the laws are different in each state.. you would need to check with your PM as to whether you can evict the tenants if they dont want to sign a new lease. In Victoria you cant do that and tenants are permitted to serve a periodic tenancy after the conclusion of the fixed term. Not sure if this is the same in NSW
Is there any limit for rent increase...?
- Thread starter Superstitionist
- Start date
I have offered my tenants a new lease by letter about a month before the lease they were on was due to end.
As Goofy said, tenancy laws change state to state.
in Victoria you can't issue a NTV because the tenant won't sign a new lease, they can remain there on a periodic tenancy, also make sure how much notice you must give a tenant when you intend to increase the rent - in Victoria this is 60 days plus postage, make sure you take postage into account or it may be invalid.
in Victoria you can't issue a NTV because the tenant won't sign a new lease, they can remain there on a periodic tenancy, also make sure how much notice you must give a tenant when you intend to increase the rent - in Victoria this is 60 days plus postage, make sure you take postage into account or it may be invalid.
Why not...Can't we issue a notice to vacate with no specified reason...
Super.
Yes you can.
Also, tenants can respond to you by giving 14 days notice anytime during that 120 days.
As for what constitutes retaliation, I suspect that is determined by the circumstances and facts. Maybe LilSkater has some examples of what constitutes 'retaliation'.
Lots of mentions of $10, $20, $50 increases a week here. While it looks as though these may be correct as there was a mention of "30%" in the first post, it is all about the %.
$100/week increase is nothing if you were paying $4000/week rent
Best way forward next time would be to sign with vacant possession and then have a lot more leverage for tenant negotiations.
$100/week increase is nothing if you were paying $4000/week rent
Best way forward next time would be to sign with vacant possession and then have a lot more leverage for tenant negotiations.
If the tenants refused to sign a new lease and then you whacked them with a 120 day notice and they took you to VCAT all they have to do is tell them that they believe the owner has a reason for serving the no reason notice and VCAT will dismiss the NTV. It is well known that most 120 NTV taken to VCAT will be awarded in favour of the tenant. Damn i was at VCAT yesterday for a bond claim, i had photos (ingoing & outgoing), invoices condition reports everything, it was a brand new property, the tenants lied under oath did not have any evidence that disputed my claims an all they said was "we didnt see that when we left so we dont think it is true" and they freaking won! VCAT is useless and always sides with the tenants! My point - dont take the risk of serving 120 notice... a number of different options have been given that would give you the desired outcome!
I have to agree with Goofy to some extent - I have seen very few 120 day notices be successful. The only ones that do work are the ones where the tenant moves out according to the notice and you do not need to attend VCAT. While I don't believe VCAT sides with the tenant on all issues all they really have to do with a 120 day notice is prove there is a reason for you to have sent the notice and then you won't win. As the 120 day notice is for "No Reason" you can imagine that tenants (the creative creatures) will be able to come up with several reasons this notice has been served.
Having said all of this, you want to increase their rent to market value? You may find if you do that they may just leave anyway!
Also be aware that all of what I have mentioned is from my experience with VIC residential tenancies law - make sure you contact a professional who knows the residential tenancies Act for your state.
so what if the owner was wanting to move back in? they cant throw their tenants out? how ridiculous!
In Victoria if the owner wants to move in they need to send them a 60 day notice to vacate (plus postage time), not a notice for no reason. A VCAT hearing for possession if the landlord is moving in is very different to a VCAT hearing for a notice for no reason.
so from a practical POV youd just do that and then change your mind wouldnt you? there is no way whatsoever to prove that it was your intention to simply youse that as a way to get the tenant out. people's plans change all the time etc
or you could say your brother was going to move in or you were going to reno etc. if the rules are so heavily weighted in tenants favour then you'd have to be a bit devious from the beginning i reckon
this option is not recommended - you are not permitted to re-lease the property for 6 months after this particular notice has been served. If you wanted to re-lease the property after serving any 60 day notice then you need to apply to VCAT for permission to release the property before the 6 months is up. You would need to provide very strong evidence that someone was going to move in and then didnt very a very good reason.
seriously there appears to be a lot of people trying to give advice on how to get around the law and it never works when you try to be dogdy. Serve the rental increase, if the complain to consumer affairs then that is what will happen, if they vacate because they dont want to pay the higher amount then that is the risk you take. Follow the law properly and you will be covered, dont and you could be up for costs that far outweight the increase you are trying to gain!
thanks for that, much appreciated. was not aware of these rules and so i wanted to find out exactly how it works and implications of various actions
i'd rather find out from you then the hard way!
