W
WebBoard
Guest
From: Hiram Ng
Howdy all,
An interesting situation I have. I am a landlord of a property in Melbourne.
A corporate tenant went 9 months into a 2 year lease and gave me 90 days notice they were breaking it. (Although they changed their minds several times within those 90 days and I also did not agree to the lease break).
Both my property agent and I expected under the Residential Tenancy Act that they have to pay rental until a new tenant was found. Now they are moving out tomorrow saying they've given their 90 days and they say they believe they don't have to pay anything else even though a new tenant isn't in yet.
The (Victorian) Tribunal gave me initial legal advice they think the tenant should keep paying, but when I rang my landlord insurance policy people they think that the 90 days was sufficient notice.
What do you think? Perplexed.
Hiram
Howdy all,
An interesting situation I have. I am a landlord of a property in Melbourne.
A corporate tenant went 9 months into a 2 year lease and gave me 90 days notice they were breaking it. (Although they changed their minds several times within those 90 days and I also did not agree to the lease break).
Both my property agent and I expected under the Residential Tenancy Act that they have to pay rental until a new tenant was found. Now they are moving out tomorrow saying they've given their 90 days and they say they believe they don't have to pay anything else even though a new tenant isn't in yet.
The (Victorian) Tribunal gave me initial legal advice they think the tenant should keep paying, but when I rang my landlord insurance policy people they think that the 90 days was sufficient notice.
What do you think? Perplexed.
Hiram
Last edited by a moderator: