Is this a legitimate Break Fee from a Lease?

[Puppeteer]

My partner is moving out of a house in rural WA and wants to break the lease.

Her current housemate has agreed to take on the lease from the date of my partner's departure, but the estate agent has come back with this.

Can a PM (or someone who knows better than me) comment please. It doesn't sound right to me. I'm getting a copy of the lease faxed to me tomorrow so I can see if there is provision in there for the charge, but I suspect that there isn't.

Please accept my apology for taking so long in responding to your request. We have recently been given new procedures to follow and am just getting my head around them. Anyway I will need to know your vacate date so that I can work out the charges that you will incur breaking the lease (aprox. 60c a day left in the lease). I will then fax you through a break lease request for me to forward onto the owner once signed. I am fairly certain that she will be ok with [second tenant currently letting the property] taking on the lease with an extension of a further 6 months but will need the paper work back before approaching her with this request.

 

[investorgirl]

If it is a fixed lease and your partner is the only person named on the lease, then she would generally be liable to pay the costs incurred by the landlord as a consequence of her breaking the lease. This would include a re-letting fee, and advertising of the property - the actual costs payable by your partner would be apportioned according to how long the lease has left to go before it expires. So if she had signed a one year lease, and has 3 months to go, her part of the bill should be one quarter of the landlords actual re-letting costs.

If the landlord checks out the other tenant and agrees to let her take on a new lease in her own name, then advertising will not be necessary. However, a re-letting fee may still apply, it depends on whether the Property Manager charges a full fee or agrees to a lower fee because a suitable tenant has already been found.

Hope this helps, investorgirl

 

[Puppeteer]

Thanks investor girl,

From looking at it, the 60c a day works out to about the same as the apportioned letting fee (assuming that it's the equivalent of 1 weeks rent). I've just suggested that my partner emails the agent to confirm that this is what the fee is for.

 

[D.T.]

Hi,

The friend of your partner's who it sounds like is going to remain in the property? If they are a co-leasee, why should there be any breakcost?

If they're not a co-leasee perhaps try to negotiate your way out of the costs of finding a new tenant since you've already found them one? You'd probably still have to cop the costs of the other relevant expenses which it sounds like they've calculated on a per-day rate.

-Food for thought

Dave

 

[Puppeteer]

No, they aren't co-leasors. The REA talked them out of going co-leasors when they moved in.

Thanks anyway.

 

[duncan_m]

No, they aren't co-leasors. The REA talked them out of going co-leasors when they moved in.

Thanks anyway.

I'm curious why they would do that. The more names on the lease the better as far as I'm concerned.

 

[crest133]

Hi Puppeteer
Here's my 2 cents worth.
Laws vary from state to state. However, the essence of the law relating to having a fixed lease and breaking one should remain the same in any state.

The idea of a lease is fair exchange, and mutual committment.
Tenant gets :
security of tenure for a set period, rent stability.
Landlord gets :
Commitment from tenant of tenant stability, relief from the costs of tenant turnover, promise of continuity of rent.

During the fixed period of the lease, the landlord has the right to expect that he won't have to pay any costs associated with tenant turnover such as lease preparation or alteration, advertising, re-let fees, etc.
So, anything to the contrary incurred by a tenant during the fixed period of the lease should be a cost payable by the tenant. Fair's fair. Might even be 3 cents worth there 'cause I'm a slow typist.
Wish I could type like Monopoly.
cheers
crest133

 

[JamesGG]

Hi all

Not 100% sure on this (will ask the PM girls here when they get back) but my understanding in Vic is that when the tenant breaks a fixed-term lease early, they are still liable to pay the rent on that property up until either the lease runs out, or, a new tenant is found.

Doesn't seem quite right now that I think about it (landlord could easily reject all apps before lease expires, still collect rent and not have any tenant hassles!), but that's always been my interpretation... Will post an update once I find out more.

Cheers

James

 

[investorgirl]

JamesGG, you are correct. If the outbound tenant breaks the fixed term lease early, they are still liable to pay the rent on that property up until either the lease runs out, or, a new tenant is found. However, if the tenant believed the landlord to be rejecting perfectly suitable applicants they could take the case to the local tribunal. Hopefully, in Puppeteers case, the housemate will be deemed suitable. investorgirl

 

[chrispy]

Sub-letting

Just a thought but does the lease allow for a sub lease? If so why not continue on as is with a sublease to the friend, after all isn't that what has been happening until now?

Chris