I 100% Agree with Goofy, I had a hearing for permission to re-lease last week and although my claim was legitimate I had to produce very good evidence for my landlords change of circumstances.
Best thing is to make an appointment with the property manage and discuss your options with them, tell them what you want from the situation and they will tell you the best way to do it, they will also know the property & the tenants if they have been managing it for awhile and so will possibly have a very different take on things than we do
.Thanks for your comments re 120 days NTV. In your theoretical case of a 120 days NTV, do you think you could successfully argue that you wanted to do some renovations (assuming the place is not recently renovated) and needed the place vacant to do them.
Buzz, renovations is a 60 day NTV not 120 days.
Most landlord notices will be 60 days, unless of course it's 14 days for rent/illegal use of premises.
120 day NTV are usually served if a tenant is a nuisance (ie always pay rent on 13th or 14th day, don't keep property in good condition but aren't damaging it, etc..)
If you do issue a notice for 60, 90 or 120 days the tenant is only required (if on a periodic lease) 14 days reciprocal notice.
Most landlord notices will be 60 days, unless of course it's 14 days for rent/illegal use of premises.
120 day NTV are usually served if a tenant is a nuisance (ie always pay rent on 13th or 14th day, don't keep property in good condition but aren't damaging it, etc..)
If you do issue a notice for 60, 90 or 120 days the tenant is only required (if on a periodic lease) 14 days reciprocal notice.
Lil Skater is right in her statement regarding this, but in addition a tenant can still make the matter go to tribunal if they don't vacate for renovations. VCAT is quite ... strict when hearing these cases because of landlords cheating! i.e Issue a 60 day notice for renovations and then never renovate.
When I last had a VCAT hearing for possession based on a 60 day notice for renovations I had to take my quotes, written acceptance of the quotes, a stat dec from the owner declaring they were carrying out the renovations and most importantly the 60 day notice to vacate had to be dated either the same day or after the written acceptance of the quotes.
They do what they can to make sure everyone does the right thing! It is very hard to be dishonest about it, best option is to do everything by the book.
Interesting regarding the 'retaliation'...
Lets' say the property is $70 below market, ask tenant to sign a new lease with $50 increase, but tenant refuses to sign, so instead of issuing a 120-days NTV, we re-issue an rent increase notice of $70 with no lease agreement.
Would that also constitutes 'retaliation' and is not allowed...
By the way, the above scenario has nothing to do with me, as my tenant already accepts the $50 increase with a 12-month lease...
Super.
Lets' say the property is $70 below market, ask tenant to sign a new lease with $50 increase, but tenant refuses to sign, so instead of issuing a 120-days NTV, we re-issue an rent increase notice of $70 with no lease agreement.
Would that also constitutes 'retaliation' and is not allowed...
By the way, the above scenario has nothing to do with me, as my tenant already accepts the $50 increase with a 12-month lease...
Super.
And, on top of what Sez said - prove that the renovations couldn't be undertaken while the tenant is at the property.
There's a lot of tiny details with every NTV which most people wouldn't even consider, and way too much to explain right now.
Regarding that sort of increase, I wouldn't do it nor recommend it as you've already told the tenant it would be increased by $50 - I think this would likely go to VCAT and even though your increase is on par at the $70 increase VCAT would order it back to the $50. Personally, I have not come accross this (perhaps Sez could shed some more light ) but I don't think it's good business - after all property investing is a business and should be treated as such.
There's a lot of tiny details with every NTV which most people wouldn't even consider, and way too much to explain right now.
Regarding that sort of increase, I wouldn't do it nor recommend it as you've already told the tenant it would be increased by $50 - I think this would likely go to VCAT and even though your increase is on par at the $70 increase VCAT would order it back to the $50. Personally, I have not come accross this (perhaps Sez could shed some more light
) but I don't think it's good business - after all property investing is a business and should be treated as such.And, on top of what Sez said - prove that the renovations couldn't be undertaken while the tenant is at the property.
There's a lot of tiny details with every NTV which most people wouldn't even consider, and way too much to explain right now.
Regarding that sort of increase, I wouldn't do it nor recommend it as you've already told the tenant it would be increased by $50 - I think this would likely go to VCAT and even though your increase is on par at the $70 increase VCAT would order it back to the $50. Personally, I have not come accross this (perhaps Sez could shed some more light
I totally agree it is not a good business and I don't think I would do that either.
But would like to know if VCAT is allowed that to happen, as my argument point is that the $50 is with the lease, whereas $70 is without lease, as I need to add some contingency for tenant is able to move out quicker.
Super.
