Dead tenant...

[skater]

There is probably more to the news story than has been reported.

I think this is the crux of the matter. In any normal tenancy, there is a bond of 4 weeks rental. If someone dies, then the executor of the estate would take steps to remove the belongings & return the home to the landlord for re-let. This should take no more than 4 weeks, so the bond would cover this. It could take less, & then the estate could even get a small refund, depending on the sympathies of the landlord.

For there to be all this commotion, there must be more to this story. Maybe the landlord didn't have a bond. Maybe the tenant was a bad tenant & owed rent that the bond didn't cover. Maybe the tenant damaged the property. Maybe the executor was slack & didn't clear the belongings.

With the exception of the landlord not having a bond (his own silly fault IMHO), the landlord has every right to pursue the matter. He has a property that cannot be rented until it is back in his posession in a good condition. It is not his fault if the tenant was in arrears/caused damages/executor didn't clear the place etc.

 

[Bargain Hunter]

But maybe that very thing is what defines the difference between 'big businesses' like the phone companies etc, and the rest of us. We have a heart, big business's dont. I wouldnt want my value system to be based on the big business principles. As for the ATO, well, that speaks for itself!

Many here say to treat this as a business.

Many Forumites are making business decisions based on their moral or social standpoint, if this is the case it is not really a business decision but a personal decision which affects a business outcome.

Regards

Andrew

 

[natmarie73]

Well I vote #3 - sure I can get the lost rent out of the bond, but who then pays for all his body fluids to be cleaned out of the carpet?

Dead people leak really, really, badly, and they stink up the place like nothing else. I would make a claim on the estate for all costs including any cleaning or damage costs if there are any - and expect that it will be dealt with just like all the other claims eg electricity, phone, credit card debt etc etc.

 

[Pushka]

Many Forumites are making business decisions based on their moral or social standpoint, if this is the case it is not really a business decision but a personal decision which affects a business outcome.

Regards

Andrew

And all business decisions were/are, at one time, based on personal decisions.

 

[Harris]

Well I vote #3 - sure I can get the lost rent out of the bond, but who then pays for all his body fluids to be cleaned out of the carpet?

Dead people leak really, really, badly, and they stink up the place like nothing else. I would make a claim on the estate for all costs including any cleaning or damage costs if there are any - and expect that it will be dealt with just like all the other claims eg electricity, phone, credit card debt etc etc.

wow.. your post is truly amazing !

I wouldn't have the heart to put any claims (even through the landlord insuance/ bond, whatever) and get the place cleaned from my own costs.

Sure.. it is a business decision and should be treated accordingly, however in my dictionary it would be a ruthless thing to do .. My investment strategy is to acquire, build and prosper, but the philosophy behind the strategy is to get the priorities right and dont act like a heartless pr**k (even if the circumstances allowed me to do that). If I was truly stretched for finances and losing the 28 days rent would be a big financial setback , then I might act differently and put a claim thorugh the bond monies.

Otherwise I would just cop the loss thinking that it will have a less than 0.1% impact on my big picture finances.

Harris

 

[jaycee]

Kathryn, it was reported, I thought the guy was quoted (?) as saying it was for 28 days rent due for "notice" / breaking the lease, not for back rent.

It could have been presented witout full info and that the landloard was really after more than $600 for 4 weeks rent I suppose There was also the quote that the unit was cleaned by the daughter who quoted $000's on it, so they did try - wouldn;t you only have to worry if it didn;t come up to scratch ?

 

[jaycee]

wow.. your post is truly amazing !

I wouldn't have the heart to put any claims (even through the landlord insuance/ bond, whatever) and get the place cleaned from my own costs.

Sure.. it is a business decision and should be treated accordingly, however in my dictionary it would be a ruthless thing to do .. My investment strategy is to acquire, build and prosper, but the philosophy behind the strategy is to get the priorities right and dont act like a heartless pr**k (even if the circumstances allowed me to do that). If I was truly stretched for finances and losing the 28 days rent would be a big financial setback , then I might act differently and put a claim thorugh the bond monies.

Otherwise I would just cop the loss thinking that it will have a less than 0.1% impact on my big picture finances.

Harris

That;s how I feel, our own morals make up th ebasis for all our decfisions in one way or another. I ddint; get into an IP to escape morality ! ;ve found it hard to meet a mthly paymetn from time to time... then I realise well yeah, did buy those sneakers... and that shirt.... It's my fault i'm short of cash, not cause some ******* PLANNED to die & screw me over !

