Residential Tenancies Tribunual - break lease - SA

Hi, just wanted to hear your thoughts on this? I just went to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal in SA as a tenant. I broke my lease 10 weeks before the end. The landlord advertised the property once a week in the paper for 4 weeks and then stopped. I thought he would have to advertise twice a week. He then put the property on the market to sell before our lease ran out. I thought I would have to compensate him till he relet the property or till the end of the fixed term but he never relet and started selling before the fixed term ended. He also advertised at $10 per week more rent, which I thought was a little above market rate. I don’t think rent in the area went up, I think it went down slightly. I tried to submit an RPData Rental Comparison Report as evidence but wasn’t allowed. I noted a similar property 2 doors down that rented around the same time for $20 less a week within 2 weeks, but the judge said that indicates the landlord was in the ballpark. The judge said that my renting the property for the rent it was, is enough to satisfy him that the property is at market rate and a $10 per week increase after living there for almost a year is reasonable. I told the judge that I’d suspected that the landlord was always going to sell and I have my doubts about the effort that he went to in reletting the property. I thought he advertised for 4 weeks to get our 4 weeks bond, which he did. I suggested to the judge that the landlord should provide evidence that people were actually attending opens. The landlord said a lot of people went through but only 2 showed interest. The judge asked whether he had their details but the landlord said ‘no, we never heard from them again’. I also said how the landlord painted the front of the house the week we moved out. So he waited 5 days before advertising. I still had to compensate the landlord for this period.

The whole basis of the decision was the landlord put an ad in the paper so they’re entitled to compensation. The judge said he would’ve got more if he’d continued putting the ad in the paper. As a landlord myself, I’m just stunned at how easy it would be to continue getting rent off a tenant in a break lease till I get my property ready for sale if I planned to sell.
 
I'm surprised at hearing what happened, but it goes to show that the often touted line here of "tribunal generally favours the tenant" is just not true.
 
I'm not sure what is in the SA regs but if an NSW tenant breaks the lease and the lease break clause is deleted, the tenant would be liable for the rent & costs until it was relet otherwise for such other period ss set out in the lease-break clause.
 
My surprise was really that the rent was advertised at $10 more than the current lease, and this doesn't seem to have been seen as being against the rules. I thought this would tip things the tenant's way.
 
In the Qld legislation, the "mitigate loss" section, advises tha the landlord should even reduce the rent, to be able to hold the lease breaking tenant liable. That is an outcome, that I dont think would have happened here.
 
I’m just stunned at how easy it would be to continue getting rent off a tenant in a break lease

I'm stunned at how flippant Tenants are when entering a contract, then completely expect to walk away without penalty when they decide to break their side of the contract.

The galling thing is they expect to get away scot-free, normally do (i'm heartened to hear you didn't), and then have no qualms whatsoever about entering another contract....starting the entire slopey shouldered experience again.
 
I'm surprised at hearing what happened, but it goes to show that the often touted line here of "tribunal generally favours the tenant" is just not true.

That’s totally what I thought so I’ve always tried to avoid going to the tribunal as a landlord and tried to work things out with my tenants.
 
In the Qld legislation, the "mitigate loss" section, advises tha the landlord should even reduce the rent, to be able to hold the lease breaking tenant liable. That is an outcome, that I dont think would have happened here.
SA is the same. They must try to secure a new tenant as quickly as possible even if it involves reducing the rent.
 
I'm stunned at how flippant Tenants are when entering a contract, then completely expect to walk away without penalty when they decide to break their side of the contract.

The galling thing is they expect to get away scot-free, normally do (i'm heartened to hear you didn't), and then have no qualms whatsoever about entering another contract....starting the entire slopey shouldered experience again.
I totally agree that tenants should be held accountable in a break lease situation but normally a tenant can only be held liable for break lease costs providing the property is relet, so if the owner decides to sell then you must let the tenant walk away from the tenancy.

Also, the landlord has an obligation in a break lease situation to mitigate the tenant’s loss. What I’m surprised about is that the landlord didn’t have to prove that they’d met this obligation beyond showing that they put 4 ads in the paper. I have property managers look after my rental properties and according to them, they get given the 3rd degree. They also say they need to provide evidence of absolutely everything and are lucky to win. My property managers said they are asked how many opens they had and when, how many people applied and looked through etc. It was only after I prompted the judge that he asked the landlord about the interest in the property and if anyone had applied. Before that, he was ready to calculate the compensation for the landlord before I even got to speak.

As you say Dazz, tenants normally get away scot-free, so it makes me wonder:
- Has the law changed?
- Do private landlords get treated differently than property managers?
- The Tenancies Branch and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal operate as two separate entities. There is a document on the TB’s web that states “As a guide, twice a week in the Advertiser may be considered a reasonable effort in advertising” but the judge said that’s old information so the landlord in this case didn’t have to do that. So is someone giving the wrong information and if so, who?
 
Back
Top