Damaged Property & Notice to Vacate

[Olly]

My daughter (and hubby) have an IP that has had good long term tenants all along - until now. It's been rented to a mother and daughter for 2 years with no problems, but now her son has moved in and trashed the place. Doors hanging off hinges, holes punched in the walls etc. Her REA has predicted that the damage will continue as the son 'has problems' but won't go into what that means exactly as it's personal, and strongly recommended she sign some paperwork that gives them 6 months notice to vacate with the first 5 months used to make repairs.

These tenants were the ones the REA recommended when she had 3 interested parties wanting to rent her property 2 years ago. Has she got any comeback against the REA because of their recommendation?

6 months notice to vacate? Shouldn't she stick to 1 month with repairs to be carried out within that month? Can she demand that the son leave the house? Can she demand to know what his 'problems' are? What else can she do to minimise further damage and get repairs made?

Ta
Olly

 

[wylie]

Just going by what you have written, I would assume the son is an adult, and is not listed on the lease. This would mean that the lease has been breached and I would think a notice to remedy breach form could be sent giving them notice that he is to leave.

If the breach is not remedied, then I would be issuing a notice to vacate, and carrying through with a tribunal hearing if that doesn't happen.

It is sad that this family is obviously in severe trouble, but it should not become your daughter's problem.

As to the repairs, is the PM suggesting that you issue a six month notice and that the TENANT will repair the damage. That sounds like a disaster. I would be getting them out as soon as possible and hopefully there is landlord insurance to cover any damage.

Otherwise, if I was your daughter, I would be getting them out ASAP so that she can get her hubby to repair the damage and hopefully the bond will go a long way towards that.

 

[Collector]

Just going by what you have written, I would assume the son is an adult, and is not listed on the lease. This would mean that the lease has been breached and I would think a notice to remedy breach form could be sent giving them notice that he is to leave.

Not nessasary a breach - not all adults that reside in a property need to be on the lease - the breach will be in relation to the amount of people that reside in the property - not who or the age of those persons

If the breach is not remedied, then I would be issuing a notice to vacate, and carrying through with a tribunal hearing if that doesn't happen.

There are other know breaches that notice can be issued.

As to the repairs, is the PM suggesting that you issue a six month notice and that the TENANT will repair the damage. That sounds like a disaster. I would be getting them out as soon as possible and hopefully there is landlord insurance to cover any damage.

Agree

Otherwise, if I was your daughter, I would be getting them out ASAP so that she can get her hubby to repair the damage and hopefully the bond will go a long way towards that.

Agree

 

[Collector]

My daughter (and hubby) have an IP that has had good long term tenants all along - until now. It's been rented to a mother and daughter for 2 years with no problems, but now her son has moved in and trashed the place. Doors hanging off hinges, holes punched in the walls etc. Her REA has predicted that the damage will continue as the son 'has problems' but won't go into what that means exactly as it's personal, and strongly recommended she sign some paperwork that gives them 6 months notice to vacate with the first 5 months used to make repairs.

The agent is allowing time for the tenant to carry out the repairs - that is why they have allowed 6 months (if the repairs are complete with in 5 the they will need to vacate in 6)

I don't like this idea but your PM may believe that this is the cheapest option for you - get the tenant to repair = not your problem when they vacate. The PM may be basing this action on the fact that you don't have landlord insurance (I read in between the lines to get to this conclusion).

The normal procedure would be to give the tenant 14 days notice to vacate for the breach (damage to property) if the repairs are not complete with in the 14 days or if they remain after the 14 days have expired then you the PM would make application to tribunal for a hearing.

However - if you kick the tenants out know how will you recover the money for the repairs? - how will you enforce the tenant to pay for damaged when they scoot? - this is probably what the PM is thinking

These tenants were the ones the REA recommended when she had 3 interested parties wanting to rent her property 2 years ago. Has she got any comeback against the REA because of their recommendation?

No & Yes,

No - the tenant was fine until the son moved in, your PM may not even have know about the son.

Yes - if the PM was negligent in there management of the property

6 months notice to vacate? Shouldn't she stick to 1 month with repairs to be carried out within that month?

Yes - I would not allow the tenant to continue to reside in the property if the belief was that more damage would likely occur.

Can she demand that the son leave the house? Can she demand to know what his 'problems' are?

No & no, she can ask - not demand, privacy laws prevent you knowing the problems with the tenant - and how will knowing what his problem is help you?

What else can she do to minimise further damage and get repairs made?

Landlord insurance - if you don't have it - get it.

 

[wylie]

Not nessasary a breach - not all adults that reside in a property need to be on the lease - the breach will be in relation to the amount of people that reside in the property - not who or the age of those persons

There are other know breaches that notice can be issued.

Is that because the (assumable adult) son is "family"?

I thought that if a person moved in who is not on the lease, this constitutes a breach. The RTA advised us a few years ago that this was the case when one of our tenants asked a mate to move in. This mate was causing problems with his vehicle in the street, and loud music all hours etc.

All three ended up leaving, no problems involved, but had the mate decided to stay, we had little power as he was not on any lease, and I suppose he would have been "squatting". It never came to that, so I don't know.

I am curious as to whether someone moving in who is not on the lease is not considered a breach because this person is "family"? From your comments, it appears that being family is not the issue. Can you explain why someone not on the lease can move in and it not be a breach? I am very curious, as this is a potential problem with young people (and others) who may decide to allow someone else to "share" without letting the landlord know.

 

[Collector]

Is that because the (assumable adult) son is "family"?

may be case of different state different law.


in NSW the lease can be in one name and have 4 aduts reside there - they don't need to be listed as tenants on the lease. we have a cluase in the lease that states:

No more that ...... persons may ordinary live in the premises at any one time.

there is also a clause that states:

Other people who will ordinarily live at the prmises may be listed here (cross out if not required


In some cases no person will be listed - tenant could be a company and have staff staying in the property etc.

 

[wylie]

Thanks for that explanation. I just checked a lease. On the front we always insert the names of the adults (not little children) and on the inside we specify the number of people who can reside there.

So on the lease where the two young chaps brought in a third man, the lease clearly stated the two names as tenants, with a clear statement that two people are allowed to live there at the appropriate section inside.

This must be why the RTA said the lease was breached.

I was particularly interested because my Mum has two tenants right now and one has taken all the furniture (which she owns) and left the other tenant with nothing. The remaining tenant has not paid any rent, and we are in the process of servicing notices. We issued a notice to remedy breach for non-payment of rent on Tuesday (seven days late). It looks like she will remove her clothes by tomorrow, but if not she gets a notice to quit on Tuesday. She originally suggested she just gets someone else in, and Mum made it quite clear that any new tenant had to be approved by her as landlord.

Without the protection of insisting on all parties being on the lease, I think we leave ourselves open to having a revolving number of tenants and not much protection if they are not on a lease.

Anyway, slightly different scenario, but similar problems.