OK, just s'pose I rented out a house that will be my PPOR next year. I am guessing tenants signed a 12 mth lease for this house. At least, this is what I was told by the PM. No lease has ever been sent for me to sign. Given that the tenants probably signed a lease & definitely paid the consideration, is the lease valid without me signing it? I was thinking that perhaps it's not technically binding but I probably can't get them out early anyway as the Tribunal would find in their favour if it came to a hearing. Your thoughts?
I Never Signed the Lease
- Thread starter Ms Jade
- Start date
I never sign my leases. Usually when you appoint the agent to act for you, it includes giving them permission to sign leases on your behalf. So you're right, you're almost certainly stuck with the tenants.
Yep, I agree with Ozperp. I never sign my leases either. If you have hired a PM then you probably signed away your need to do so too. The PM acts as your agent in all matters then.
What have you done?
What have you done?
Did you authorise the PM to rent out the house verbally or in person?
Is the PM collecting the rent?
We never sign the lease, the PM does. Yes, the PM sounds a bit slack with paperwork, but that is not your tenant's fault.
Not sure the point of your post - have you changed your mind in any way? Do you want the tenants out earlier?
But no good "guessing they have signed a 12 month lease". I would hotfoot it down to the PM and ask to see the paperwork asap. Even if there is no signed lease, if the tenants have occupied the house and paid rent then they will have rights. I don't think the tribunal would look kindly on slack paperwork on behalf of the owner as a reason to terminate a verbal agreement early.
Marg
Is the PM collecting the rent?
We never sign the lease, the PM does. Yes, the PM sounds a bit slack with paperwork, but that is not your tenant's fault.
Not sure the point of your post - have you changed your mind in any way? Do you want the tenants out earlier?
But no good "guessing they have signed a 12 month lease". I would hotfoot it down to the PM and ask to see the paperwork asap. Even if there is no signed lease, if the tenants have occupied the house and paid rent then they will have rights. I don't think the tribunal would look kindly on slack paperwork on behalf of the owner as a reason to terminate a verbal agreement early.
Marg
Forgetting Tenancy Tribunal biases and the like, I would say contract and agency law would say there there are two contracts in this scenario, one between the tenant and the landlord in the form of the lease (written). The other, a contract between the REA & the landlord (verbal as per your scenario)
The tenant would reasonably infer from their interactions with the REA, that there would be agency agreement in place between them and the landlord (ie you) and they had authority to rent the property to them and relied on that to enter in the lease agreement.
The nature of the agency agreement between you & your REA would be based on what you have agreed to either in your communications, conversations or by your actions explicitly or implicitly. Not acting would also be a form of acting (eg I forgot to follow up the agent on signing the agency agreement). That would i believe, be demonstrated by the fact that the REA has collected rent from the tenants, paid it to you and charged you commission or property management services.
The tenant would have a legitimate right to cite the lease agreement as being valid in my opinion.
There is most likely a contract, I would've imagined, just on the basis of that you've affirmed your agents' actions + the lease by doing nothing about the issue for 12 months. In many contract law cases, a signature is often not required to bind you to a contract. Your actions or rather, inaction for 12 months, have led every party to assume there is a contract and you've most probably acted in comformity with the contract (ie reaped the benefits of the rent, allowed the tenant to stay there, paid the agent fee etc).
Unless the Property Law Act (which I'm not familiar with since property law is not my area of expertise) says otherwise, I would've imagined you're bound. From memory a signature is required to an extent to bind parties to transfer of real assets. So one preliminary question is whether a lease falls under a "transfer", which I'm not convinced it does.
Unless the Property Law Act (which I'm not familiar with since property law is not my area of expertise) says otherwise, I would've imagined you're bound. From memory a signature is required to an extent to bind parties to transfer of real assets. So one preliminary question is whether a lease falls under a "transfer", which I'm not convinced it does.
Ms Jade, the same thing happened to me this year!! As others have said, you don't need to sign the lease, provided that you have a signed the appointment of agent form, (PAMD 20a in QLD, not sure in Vic?).
I don't think there is anything binding about a verbal agreement with a PM.. there's too many important details in a lease that need to be written in concrete!! What's the point of the "appointment of agent" form otherwise?
The RTA (QLD) told me that an agent is in serious breach if they form a lease with a tenant when there is no "appointment of agent" in place.. Big fine and potential loss of license.. bare minimum is they aren't entitled to any commission while they haven't been appointed.
Ms Jade - has the PM picked up their game at all?
I don't think there is anything binding about a verbal agreement with a PM.. there's too many important details in a lease that need to be written in concrete!! What's the point of the "appointment of agent" form otherwise?
The RTA (QLD) told me that an agent is in serious breach if they form a lease with a tenant when there is no "appointment of agent" in place.. Big fine and potential loss of license.. bare minimum is they aren't entitled to any commission while they haven't been appointed.
Ms Jade - has the PM picked up their game at all?
Actually it's only been 3 mths, Deltaberry. Don't know where you got the 12 mths from
I do not remember the Act either but I agree with you that a lease is probably not a transfer. It would still surprise me that a sig isn't necessary on at least one of the documents. How on earth does anyone know what the apparent conditions or timeframe would be on a tacit verbal agreement?
Hmm.... There have been no problems that I know about, but then again they have not really been required to DO anything (as is their situation 95% of the time, I'd warrant). It may surprise you to know what REAs do / do not get up to in some areas outside the inner city, too. Like even selling a house with no authority....
