Penalty Rent

[Chomp]

Thansk Bob,

That seems pretty clear cut to me (No go), but I think a lawyer would tell you they could make an argument.

Thanks Dazz, I could continue in the game fine with what I already know no problem, posting on here is learning, just look at what I learnt today

Back to the drawing board then or in my current tenants case the chopping board!



Chomp

 

[AlmostBob]

Thansk Bob,

That seems pretty clear cut to me (No go), but I think a lawyer would tell you they could make an argument. . . .

Of course a lawyer would make an argument, that is something else YOU would pay for, by the hour, he will do whatever you tell him.
and you will still lose, the lawyer is no match for the law

edit:
There is no way for a lawyer to sidestep the exact defined meaning of the terms used to phrase the law as it is written, good idea not, illegal is

 

[Chomp]

Of course a lawyer would make an argument, that is something else YOU would pay for, by the hour, he will do whatever you tell him.
and you will still lose, the lawyer is no match for the law

I think you would make a good Judge Dread

Chomp

 

[tom32]

That seems pretty clear cut to me (No go), but I think a lawyer would tell you they could make an argument.

Putting residential tanacies to one side, I still don't know lawyers would relish the idea of pursuing this? There are enough here who might advise?

That said in construction we often have a crack at doing what you are suggesting. Far easier to withhold a bonus then levy LD's or general damages.

I suspect that the intent of the parties as to whether it truly is a bonus or really damages in disguise could be important. In your case as others have said where it is a commodity with a known value demonstrating you are not being punitive (you cannot even do this with liquidated amounts, they still must be genuine pre estimates not punitive) will be difficult.

In general if damages reflect the costs borne they are allowed. I expect without reading them in each state that this is even the case for rental agreements, i.e. you can charge extra than direct lost rent for implied finance costs etc if rent is paid late by a material amount of time but not some other punitive amount? It will in reality amount to stuff all on $350.00 a week so I can see why you would endeavor to offer a bigger stick to ensure compliance!

Overall it seems to me the law is fair in treating damages like this anyway. When you are on the other side of the coin (I usually am!) you really only want to be paying the other parties genuine costs not some other amount they decided to slip into the contract, right?

 

[Doovalacky]

I was told I could not even go to the property to see if the tetant had moved out without first applying to the magistrate's court for permission..

Far as I know there is nothing stopping you from attempting to contact the tenant by knocking on the door if they don't answer a phone. You just can not enter the property until they return the keys or you get the abandonment order.

 

[Dazz]

Back to the drawing board then

No.

If you mean the drawing board of trying to get your residential Tenant to pay for something that you are liable for under the law, then No, a thousand times No.

The lawyers representing the Tenant's interests back in 1987 when they drafted the initial piece of legislation shut down almost everything that a Landlord could use against Tenants.

In 2011, they have "upgraded" the Tenant's rights and summarily removed absolutely everything possibly at your disposal, along with taking away your drawing board and chalk.

You have been relieved of all power - you have nothing Chomp.

 

[Ergophobia]

back to the patch of dirt with a pointed stick then?



for what its worth, I liked the idea... even if it werent illegal, I think you would have a hard time attracting tennants at $150 over market rates tho.

 

[jaycee]

back to the patch of dirt with a pointed stick then?



for what its worth, I liked the idea... even if it werent illegal, I think you would have a hard time attracting tennants at $150 over market rates tho.

Yeah in a later post, he said it was an example and suggested $20 odd instead.

Doovalacky, lucky it was sorted pretty easy for me.. I'd run DOCEP a few days early, 1 day later a letter from the tenant arrived saying basically sorry, bad circumstances feared for safety of me & my kids, now interstate, sorry, obviously you can have the bond for rent. So the next day I went there and she'd gone, left 1/2 her stuff behind but the house was clean to her credit. Now rented, clean, taken care with rent paid exactly 1 day before due date so far (6 months).

 

[Chomp]

No.

If you mean the drawing board of trying to get your residential Tenant to pay for something that you are liable for under the law, then No, a thousand times No.

The lawyers representing the Tenant's interests back in 1987 when they drafted the initial piece of legislation shut down almost everything that a Landlord could use against Tenants.

In 2011, they have "upgraded" the Tenant's rights and summarily removed absolutely everything possibly at your disposal, along with taking away your drawing board and chalk.

You have been relieved of all power - you have nothing Chomp.

Geez theres a few posts on here for something that wasnt worth discussing, but anyway.

Dazz
It was never about getting the tenant to pay for anything that I was liable for, its about evening up the balance between the landlord and tenants who dont pay rent.

Im sure if we all (us landlords) chipped in for our own lawyers we could draw up an agreement that would make this work. If OJ can get off anything is possible.

Dazz you should write for the West Austalian with comments like that !
I dont have nothing, I still have rights as well, not forgetting that my tenants contract expires in a two weeks and I know he doesnt have enough money for bond elswhere, Im also a member of TICA once he goes on that, its not going to be good, guess who got his chalk board back !

Chomp

 

[AlmostBob]

OJ is a merkin
merkin law is based on money, Aus law is based on donkey votes

1 stupid result does not preclude another, but does not guarantee another

 

[Chomp]

Ha ha

Merkin Law, say no more,

Chomp

 

[kathryn d]

I tried suggesting previously where a LL should be able to make their own rules, which govern their property.

Not going to happen..until we get rid of Centerlink and make prisons self sufficient.

 

[tom32]

Consistency actually is not a bad thing though.

Your PManager fees would increase if they all had to run their own set of contracts and change them according to the latest cases or new regulations.

I don't expect your average PM would be real happy with the situation either. Suddenly real estate agents who have a rental book would need to employ their own commercial managers etc.

Then tennants for the most part would need to visit lawyers to set up a lease too.

Ultimately this would all take money out of the system and its efficiency and give it to lawyers and I don't know if that is such a good thing...