Increasing $25 for the existing tenant in newly acquired property ?

What Alex said. It's not kosher and you need to sort it out. Heaven help you if the tenant suddenly claims they have a ten year lease in place at 100 dollars per week.

Does your sales contract say you will be given vacant possession or does it say the property is tenanted? And if it says tenanted does it say month to month?

Well in the contract it says that it is vacant.
The current tenant is dealing privately with the previous owner.
 
I was muttering the same words when I just read Alex's post.

John - you need to keep things simple. It seems that every post you create is about a sticky situation that you've either found yourself in or about to embark upon.

Put a lease in please with these tentants - this is a business, treat it as such.

Cheers

Jamie

yes Jamie, so abiding with the current NSW tenancy rule http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/Tenants_and_home_owners/During_a_tenancy_information_for_tenants.pdf

and from this URL: http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Tenants_and_home_owners/Being_a_landlord/During_a_tenancy/Putting_up_the_rent.html

it seems that I will have to discuss with the current Property manager to accept $450 for the next 60 days and then increase it into $475 accordingly so that it is approximately $5 below the market price.
 
Your no cynic, just more observant than most!!!!!

John is Alex for sure.............................same topic posts in both forums started by both users.

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79541
and
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1931095

also

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79334
and
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1925697



not as funny now...:(:(

Good to know my radar is sharp :)

Irrespective of who or what the username is, why you guys comparing one post to another ?

let's treat it as a coincidence :) the most important is the information sharing spirit and exchange of course not finding out who's who.
 
Didn't mean to offend JH........just was a little bored so nothing like doing some research to stimulate the brain on a cold saturday night.:)

I didn't post in WP to ensure i didn't "kill the spirit", my post in SS was more of a sign of disappointment that it may not have been your tenant that posted.:(

Long live the anonymity of the WWW and the world of coincidences.:D:D
 
Ok tenancy lawyer weighing in here. I'm fairly sure I know the legalities in this situation.

First thing to look at his the sale contract. It shouldn't say vacant possession is granted, because clearly it wasn't. There's two scenarios depending on what it says.

1. Vacant possession. Vendor is in breach of contract to you, and you could actually probably just turf out the tenants - since they have no tenancy agreement with you. This would be a bit tricky though, not to mention fairly rude. But technically legally correct.

2. Vendor selling subject to lease. This is the usual case where there are tenants in the property. It means to have agreed to take on the lease of the vendor. Again technically, you can simply breach this and turf out the tenants straight away - but you would be in breach of your obligations to the vendor. The tenants probably wouldn't have a cause of action against you however - they have to go through the vendor first.

In practical terms, the best way forward is probably to just assume you have a periodic tenancy afoot - especially if you have been collecting rent since settlement.
 
Irrespective of who or what the username is, why you guys comparing one post to another ?

let's treat it as a coincidence :) the most important is the information sharing spirit and exchange of course not finding out who's who.

most of the posters at whirlpool seem to be renters. were you trying to get a tenants perspective?
 
Is non-disclosure of a lease sufficient to rescind the contract of sale, or does acknowledging the tenant by settling imply waiving the vacant possession clause and/or accepting any current leases?.

I can only say for WA for sure (although I imagine its similar in all states).

But it almost certainly would not be grounds for rescission. Its definitely a breach that can be dealt with by damages only. The loser in the situation is really the tenant as well - the new owner does not owe any obligations to the tenant if the sale contract doesn't allow for purchase subject to lease.

In reality, the vendor has stuffed up big time as the tenant would have a massive claim against them for failing to provide a house to live in for either the fixed term, or notice period for termination.
 
2. Vendor selling subject to lease. This is the usual case where there are tenants in the property. It means to have agreed to take on the lease of the vendor. Again technically, you can simply breach this and turf out the tenants straight away - but you would be in breach of your obligations to the vendor. The tenants probably wouldn't have a cause of action against you however - they have to go through the vendor

Help me out here. Isn't it the case that the purchaser acquires no greater interest in the property than the vendor had to sell? And the vendor's interest was subject to the lease. So how can the purchaser kick the tenants out if the tenants have an exclusive right of possession for the term of the lease?

The purchaser has no right to occupy the property.
 
So how can the purchaser kick the tenants out if the tenants have an exclusive right of possession for the term of the lease?

Because the purchaser has no tenancy agreement directly with the tenants. And the purchaser now has legal title over the property.

The tenants have a tenancy agreement with the outgoing vendor - who now does not own the property.

The only thing binding the tenant and purchaser together is a string of obligations through the outgoing vendor.
 
Back
Top