Problem with Agent and Tenant

[Labo]

But now that I've read it again, it may be just a matter of terminology (ie not distinguishing between NTL and NITL, and using "new" when perhaps that's not the right word). So, Labo, is marg4000 correct? Did your wife issue your tenants a Notice To Leave, or did the wife of the tenant couple issue you with a Notice of Intention To Leave?

My apologies for any confusion caused. I'm not quite up with all the lingo yet, but on a fast learning curve.

The wife (being one of the co-tenants) issued a Notice of Intention to Leave. The PM office prepared this for her. This is the document that her husband never signed. He claims he never authorised it either.

Wife is leaving; and husband intends to remain.

So because it was prepared by my PM, and the husband didn't sign it or authorise it, I guess I'm on pretty shaky ground if my PM did try and enforce termination immediately. This was the original intent of my question.

As I said in my last post, I think I'll err on the side of caution though. Husband has said he is willing to accept a new NTL (Without Grounds) giving him 2 months to get out.

Thanks everyone. I'm glad I found this forum.

 

[Perp]

My apologies for any confusion caused. I'm not quite up with all the lingo yet, but on a fast learning curve.

Absolutely no worries. I wasn't making the distinction to be a pedant - because I'm sure lots of people call an NITL a NTL - but because I was genuinely confused.

So because it was prepared by my PM, and the husband didn't sign it or authorise it, I guess I'm on pretty shaky ground if my PM did try and enforce termination immediately.

Certainly not as legally solid as if it had been the way I thought things had transpired.

As I said in my last post, I think I'll err on the side of caution though. Husband has said he is willing to accept a new NTL (Without Grounds) giving him 2 months to get out.

Fair enough - whether he's "willing" or not.

At the risk of totally changing the topic... why are you planning to renovate and sell? Was this a former PPOR that's proving problematic as an IP? I ask because financially, it doesn't seem like the ideal time to be selling. (Unless your particular market is out of step with others in SE QLD and going gangbusters, which is great if it's the case. )

 

[Labo]

At the risk of totally changing the topic... why are you planning to renovate and sell? Was this a former PPOR that's proving problematic as an IP? I ask because financially, it doesn't seem like the ideal time to be selling. (Unless your particular market is out of step with others in SE QLD and going gangbusters, which is great if it's the case. )

I've owned the property for 9 years, and get really good rent from it. Lived in it for first 2 years before moving to Hinterland. It's been rented since then, but is in big need of renovation (very tired). It's in a good location, so thought I'd test the waters. If it doesn't sell, well I'll just rent again. (I think my current PM might owe me a few months free service!).

 

[Perp]

I've owned the property for 9 years, and get really good rent from it. ... It's in a good location

I say again: why are you selling?

If you need some cash, why not refinance instead? Sometimes you get more cash out by refinancing than selling, anyway, after paying agents' commission and CGT. And you still own the asset.

 

[bweed]

Generally, when we have only one person signing a document, we have them sign , firstly for them selves, and then secondly for the absent party. They sign as the duly authorised agent for the absent party. We ask them, "are you clear and aware that the absent party wishes you to ....". From my understanding, this is then binding./QUOTE]

With respect this is complete nonsense. The only way you can accept someone else's signature as an authorised agent is if you have a written authority from that person appointing the agent for that purpose.

If it wasn't that way we'd have people signing contracts on behalf of other people all over the place then an argument about he said/she said which is exactly what written contracts are supposed to avoid.

 

[Peterw]

bweed, please be my guest, and make further inquires. I am not saying that is the smartest thing to do, however it is legal.

 

[csc2]

good thread, interesting perspectives all round...

no one is ever too old to learn something new it seems..

good stuff!

 

[bweed]

bweed, please be my guest, and make further inquires. I am not saying that is the smartest thing to do, however it is legal.

Are you suggesting you could walk into a court and wave a contract signed by person A, tell the magistrate that person A told you they were signing for person B and that they told you person B agreed, that if person B claimed to know nothing about it and denied agreeing that you would have a snowballs chance of having the contract enforced?

 

[Perp]

Are you suggesting you could walk into a court and wave a contract signed by person A, tell the magistrate that person A told you they were signing for person B and that they told you person B agreed, that if person B claimed to know nothing about it and denied agreeing that you would have a snowballs chance of having the contract enforced?

I don't think so!

Whilst it may not be binding, the measure that Peterw takes - of explicitly asking whether they're acting as agent for the other party - has absolutely zero legal effect (IMHO), but may well serve to prevent some breakdowns in communication.

For example, in the case outlined, the wife, had she been asked, may have said something like "I don't know what he's doing and I don't care" which would at least have served to put the agent on notice that they may not be acting as a united front, and triggered a call to the husband and prevented this situation arising.

But if the wife had said "yes, I understand, and I'm authorised to sign on his behalf", and had signed for both, I agree with you, bweed, that you wouldn't have a hope of binding the husband via this method.

 

[lura]

You want to sell it - vacant possession.

One tenant wants to stay on...
One tenant wants to leave...

Can the one who stays on meet the rental obligation and ensure the property is in a condition suitable to show prospective buyers? If so, leave him in there and only issue the Notice to Leave when the property is sold to an Onwer ooccupier - giving 30 days notice to leave.

If the lease is a periodic - there is no real harm in keeping him in there. You still get the cashflow while the property is being marketed For Sale.

Or have I read too fast and missed something?