PM making typo on lease contract

Hey X

You could certainly try, but if you took it Tribunal I'd assume you'd lose.

The tenants simply moved out on the date that all parties agreed to on the legal document (lease).
 
Hey X

You could certainly try, but if you took it Tribunal I'd assume you'd lose.

The tenants simply moved out on the date that all parties agreed to on the legal document (lease).

On the plus side, the property manager would get tribunal fees paid for by the landlord. Thats one good outcome, extra income for the pm firm.

Oh wait....
 
These are not nice tenants. The admin error is obvious - the lease documents would have been standard residential lease not a fixed short term lease.

The lease term is also stated on other documents - application forms, bond forms etc....

I would treat it as a lease break situation - I would be taking this to tribunal and fighting it out!

You may or may not win but I would certainly be giving this a go through the legal channels.

I would not be releasing their bond until there is a tribunal order to do so!
List this one on tica also - and mark it down as a file note on the pm software so it pops up whenever there are future reference calls for these tenants.

Why is it the tenants fault? They have a legal document issued by a professional company.

No point chasing them at the tribunal as you would lose.

This is an agency error and one that they must compensate the owner for in full.
 
Maybe the PM would be willing to take to tribunal at no charge?

Doesn't hurt to try.
How may tenants sign a one month lease for a house?
 
These are not nice tenants. The admin error is obvious - the lease documents would have been standard residential lease not a fixed short term lease.

The lease term is also stated on other documents - application forms, bond forms etc....

I would treat it as a lease break situation - I would be taking this to tribunal and fighting it out!

You may or may not win but I would certainly be giving this a go through the legal channels.

I would not be releasing their bond until there is a tribunal order to do so!
List this one on tica also - and mark it down as a file note on the pm software so it pops up whenever there are future reference calls for these tenants.

My thoughts as well. If there is an obvious mistake on a contract and the party taking advantage can be shown to have known it was a mistake, then in most cases it won't wash. It is not what was agreed between the parties at the time of signature.
 
Had the same admin error been done on a 12 month lease - the lease would have ended the day before it began.

Ie 20/2/15 - 19/2/15.

And no leases do not travel above the speed of light - no relativity or time delay involved so it's obvious that it was an admin error and the intention was to have it for 12 months not minus one day.

Would an admin error on a 12 month lease then void the lease?

The intention on the 13 month lease was to use an obvious error to break a contractural agreement without penalty.

If one does not make sense then the other one wouldn't either.

I would take to tribunal not only for the client but for my own curiosity and interest.
And I would do it out of pleasure not charge.

I'm not suggesting the current pm do that - everyone operates differently. But I would certainly be labelling the intention behind it in a public tribunal!

If I lose, I lose - it would be a fun debate either way!
 
Had the same admin error been done on a 12 month lease - the lease would have ended the day before it began.

Ie 20/2/15 - 19/2/15.

And no leases do not travel above the speed of light - no relativity or time delay involved so it's obvious that it was an admin error and the intention was to have it for 12 months not minus one day.

Would an admin error on a 12 month lease then void the lease?

The intention on the 13 month lease was to use an obvious error to break a contractural agreement without penalty.

If one does not make sense then the other one wouldn't either.

I would take to tribunal not only for the client but for my own curiosity and interest.
And I would do it out of pleasure not charge.

I'm not suggesting the current pm do that - everyone operates differently. But I would certainly be labelling the intention behind it in a public tribunal!

If I lose, I lose - it would be a fun debate either way!

A lease that finishes before it begins is different from one that is a month long. One is obviously an impossibility whereas the other is still commercially operative.

Intention doesn't really mean much when the plain wording of a contract is unambiguous. Unilateral intention especially probably means jack (no one has raised the issue what the tenant's intention was).

Glad you're willing to take it to tribunal, but really the risks are the landlord's to bear in that scenario. And I think OP's chance are pretty slim.

If I advised any of my clients to go to trial on my own curiosity, my practising certificate would be at risk - and that's even without charging my clients either.

So instead of advising a landlord client to commence proceedings, why not do the prudent thing and advise them to get legal advice first.
 
What would be the risk to the client or to the agent?

Worse case scenario is that the lease ends at one month.
That's where it is at right now anyway!
 
