Sticky situation - likely outcome?

[boomtown]

The tenant called the PM and said he wanted to break the lease. PM put the property on the market. A week later a suitable replacement tenant applied and was accepted. The new tenant was to move in on Sat so the old tenant was asked to be out by Friday am so that the cleaners could go through.

Original tenant vacated and dropped keys at PM.

On Saturday the new tenant failed to show up. On Monday the PM called her and she said she wasn't interested anymore. Subsequent enquiries have determined that the PM never got her to sign a lease.

Original tenant is now saying he has signed a lease elsewhere and won't pay the rent for the remainder of the lease and is going to take the PM to the tribunal (Qld) to get the bond back. There is no damage to the property only issue is rental payment.

PM is not releasing bond and is requiring rent to be paid.

What is the likely outcome?

 

[Pushka]

Well, I dont think it is the former tenants problem if they were advised a new tenant was moving in. Obviously the PM should have got that contract signed first and bond money and advance rent collected. Then the PM should have told the old tenant they were in the clear. I think PM is in deep do do but no doubt there is fine print in the contract that gives them an out. Bummer. I think they should, at the very least, advertise immediately for a new tenant for free; and depneding how long it takes, review their payment downwards.

 

[josko]

Oh boy.

I hope I am wrong but I don't think you have any choice but to try and get someone else! What is going on with agents up there? Too much rain has made their brains go soggy.

Just had a tenant leave my IP in absolute mess after I evicted him and the PM tells me the Inspection Report was filled out so badly that they have no proof it was clean!

I have given strict instructions to bluff him.

I would be demanding the agents agree to not charging you a Let Fee for the next tenant.

regards JO

 

[Collector]

Unfortunately the old tenant is entitled to the bond, got the ok for the PM to vacate so is only liable up to vacate date - not till end of lease or when another new tenant is found.

PM is to blame - not for not getting new tenant to sign lease before old tenant vacates but for other foreseen reasons.


like the PM I would not get the new applicant to sign a lease until the current tenant vacates - risk if current tenant decides not to vacate.

PM should have taking a reservation fee of 1 weeks rent that would not be refundable - this still does not solve your problem.


Like you said - sticky situation



I have done many PM training courses in my time, at one of those course (Bob Walters) we were advised not to do anything if the tenant wanted to break the lease until the tenant was in breach of the lease - you see if the tenant says or writes to the PM advising the PM that they are going to vacate the property the PM is not required to act until the tenant does vacate or breaches the lease, it is only at that point that the PM has to act. - I understand that many will say that is silly and all effort should be made to find a replacement tenant ASAP - but look what happens when the PM tries to do the right thing - it all collapse.

 

[BoatBoy]

Unfortunately the old tenant is entitled to the bond, got the ok for the PM to vacate

In writing?
They got an OK to rent from the new tenant, but thats worth squat.

I have done many PM training courses in my time, at one of those course (Bob Walters) we were advised not to do anything if the tenant wanted to break the lease until the tenant was in breach of the lease - you see if the tenant says or writes to the PM advising the PM that they are going to vacate the property the PM is not required to act until the tenant does vacate or breaches the lease, it is only at that point that the PM has to act. - I understand that many will say that is silly and all effort should be made to find a replacement tenant ASAP -

Pretty sure any of my lease breaks have been advertised before they are vacated, and have seen plenty in the past that have been advertised as lease breaks, so would assume same there.

but look what happens when the PM tries to do the right thing - it all collapse.

Only because the PM was too slack to get a signed lease from the new tenant.


My PM has made mistakes in the past, not like this, but when they have made those mistakes that have cost us $$ they have reimbursed us without prompting. Great PM.

Dave

 

[Collector]

In writing?
They got an OK to rent from the new tenant, but thats worth squat.

The tenant called the PM and said he wanted to break the lease. PM put the property on the market. A week later a suitable replacement tenant applied and was accepted. The new tenant was to move in on Sat so the old tenant was asked to be out by Friday am so that the cleaners could go through.[/QUOTE]



Pretty sure any of my lease breaks have been advertised before they are vacated, and have seen plenty in the past that have been advertised as lease breaks, so would assume same there.

I also advertise properties when I receive notice from a tenant that they wish to break a lease, I have a special form I get the tenant to fill in to cover a break lease situation which sets out the proceedure and explains th the tenant the costs involved and they sign this form, all I was saying here is that the agent/landlord does not have to act until the tenant breaches the lease - there is no legal requirement for the PM to advertise the property or search for a tenant until the tenant vacates.

Only because the PM was too slack to get a signed lease from the new tenant.

I did say:

PM is to blame - not for not getting new tenant to sign lease before old tenant vacates but for other foreseen reasons.

My PM has made mistakes in the past, not like this, but when they have made those mistakes that have cost us $$ they have reimbursed us without prompting. Great PM.

All PMs' make mistakes, all humans make mistakes it is how they deal with those mistakes that will determine if they are a good PM.


Dave

 

[Kris77]

Depends on the legislation for your state. Here the vacating tenant is liable to pay rent until the new tenant enters the property, BUT why was he TOLD to move out on the Friday? Its his choice being the lease holder on what day he vacates. I think the PM should have got the prospective tenant to sign the leases and pay the bond immediately which would have locked them into the lease. Good point though from previous poster - what happens if the old tenant wants to stay longer? You then have to compensate the new tenant because they cant move in to the property, until the old tenant moves out or you get an eviction order from court. Very interesting! Bad luck I say for the vacating tenant he agreed when signing the lease to pay rent until the new tenant entered the property, thats the contract he signed, and any member will award the landlord the bond. However, the property should not be taken off the market, and open for inspecitons should have been conducted until the new tenants signed the lease. This could be a good argument for the vacating tenant at court.