Eviction

[geoffw]

Oh dear, my first eviction.

And not due to non payment of rent as I had expected.

A fully furnished unit in my flock of bats- and the 17 yo tenant has managed to p*** off all other tenants.

Loud music- warned three times already. Twice involved police visits.

Broken beer bottles outside.

Frequent very load arguments.

Bathroom window broken. Supposedly broken in because of a lockout. But, strangely, all the glass was on the outside of the unit.

Ripped up grass from a motorcycle driven in anger.

Other tenants' complaints about arguments in the unit.

And a very loud party- on the same day a new tenant moved in in the unit next door.

PM says the eviction is warranted.

I agree- and the tenant's father (the guarantor) also agrees.

But I am worried about the reaction between now (eviction served) and time the tenant actually leaves. There's nothing more to be lost- so two weeks of hell for the other tenants?

And presumably I am up for relet fees despite the tenant's bad behaviour. If the tenant had just broken the lease then I would not be liable for those. (Let alone the week I will have to ventilate to get rid of smoking smells).

 

[duncan_m]

Geoff..

I love a good eviction.. the last bint I got an eviction order for moved out the day before I was hoping to have the pleasure of watching the Bailiff drag her sorry arse out

I'd never had rented to a 17yo though.. were the vacancy rates high, not much to choose from?

Regards

 

[geoffw]

The tenant was guaranteed by the father- I thought that payment of rent was going to be the biggest problem.

It's a furnished 1 BR unit- something not common in Queanbeyan. The risks are higher than a normal rental- but so are the rewards. It would appeal much more to the younger set.

I'm not upset by this, just a bit surprised. It sounded like someone trying to make out a start in adult life, and anxious to do the right thing. This is something which is going to affect that person a helluva lot more than it will hurt me. (and yes, tenant databases were explained to the tenant)

 

[D.T.]

Hi geoff,

Sorry to hear about your first eviction, but glad to see you've handled it well.

I think that father is quite responsible if he has gone guarrantor to give his son a start, yet still agrees that his son should be out.

I also think that young tenant is going a great way about getting himself a nice tenant reputation, especially when he has so many years in front of him

At least you didn't have a dozen cop cars in your street like I did a couple of weekends ago. Hehe.

-Regards

Dave

 

[astroboy]

I have a relo that had real probs with an eviction, in getting the buggers to vacate when they were supposed to but came up with a very creative solution.
The unit was in Manly so he 'hired' a couple of very large Islanders from the South Steyne pub and then knocked on the door, knowing the tenants were home. When the tenant opened the door one of the guys stuck his foot in so it couldn't be closed again.
He then told the tenants they could take as long as they needed to vacate, however he was taking his front door with him. He then proceeded to remove the door and march off with it.
They moved out with all their posessions that afternoon.
ab

 

[geoffw]

The tenant is of the feminine persuasion- it's the partners who are causing the physical dmage, though she knows all too well how to use her power the volume control on the hifi.

May parents' only ever IP had many police visits- for drug related matters. They sold a trashed place at not very good profit many years ago- a nice terrace which would be very valuable today.

Dave, the police cars in the street sounds a good story.

 

[tdk22]

Astroboy, GREAT STORY!!

I have heard so many people threate to do stuff like that, but never carry it off, and with such quick results too!

I recently had 3 evictions, one left when the cops knocked on the door, the second lot left at the last minute, and the thrid lot sucked up to the cops who gave them an extra seven days!! Was not happy about that one.

Whilst I was in one a couple of days later, cleaning their body fats out of the shower they had been 'bathing' in for the last two years, the neighbour came around and mentioned that they had only moved a couple streets away. The items left behind had to be assessed and I was told I had to store them for 28 days as they had left personal effects behind.

I told the agent, but she was reluctant to do anything about it.

Seeing as I had taken 2 weeks unwanted holidays to clean all these placed out, I eventually found their cars outside a house.