Just a quick update on this:

The PM (Russell @ Pure Rentals) has decided they won't be compensating for the loss of 4 weeks of lost rent ($1,337) or the loss due to the decrease of rent ($1,250) = Total $2,587

They will however waive 6 months of their own management fees totaling $687 + letting fee

What would you guys do in this case if you're not happy with the PM's final decision?
Is there a government body/tribunal that can hear the case or is my best option just to cut the loss of $ and time and change PMs?
 
Just a quick update on this:

The PM (Russell @ Pure Rentals) has decided they won't be compensating for the loss of 4 weeks of lost rent ($1,337) or the loss due to the decrease of rent ($1,250) = Total $2,587

They will however waive 6 months of their own management fees totaling $687 + letting fee

What would you guys do in this case if you're not happy with the PM's final decision?
Is there a government body/tribunal that can hear the case or is my best option just to cut the loss of $ and time and change PMs?

Can we just recap what has transpired here?

1) Lease was due to expire so PM arranged a renewal
2) Tenant agreed to the renewal and stayed in property
3) Tenant exits property after a month as lease accidentally had wrong date on it
4) PM re-advertises property using photos prior to property being renovated
5) New tenant / lease is secured at less rent than previous one.
6) Compensation offered is for the letting fee and 6 months PM expenses.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any points?
 
Can we just recap what has transpired here?

1) Lease was due to expire so PM arranged a renewal
2) Tenant agreed to the renewal and stayed in property
3) Tenant exits property after a month as lease accidentally had wrong date on it
4) PM re-advertises property using photos prior to property being renovated
5) New tenant / lease is secured at less rent than previous one.
6) Compensation offered is for the letting fee and 6 months PM expenses.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any points?

That summary is spot on DT!

Any suggestions or things you would do?
 
If you are comfortable with them remaining as your PM then formally request the $2,587 be paid as cash or as a future credit against any expenses.

If you not happy with the offer, then contact the states Fair trading Department and lodge a formal complaint.

Correct me if I am right in that these agents advertise
Investors want fair rates with outstanding service from property managers
 
Last edited:
Of course the PM wont compensate you. Its easier to burn you and let you go elsewhere than to take ownership of their stuff up. Cheaper for their bottom line which, despite marketing fluff, is what most business owners care about the most.
 
Just a quick update on this:

The PM (Russell @ Pure Rentals) has decided they won't be compensating for the loss of 4 weeks of lost rent ($1,337) or the loss due to the decrease of rent ($1,250) = Total $2,587

They will however waive 6 months of their own management fees totaling $687 + letting fee

What would you guys do in this case if you're not happy with the PM's final decision?
Is there a government body/tribunal that can hear the case or is my best option just to cut the loss of $ and time and change PMs?

Essentially, what you have on the table is $687 "compensation" for an estimated loss of $2587 (potentially slightly lower if you haven't deducted management fees and other misc charges). I haven't included the waiver of the relet fee as it is not something that you would have incurred without this oversight. To bundle this waiver with the compensation creates a false illusion of a "better package".

Chilliblue outlined three suggestions earlier;

Option 1: Request for more compensation
Option 2: Accept their current offer
Option 3: Seek other avenues (Fair Trading)

I would personally combine options 1 and 3; ask for more compensation via a proxy. I would either speak to Fair Trading or seek legal advice. I personally don't like being stuffed around whether it is intentional or not. Sure, humans can make mistake. Why should you have to be the one paying for someone else's mistake? The Agency's staff makes the error, they should be coping it.

A 25% rebate on a loss that I incurred due to someone else's mistake is almost guaranteed to burn and reduce any "goodwill" established previously to ashes. If I had an otherwise awesome experience and was offered 75% compensation, I might cop that 25% loss in order to continue the relationship.

I think the Agency's final decision on this matter will be followed with interest. They will either win more customers by "doing right by you" or lose potential ones by continuing to stand by their offer. The flow-on effects in this situation is greater for the Agency than for you. This is a public forum and I don't think that any commentator on the thread so far has been excited by the $687.

Whenever I read reviews on products or companies, I pay particular attention to their reactions to bad reviews and how they resolve those complains. A "rehabilitated" customer's review and subsequent confirmation of their happy outcome always trumps the positive reviews.

Good luck and do update the thread on the outcome.
 
Back
Top