 

[Harris]

I have been there so I don't need to guess how I would behave. My tenant died suddenly after a short illness. I sent flowers to his family and gave them time to come to terms with the loss. The family were extremely grateful and cleared the property out as quicky as they could and send a card of thanks for our sensitivity. I am sure that my behaviour would have given Daz high blood pressure but its who I am. And in the end whatever entity we are doing business with its still people.

...

just read your comments and I would like to congratulate you on your actions.

The pursuit of wealth to me is meaningless without compassion and empathy.

Life is so bloody short, its not funny... and whilst enjoyment is paramount to the quality of life, the single minded goal of hoarding wealth at whatever cost is incredibly selfish in my eyes.

Sharing the wealth is the key and being compassionate in time of need is important.

Each to their own !

Harris

 

[Monopoly]

Here's an interesting observation....

Polls are often an inaccurate reflection of reality.

My guess is that those (at the time of writing this post) 13 people who voted/selected "I'd absolutely pursue my entitlements - this is business" are doing so as a knee jerk reaction; gun-ho so-to-speak, aiming to prove their "I'm a strict businessman/woman" type.

When push comes to shove I'll bet that 11 of those 13 would back down quicker than the dead man's heart attack, in a face off with those forumites who voted 1 or 2.

To those 13....

How many of you are prepared to identify yourself, and openly claim that you have no problem whatsoever, in saying "this is purely business and this man's untimely end will not stand in my way of chasing the $600"???

Go on, come out from behind the screen and fess up......

 

[Monopoly]

Dead people leak really, really, badly, and they stink up the place like nothing else.

You're making it sound as though he was left in the building to rot for days!!!

BTW Natmarie, YOU can dismiss my question above, as you have already identified yourself. At least you have the b***s to stand by your conviction (even though others; myself included) may not share it; I applaud you for that.

 

[Sunfish]

It may be Mono that those 13 are fairdinkum and you have a good pointer why I don't identify with landlords. I don't mind owning property but I dislike the landlord bit.

 

[mrsdawnrazor]

Yup - Im one of the 13

I also do the utmost to protect my self in terms of vetting tenants, taking bonds, managing my property managers etc. No you cant predict that someone will die but ultimately a debt is a debt. Will the ATO, or Telstra, or Energex let this go - no. Will the bank charge fees for managing the estate? yes, do bank loans have to be settled out of the estate - yes, will the last credit card bill have to be paid - yes. Why should I as a creditor accept that all of these others will get paid, without a squeak of protest from the family but I should not?

As has been stated there seems to be more to this story than meets the eye, but on the facts presented Yes - I would want the rent and the payment of that rent would secure the family of the deceased all the rights to access the property, collect belongings etc that they need over the time that the rent had been paid.

Heartless - no, Business - yes

 

[Bargain Hunter]

Go on, come out from behind the screen and fess up......

Monopoly,

I would have thought the replies would have indicated where people stood.

I think my decision is based largely upon experience.

Having attended the tribunal on more than one occassion and with more than enough evidence to get a ruling in my favour, I have been shocked to hear the rulings go against me.

There certainly appears to be a bias in the tenants favour, and perhaps this is why this matter has hit the headlines.

For me the issue is not a greedy landlord, it is a relative not wanting to pay what is due and then using the media to try and raise support.

The eventuality of a death of a tenant is covered under law, and in this case it ensures the landlord is not out of pocket.


Regards

Andrew

 

[Monopoly]

Monopoly,

I would have thought the replies would have indicated where people stood.

To a certain degree yes, they do BH,

But it appears there are more votes than there are corresponding replies, hence my question; call it curiousity!!!

I need to add here, that I did not ask the question as a means of pointing the finger at anyone; people are entitled to their opinions and the manner in which they choose to conduct their business. In my experience, discussions with individuals following them casting their votes, has often led to them giving a completely different response.

But perhaps more than this I've found, many "wannabee" business people like to pride themselves on the notion that they are "hard nosed" when indeed, nothing could be further from the truth.

As I said, tis just my warped sense of curiousity.

No offense intended to any landlord/lady.

Cheers,
Jo

 

[Monopoly]

a debt is a debt

Agreed!!

Will the ATO, or Telstra, or Energex let this go - no.

Disagree.

Chances are for a sum of $600 (the amount in question here) most certainly YES. The bad publicity ie. "heartless" label/headlines born from chasing this insignificant amount, would cost any company worth their place on the stockmarket, more than it would be worth to persue. And if you believe otherwise, you're delluding yourself.

$600 worth of bad publicity is not worth it to the big guns!!!