In the morning, when they went to work, I got my parents to help, loaded up my brothers truck with there 'personal effects' and went and dropped them off to them on their front lawn.

I have never been so self-satisfied before!

I have yet to hear anything back yet!

 

[D.T.]

Hi Geoff,

Its not a very good one, but since you asked.

I live on a fairly new and quiet side of my suburb, we were the first ones to build in this street, about 5.5 years ago. We've had no problems or incidents in this time. About 3 or 4 doors down from me, a guy and 3 sons purchased and moved in just recently. The oldest one had a 15th birthday party a couple of Saturdays ago, that was fairly loud to start with. This was gatecrashed by about 50 18 year olds, half of which aboriginal, who proceeded to create a street fight. A couple of them also went down the street giving all the parked cars the metal baseball bat treatment. Good thing mines parked behind the tilt-a-door hehe. A young child was ran over by one of these youths, requiring an ambulance. In between all of this, a dozen cop cars (and a couple of unmarked ones) turned up to try and restore peace to the street. Took them a few hours.

The father was terrible imho, he didn't seem to care too much and accused the police for being inefftive. Its people like this that I dont want living in my street, lol. If he was a tenant, he'd probably be made to leave.

-Regards

Dave

 

[Learner]

Effective result Astro,

If a landlord were to employ some of these very influential processes in evicting tenants.....would there be any legal implications???? doesn't the landlord have just as much right as what the tenant???

 

[duncan_m]

Originally posted by Learner
Effective result Astro,

If a landlord were to employ some of these very influential processes in evicting tenants.....would there be any legal implications???? doesn't the landlord have just as much right as what the tenant???

Absolutely, it was a stupid thing to do..

The legal processes for eviction in every state are effective and easy to follow. Resorting to capers like removing the front door is just stupid and more likely to hinder than help.

Duncan.

 

[astroboy]

Absolutely, it was a stupid thing to do..

The legal processes for eviction in every state are effective and easy to follow. Resorting to capers like removing the front door is just stupid and more likely to hinder than help.

Duncan.

OK duncan.
Why was it so stupid ? End result achieved which the legal process had failed to do. Where was any liability ? I thought it was a cool result.
ab

 

[reruns]

Just a quick tenant and landlord insurance horror story.

We had our tenant evicted for failure to pay rent about 3 months ago - on the day she was to leave she didn't return the keys so the agent let us in to find that the 'lovely' lady had also trashed our unit.

We are still waiting for our landlords protection insurance to pay up as the assessor has said that the golf club holes in the wall, the light fittings ripped out of the ceiling, the intercom ripped out of the wall, the smashed tiles, the burnt carpet and the carved up kitchen benchtop are 'accidental or bad housekeeping'!!! They also only want to pay for 6 weeks loss of rent and not up to 52 weeks for malicious damage as the policy states!! Obviously we are disputing this bulls@@t but we have been 3 months without rent!!! The insurer and underwriter have been taking their sweet time about things and any objections from us have been met with 'this type of claim takes time'. 3 months!! The unit is now repaired but as yet not re-tenanted.

This was our first IP and if we didn't have the other 4 IP doing ok this experience could have left a very bad taste in our mouths.

 

[Jean]

To Astroboy

Tenancies must be terminated according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1994. It is unlawful for a lessor or their agents to attempt to evict the tenant themselves.

The tenant could have called the police and from there on it would have become messy and expensive.

Many problem tenants are well versed in the law and ways to cause maximum damage to a frustrated owner. There are counsellors and advocates and lawyers who are equally well versed etc etc and are there solely to represent tenants who are being monstered by rich (they say) landlords.

Sorry about that.

 

[astroboy]

Originally posted by Jean
To Astroboy

Tenancies must be terminated according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1994. It is unlawful for a lessor or their agents to attempt to evict the tenant themselves.

The tenant could have called the police and from there on it would have become messy and expensive.

Many problem tenants are well versed in the law and ways to cause maximum damage to a frustrated owner. There are counsellors and advocates and lawyers who are equally well versed etc etc and are there solely to represent tenants who are being monstered by rich (they say) landlords.

Sorry about that.

There was no attempt to evict the tenants, if you recall the offer was made to vacate at their leisure. Formal proceedings had already taken place with no result.
Police had been called, on the part of the landlord, they couldn't care less.
Who was monstered, my cousin simply removed his front door.
ab

 

[Jean]

Reruns
Is this a case where malicious intent must be proven? That she or an unknown person (according to her) threw a wobbly, but it was not directed at you?

What action is being pursued by you or the PM against the tenant?

 

[Jean]

Astroboy

Oh I though I read eviction and you did say tenant. But it wouldn't make much difference either way. In the circumstances you describe, he ran big risks taking direct action.

I was being tongue in cheek about the spin the tenant's advocates might put on it before the Tribunal or court. Either way it could have been expensive.

I'm sympathetic, having been on the receiving end of a number of crook tenants. But direct action is out, even when they're obviously at fault in not complying with an agreed condition.

 

[natmarie73]

Reruns,

I would be interested in knowing who your landlords insurance is with. How on earth can they not class that sort of damage as malicious is beyond me.

Nat

 

[Denkel]

Originally posted by reruns


We are still waiting for our landlords protection insurance to pay up as the assessor has said that the golf club holes in the wall, the light fittings ripped out of the ceiling, the intercom ripped out of the wall, the smashed tiles, the burnt carpet and the carved up kitchen benchtop are 'accidental or bad housekeeping'!!! They also only want to pay for 6 weeks loss of rent and not up to 52 weeks for malicious damage as the policy states!! Obviously we are disputing this bulls@@t but we have been 3 months without rent!!! The insurer and underwriter have been taking their sweet time about things and any objections from us have been met with 'this type of claim takes time'. 3 months!!

Reruns
Nat stole my thunder! I don't know the legal implications of publicising the names of the itinerant companies involved but I for one, would love to know which insurers and underwriters I can trust! Am currently seeking that type of cover. Perhaps a private email if you feel uneasy about posting it? Would appreciate it muchly!

Kel

 

[kierank]

Originally posted by astroboy
When the tenant opened the door one of the guys stuck his foot in so it couldn't be closed again.
He then told the tenants they could take as long as they needed to vacate, however he was taking his front door with him. He then proceeded to remove the door and march off with it.

I agree with others that this is a very risky (and you might say stupid) thing to do. It is my understand that one duty of care that a landlord must provide to tenants is a secure place to live. Removing a front door means that the property is not secure. If someone robs the tenant while the front door was missing (could even be their friends or rellies ) and they took the TV, stereo, grog, etc I believe it is most likely that the RTA would find the landlord responsible for the missing goods.

I can understand that you can get p.ssed off with bad tenants but you don't want to "take the law into your own hands" and lower yourself to their level.

I'm not a legal eagle - just try to provide some commonsense.

 

[Jean]

Reruns

Has the insurer given any more details about its policy and decision? Will it give any examples?

For example, deliberate acts by tenants that are malicious (?) and those that are not malicious (for instance, cutting a hole in the floor to bring the motorbike into the lounge for rebuilding)

I understand that for the purposes of some/most? insurers a malicious act (under its policy) can only be done by a tenant ie a signatory to the lease and not by an invitee. Don't think the tenant's child can perform a malicious act either (according to the insurer.

I wonder if the tenant claimed that a male acquaintance applied the golf club? He is not a tenant and she would argue that he was (say) doing his banana at the world and just lost it. Or she could say that some 'unknown' visitor (yeah) did it during a party while she was otherwise engaged, or asleep (yeah, again).

If this happens to me and touch wood that it doesn't, I'll be making a complaint to the police, with photos. Then I'll go through the normal processes.

Because I reckon the insurer can weasel on the 'who did it' and I am well within my rights to report vandalism to my property. Also there are limits on how much will be paid by the insurer.