Giving back tenant over 12 months rent.

Spoke with a work mate who has just moved out of his rental after the owner
was issued with council breach for unapproved house split into 2 units.

Work mate has spoken with I think he said the tenancy tribunal and maybe
able to claim back all his rent for the last 12 months as it was an illegal tenancy,
he said the others living down stairs were going for over 2 years back rent.

Does this sound right.
 
Uh no - not even close.

EDIT: Snappy one liner response aside, rent reductions are generally based upon percentage loss of use of the property. So they've hardly lost 100% use of the property over the last 12 months, not even close.
 
Spoke with a work mate who has just moved out of his rental after the owner
was issued with council breach for unapproved house split into 2 units.

Work mate has spoken with I think he said the tenancy tribunal and maybe
able to claim back all his rent for the last 12 months as it was an illegal tenancy,
he said the others living down stairs were going for over 2 years back rent.

Does this sound right.

Half street smart battler tenants. Gotta love em.
 
What about Clause 7.2 of the NSW Residential Tenancies Agreement that says the rent abates if the premises can no longer lawfully be used as residential premises. Although this implies that when the lease began the use of the premises was lawful, surely it would extend to if the premises could not be used lawfully at the commencement of the lease.

Seems as if the landlord might be being half street smart rather than the tenants.
 
Sorry could not chat with him yesterday and Im off a few days now.

The place was a high class conversion with water views of the northern beaches.

Workmate was paying around $600 for the top unit and below higher again.

Chat soon.
 
It will be interesting to see what happens with this, with many of the qld areas finding out that dual occupancies are in breach.

Not only are many landlords losing their dual incomes but if they have to pay back rent it would send many to the wall.
 
From a common sense (which I know is sorely lacking in law), if the LL did not think they were in breach and the tenants were agreeable to the terms of the lease, why should the tenant get their rent back?

Both none the wiser going in.

The tenant still had a roof over their head that they were happy to pay the agreed rent.

But I'm sure some lawyer will get a hold of this and get money back for the poor ripped-off disadvantaged tenants from the rich money grubbing cheating slumlord LLs.
 
From a common sense (which I know is sorely lacking in law), if the LL did not think they were in breach and the tenants were agreeable to the terms of the lease, why should the tenant get their rent back?

Both none the wiser going in.

The tenant still had a roof over their head that they were happy to pay the agreed rent.

But I'm sure some lawyer will get a hold of this and get money back for the poor ripped-off disadvantaged tenants from the rich money grubbing cheating slumlord LLs.

I agree - they were paying for a service and received said service.

The only area I can think of is them having to find a new place when the breach happened and they had to move out. They might be entitled to some sort of compensation for moving costs etc.
 
I agree - they were paying for a service and received said service.

The only area I can think of is them having to find a new place when the breach happened and they had to move out. They might be entitled to some sort of compensation for moving costs etc.

That I agree with. From the point of discovery onwards is the problem area.
 
I agree - they were paying for a service and received said service.

The only area I can think of is them having to find a new place when the breach happened and they had to move out. They might be entitled to some sort of compensation for moving costs etc.

What about living in a dwelling that might not have the appropriate frewalls between the dwellings.
 
Sounds like quite an ambiguous article in the legislation. I would seek legal advice sooner rather than later. A letter from a lawyer explaining the law early enough could avoid thousands of dollars in the courts?
 
What about Clause 7.2 of the NSW Residential Tenancies Agreement that says the rent abates if the premises can no longer lawfully be used as residential premises. Although this implies that when the lease began the use of the premises was lawful, surely it would extend to if the premises could not be used lawfully at the commencement of the lease.

I haven't seen the standard NSW agreement, but I doubt it is worded or would be interpreted to mean that a tenant would get 100% of the rent refunded.

In this case at least, the law mirrors common sense.
 
Have had a quick chat today and he has been in contact with the
department of fair trading who has said he would be entitled to a full refund
as he had signed a lease to a property which did not have council approval.

He was given two weeks notice by the owner to move as council had issued
orders for the secound kitchen to be removed. council fine of $5000.

He is now negotiating via agent for compensation , had initially just wanted
removal expenses but after owner had become nasty is planning to seek more,
is still indicating he does not want the full 12 months rent back and will see
what the owner comes up with.
 
Have had a quick chat today and he has been in contact with the
department of fair trading who has said he would be entitled to a full refund
as he had signed a lease to a property which did not have council approval.

Ugh, that advice sounds pretty suspect to me. I doubt its proper legally qualified advice given by fair trading. I would contact the state tenancy advisory service if the matter needs to proceed further.

To give some comparison, a fair bit of my work is correcting the "advice" given by the WA consumer protection advice line (which is not legal advice as its not supervised/given by a lawyer).
 
Back
Top