 

[skater]

In any normal tenancy, there is a bond of 4 weeks rental. If someone dies, then the executor of the estate would take steps to remove the belongings & return the home to the landlord for re-let. This should take no more than 4 weeks, so the bond would cover this. It could take less, & then the estate could even get a small refund, depending on the sympathies of the landlord.

For there to be all this commotion, there must be more to this story. Maybe the landlord didn't have a bond. Maybe the tenant was a bad tenant & owed rent that the bond didn't cover. Maybe the tenant damaged the property. Maybe the executor was slack & didn't clear the belongings.

With the exception of the landlord not having a bond (his own silly fault IMHO), the landlord has every right to pursue the matter. He has a property that cannot be rented until it is back in his posession in a good condition. It is not his fault if the tenant was in arrears/caused damages/executor didn't clear the place etc.

Based on my above statement, I will proudly stand up & let everyone know that I am one of the 13.

Heartless - no, Business - yes

Absolutely. THIS IS BUSINESS & IS COVERED BY LAW. Like my original statement said, there is more to this story than meets the eye, or else the excrement would not have hit the fan. The bond would have covered the shortfall & all would be well.

Why, all of a sudden do many believe that the landlord is the one to be out of pocket. Remember, as a landlord, you only need a few properties to have assets over $1m. Many are carrying a heavy debt against these assets. Lets say you have 3 properties & only 1 makes a rent payment this month as 1 tenant is in arrears & another has died. The bank carrying the mortgages you have to pay is not going to say "Oh dear, sorry your tenant died, don't worry about paying this month."

For me the issue is not a greedy landlord, it is a relative not wanting to pay what is due and then using the media to try and raise support.

The eventuality of a death of a tenant is covered under law, and in this case it ensures the landlord is not out of pocket.

 

[Perp]

$600 worth of bad publicity is not worth it to the big guns!!!

With respect, I disagree, Monopoly. When my sister's husband died she had a whole raft of debts to deal with - and nobody gave a #*#$ that she'd just lost her husband at age 28. They just wanted their money. Including all the big Australian brand names.

 

[Monopoly]

Many are carrying a heavy debt against these assets. Lets say you have 3 properties & only 1 makes a rent payment this month as 1 tenant is in arrears & another has died. The bank carrying the mortgages you have to pay is not going to say "Oh dear, sorry your tenant died, don't worry about paying this month."

I rest my case Skater,

It is the average "mum and dad" investor / landlord or lady that has most to lose here, and THEY will be the ones wanting to chase this money, not your Telcos, or utilities companies; they don't need the bad wrap (they get enough of that without having "heartless" added to the list).

As I said to Natmarie, I applaud your honesty and the expression of your views even though I don't personally share them.

People will, inevitably do what they feel is right for them.

 

[Monopoly]

With respect, I disagree, Monopoly. When my sister's husband died she had a whole raft of debts to deal with - and nobody gave a #*#$ that she'd just lost her husband at age 28. They just wanted their money. Including all the big Australian brand names.

I didn't say ALL the big guns, of course there will be the handful who will chase even the most miniscule of $$$ but if they're smart, and care anything about their reputation, they will write it off as a loss (a tax perk).

I'm sorry (but no, not entirely surprised) to hear that these companies were so arrogant at such a time in your sister's life. Some can be real a##holes!!!

 

[jaycee]

For there to be all this commotion, there must be more to this story. Maybe the landlord didn't have a bond. Maybe the tenant was a bad tenant & owed rent that the bond didn't cover. Maybe the tenant damaged the property. Maybe the executor was slack & didn't clear the belongings.

If the landloard didn;t have a bond - he was not doing business the proper way & is now trying to fix his mistake by coming across as a hardnosed strictly by the book 'this is how I operate' business man ! IF he is as smart as he acts now (stirctly business) , he woudln;t have let them rent without a bond and have to make a big huff & puff now - so for his initial error, it ended up being a issue down the road... and now HAS to act like it's all strictly business....;-)

..
Maybe the tenant damaged the property = maybe although no mention of this in the report (not to say it did;thappen, but surely he would have chased money for that also, giving the reporter yet another number to add ontop of the $600 which they coudl have used to make him look even more heartless....

The daughter is quoted as saying she spent $000's on cleaning & ther eis no counterargument presented that he wsa after fruther costs to clean the property, he is "quoted" as sayig he wants the 4 weeks rent for notice / breaking the lease that he is entitled to and no more....

The fact that within a few weeks he decidecd not to re rent the property probalby means lack of rent wasn't the issue, and there may be more to the story......he may have been thinking of selling it anyway......he just figures why not get the $600 since I can.. not saying he's not entitled to it, but to make a big deal & go to a tribunal over it seems over the top for me that's all