Tenant stays on without signing a new lease.

[Superstitionist]

I understand when a fixed lease agreement end and the tenant didn't sign up a new lease, the lease will fall into a periodic agreement. But my case is a bit different here.

Tenant A and tenant B shared the property, both names are on the lease, when the fixed lease end, tenant A moved out, and tenant B has found tenant C to share, after the PM reference checked on tenant C, he draws up a new lease (both names) with increase rent for tenant B and tenant C to sign.

After a couple of months, the tenants still haven't returned the latest signed lease, but they are paying the latest increased rent figure. During all these time, I keep asking the PM to chase up the signed lease, but the PM only ring up the tenant occasionally, he gives me an impression that there is nothing to worry about as the tenant is paying rent.

Do I have a valid agreement with the tenant at the moment? Should I apply more pressure to the PM so in turn he will apply more pressure to the tenant to sign or to leave? Am I overly worried...

Super.

 

[Bazza]

I would be concerned. If it's not signed it's not a legal agreement.

Cheers,

Bazza

 

[NotAllPMsRBAD!]

well ultimately tenant a and tenant B are still legally liable for the lease, and if tenant A has been 'written off' the lease then tenant B is still soley responsible. However should the tenants have to be taken to VCAT for any reason then it is most likely that they would still recognise tenant C as a tenant of the property because of the basic fact he is living there and therefore it is implied (i have been in this situation before where some tenants moved out, i busted my proverbial trying ot get them to sign new leases, transfer form etc but ultimately short of tying them to a chair and putting a pen in their hand and making them sign i couldnt do very much - however VCAT still recognised the others as tenants because they were living there)

 

[rugrat]

Agree with the above.

But I would add that it is in your best interests to get that signed lease back. Tell your pm that you want the lease back signed (if they have lost the original to sign another), or to warn the tenants that if they will not sign and return the lease that they may be looking at rent being increased again, or some such.

 

[Superstitionist]

well ultimately tenant a and tenant B are still legally liable for the lease, and if tenant A has been 'written off' the lease then tenant B is still soley responsible. However should the tenants have to be taken to VCAT for any reason then it is most likely that they would still recognise tenant C as a tenant of the property because of the basic fact he is living there and therefore it is implied

This is the part that I am confuse. The original lease has A + B on it, but A had officially sent a letter to the PM to notify that he is leaving when the lease expired, and his bond has transfered to B, so by law, I assume A is totally out of the picture, and the original lease would become invalid as it contained 2 names.

So if my assumption is correct, then the original lease is invalid, and there isn't a new lease in place, how can I claim tenant B is solely responsible for the property, lets alone tenant C who didn't even have his name appear in any paper works...

Super.

 

[rugrat]

B is solely reponsible as a tenant on a continuing tenancy. As for C (which isn't clear cut, the tribunnal may rule either way, depending who is sitting) he may also be considered the same way as B OR the tribunnal may veiw them as a sublet.

 

[Perp]

I'd also be concerned about how this affects your landlords insurance. If a periodic tenancy is covered under your policy, you do have tenant B on a periodic lease, so I wouldn't be overly concerned, unless you think tenant C has substantially more assets/income than tenant B.

 

[lura]

Put pressure on your PM to get the lease signed and returned.

Double check your landlord insurance - in many instances, loss of rent in periodic leases are not covered.

I am assuming your PM formally transferred the bond to B + C. Technically, A still legally liable also but trying to pursue for damages etc - extremely difficult. B is liable if anything goes wrong -if B doesn't have any money...trying to pursue C, do-able but do you really want the headache?

They may be paying their rent etc....BUT, do not let your PM brush you off because you are the only one to lose out if the share arrangement goes pear shaped...

Hope this helps.

 

[Superstitionist]

Put pressure on your PM to get the lease signed and returned.

Double check your landlord insurance - in many instances, loss of rent in periodic leases are not covered.

Yeah, already done that, and the PM said the tenants have told him that they have signed it, and they will post it back to him soon, still awaiting for it to arrive.

In term of the insurance, it seems that it covers the periodic leases as well, as the policy mentions it does not cover lease which is less than 3 weeks, and based on my understanding, periodic leases is considered as month by month.

So everything is seemed to get back on track....finger crossed.

To all of you that try to help out, THANK YOU.

Super.