacating due to "ill family member".
Replies
11
Views
2K
TMNT
T
lizzie
To issue breech or not?
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
lizzie
lizzie
P
Tenancy Issue
Replies
7
Views
2K
Salvatore1
S
D
Pm demanded increase in commission.
Replies
12
Views
3K
cu@thetop
cu@thetop
A
Dual Income Property. Resi & Commercial
Replies
1
Views
1K
AndrewT
A
Back
Top