Tenant won't accept 120 day leave notice.
- Thread starter The_Bludger
- Start date
Might not work out as bad as you think... mine went to Consumer Affairs after a $40 rise only to find out that it's still under market by $10pw!
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42677
http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA25...ng+a+Home:+A+guide+for+Tenants+and+Landlords~
Hi there you might like to review the above link for the publication as to the notices to vacate and hearings etc
the law is there for both parties - if the legislation prescribes you can get your property back after giving the appropriate notice and there is compliance with all the requirements - I don't see why you shouldn't get possession
thanks
Hi there you might like to review the above link for the publication as to the notices to vacate and hearings etc
the law is there for both parties - if the legislation prescribes you can get your property back after giving the appropriate notice and there is compliance with all the requirements - I don't see why you shouldn't get possession
thanks
In a few months. Why do you ask?
Reasons allowed under the Act
for challenging a ‘Notice to
Vacate’:
Tenants have the right to challenge the
validity of any ‘Notice to Vacate’.
Tenants can argue against the notice if
it is not given properly or if they
disagree with the reason given.
Tenants also have the right to
challenge a ‘Notice to Vacate’ given for
no specified reason or to end a fixed
tenancy, if they believe it was given
because they were exercising their
rights under the Act or saying they
would do so.
Is there any way to graph the number of posts by a new member against some kind of negativity factor??
There have been heaps of 1st time posters recently opening up with the above comments.
I think my first post was something like "hello SS I'm new here, hope to learn lots from all you knowledgeable people. Cheers, Chris"
Anyway - back to being greedy for me
I am also wonder what has happened over at GHPC that they are all so interested in us lately. I know they occasionally pop over to ridicule and annoy us, but lately they are coming over in great flocks. Of course, this poster may not be from GHPC, but I reckon so, or maybe it is one of our "regulars" using yet another name.
?? What ?? Why are you looking at a real estate forum if that's your attitude?
From what I read on Consumer Affairs site the tenant could argue hardship and the tribunal weights that up against the hardship caused to Landlord. I just wondered how it would all go for the Landlord if they stood their saying "No reason" while the tenant is pleading hardship. What if the tribunal asked the landlord directly what their reason is? I don't know if they can by law. I was just wondering......I have no expertise in this matter.....I have touch wood never been to the tribunal although I have evicted tenants. I had one tenant so awful I renovated so I could get rid of him.
If the 120 days takes you past the end of lease perhaps you should talk to your PM and put through the usual rent increase at 12 months just in case this drags on. Yes it will give the tenant another reason to complain but if she fails to pay rent then you can evict her on that basis as well. I don't think putting rent increases each 12 months can be seen as vindictive. Your PM should be able to advise you on the best time.
If this tenant is seeking an ongoing tenancy she is certainly going the wrong way about it.....
Hi Bludger,
Reading through this thread causes me to wonder how strong and competent your PM is. In my experience they very much work for the landlord in Victoria and would advise you how to proceed so that you can be totally confident that your 120 day eviction notice will succeed. If the PM knows what they are doing, they will instigate proceedings at the Tribunal on your behalf as necessary. If you are not obtaining this level of comfort from your PM you may wish to "interview" some alternative PM's and give your business to one who provides you with more support. Is the relationship between your current PM and the tenant purely a business one???
Good luck
JaneS
Reading through this thread causes me to wonder how strong and competent your PM is. In my experience they very much work for the landlord in Victoria and would advise you how to proceed so that you can be totally confident that your 120 day eviction notice will succeed. If the PM knows what they are doing, they will instigate proceedings at the Tribunal on your behalf as necessary. If you are not obtaining this level of comfort from your PM you may wish to "interview" some alternative PM's and give your business to one who provides you with more support. Is the relationship between your current PM and the tenant purely a business one???
Good luck
JaneS
Oh, that's us investors all right.
Ho hum. I hate feeding trolls. Seriously W3Bma1l, what response did you think you'd get from a property investment forum.
We must be doing something right if they are all coming over here to bother us, because no-one is going over there to hear their words of wisdom - well; very few are.
I'm happy for them to come over and learn stuff, and change their myopic view on the world, but if they are just here to annoy and cause trouble, then there is always the ignore button. Being ignored is the quickest way to get rid of them.
We all know there is likely to be a slow-down in property over the next couple of years (no sh!t, Sherlock), but it won't be everywhere, and some will make money out of it regardless.
I only want to talk to those who have already been through it and done it and can assist others to do the same when it occurs next time.
Maybe some more time spent on grammar and spelling would be in order and less on your pitiful attempt to incite reaction through your very, very original rhetorical question.
My ignore list has grown immensely over the past month.
Oh and back to the trough now
Attachments
The other thing I forgot to mention was that she has a dog which has teared holes in the flyscreens. She never had one to begin with. I'll have to check my contract as I can't remember if the no pets clause was in there.
Hi there
good idea to review the lease - any of these items are breaches of a lease - and are grounds that can all add up to assist you when you apply for possession of your property.
I still don't see why the tribunal should inflict on you the relationship of landlord and tenant if you no longer want that relationship with this person - provided you have played it by the book - the law does allow you to give "no reason" - and it could be quite reasonable to review your options once the property is vacant (as the market may have moved by that stage).
thanks
good idea to review the lease - any of these items are breaches of a lease - and are grounds that can all add up to assist you when you apply for possession of your property.
I still don't see why the tribunal should inflict on you the relationship of landlord and tenant if you no longer want that relationship with this person - provided you have played it by the book - the law does allow you to give "no reason" - and it could be quite reasonable to review your options once the property is vacant (as the market may have moved by that stage).
thanks
Seriously,
The wife and I questioned the lop-sidedness of the RTA when we invested in houses. We went through the Act with a fine tooth comb and highlighted all of the clauses and segregated them into either Landlord friendly, Tenant friendly or nuetral...I can conclude that there weren't too many in the first category.
How people operate under such legislation is beyond me. You either play by the rules, or if you don't like the rules, you've got two options, try and change the rules...fat chance of that, or play a different game.
Here in WA, like their Victorian brethren, the Tenancy Union is strongly pushing for our RTA to be amended. Apparently the tenant doesn't enjoy enough rights, and they wish to make "the game" a bit fairer by stripping away some of the legislative power of the LL and handing it over to the tenant.
We gave up in the end.....and refused to buy assets that fell under the RTA remit. What a breathe of fresh air.
No, she is exercising her rights as laid down in the legislation. It's just you are on the less powerful side of the legislation and are now feeling the full effects of it. As long as you hold that asset, you will always be on the losing side, especially if you are up against a savvy tenant who can work the legislation in their favour. Ouch.
Similar threads
