The saga continues or so it seems

Okay. Somewhere on here I listed my saga with a specific Southport REA (aka PM) of a property (aka "Monaco Street" property).

Anyway, I received a letter from this specific REA a long time ago advising me that I owed a further four weeks rent on top of the three weeks rent I had already paid due to breaking lease.

Yes I had stopped paying rent due to financial difficulties. I couldn't afford to keep paying double rent any longer. I only signed the lease to the Monaco Street property under a mis-understanding anyway.

It was a huge huge mistake for me to have signed that lease. You could say I signed it under duress or whatever it is when someone signs something unwillingly.

Basically, I would never have signed this lease if I knew what I new prior to signing it. I never moved in nor lived in that Monaco St property.

Okay. I paid that amount ($1107.39) and have proof of the payment via my credit card statement. Thinking I was finally done with this whole saga I threw out the letter that stated this amount on it (I seriously thought I was done as I had paid what that letter said I owed).

I've been off-line due to moving to a new place and only received an email (no phone call, no letters in the mail) stating that I owed a further $1620.84 !!!!

Supposedly it DIDN'T take them an extra four weeks as I was under the understanding (due to the original letter I received and confirmation by that office via the phone as I rang that REA shortly after receiving that letter) ... supposedly I didn't owe just $1,107.39 !! Supposedly it took them 20 weeks and 3 days to find a new tenant for the place I never lived within (and broke lease upon).

20 weeks and 3 days !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Am I the only one dumbstruck it took them THAT long in THIS market?
I honestly feel that they are screwing with me. I can't afford to pay this.. I could only afford to pay the $1,107.39 !!

*cries in frustration*

Should I take them to the tenancy tribunal? What can I do? I honestly was under the impression I owed only that $1107.39 !! I wouldn't make up such a specific figure if I didn't owe it!!!
 
Last edited:
Great news! I FOUND THE LETTER!!! It is ripped in half yet easily read-able still. It is dated 22 May 2007 and the amount it states that I owed at the time of that letter (btw, the ONLY communication until that email that I had ever received from them in all this time - no other letters, no other phone calls, etc) I owed $1092.96 !!!

I paid that (actually more than that) on 20th June.

Am I the only one who is dumbfounded it took them 20 weeks and 3 days in total to find a tenant for this particular property? Geeze.

I have an appointment with the TENANCY ADVICE AND ADVOCACY SERVICE in re my situation on Monday 2pm. I'll update more then.
 
Shouldn't have even been vacant for 2 weeks, let alone 20! Especially on the Gold Coast. If I was the landlord I would certainly have been getting a new PM long before this!
 
You haven't told us the whole story.

Firstly you say you stopped paying rent due to financial difficulties as you couldn't afford to keep paying double rent any longer. Why were you paying double rent in the first place?

Then you say you only signed the lease to the Monaco Street property under a mis-understanding anyway and that it was a huge mistake to sign the lease then you say you signed it under duress.

Then you say you would never have signed this lease if you knew what you knew prior to signing it.

If you go to the tribunal with that story you will lose.
 
Okay.

I signed the lease under duress as the threat of eviction AT THE TIME when I signed the lease to the Monaco St property was looming over me. I literally only had days left (I signed the lease on a Sat and had to be out of the Watson Esp. property by Wed according to the eviction notice) so I was desparate. I really was as I had gone to countless open houses etc and applied for all sorts of places at the time.

TWO DAYS LATER my ORIGINAL lease that I signed and handed in to renew of the Watson Esp place was ACCEPTED. Thus the eviction notice was made null and void. The owner of Watson Esp. never intended nor approved of me being evicted. THUS THE REASON I WAS PAYING DOUBLE RENT.

I had no intention in the first place (nor did the owner yet the PM acted without the owner's knowledge at the time) of moving. I had every intention of staying due to handing in my renewed lease agreement on Watson Esp.

It was only the NEXT DAY after I had handed in the lease renewal to Watson Esp. that I was told about how they (the Watson Esp. PM) had put in a notice to leave in my mailbox on Friday.

Basically, I would never have had to look for a place let alone sign any lease to any other place if the owner (Watson Esp) was informed about the eviction. As it is, it is because of the owner the eviction notice was overturned (withdrawn).

THUS I signed the lease to Monaco St under the mistaken impression that I had to find a place to live. I also signed it under duress as the threat of eviction was looming over me ... and I wouldn't have signed for that place if I wasn't being evicted as I had no intention to leave Watson Esp.

I paid double rent for a total of 5 weeks .. as I paid rent at where I was actually living (Watson Esp) and Monaco St. I stopped paying as I couldn't afford to pay the rent on Monaco St without affecting my rent payments on Watson Esp (and considering I was living in Watson Esp. that rent came first).

I am in a totally new property now as I wanted out of Watson Esp. for personal reasons plus I'm in total agreement with the owner that the Watson Esp. property is in dire need of renovations/updating.
 
Basically, in the end, I just find it beyond ridiculous that in THIS MARKET it took the Monaco St PM 20 weeks and 3 days in total to find a new tenant!

As somone who wants to get into property herself (thus become a landlady)... I know I wouldn't put up with my property being untenanted for a fortnight let alone 20 weeks! I would question whether I was charging too much rent and/or how competant is this PM really ? I just really question where the landlord/lady is in all of this... why didn't s/he do something?


Also, I have told the whole story. It is posted somewhere around here... i'll go search for it.

HERE IT IS ---- http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293428&postcount=19
 
Basically you signed a lease not under duress I would have left the watson unit and moved into the property you signed the lease on I understand they had a signed lease as well on the watson unit but well I don't think they would have had a leg to stand on in court. basically you got stuffed around and 20 weeks sounds like rubbish to me go ask some of the neighbour or heck even the people living in the unit you signed the lease on to see if there lying to you.
 
G'day GCG,

According to "Quartile" figures, the Gold Coast has nowhere near the frenetic rental market that Bne has:-

http://www.quartile.com.au/Market Data/goldcoast.htm

They show GC with Unit rentals at a Vacancy rate of 4% in Dec 06, dropping to 2.7% in Mar 07. Since (I believe) 3% is a "balanced market", 4% was over-supplied, and it has recently dropped to the "balanced" range.

Bne, on the other hand, shows a VR of 1.7% (under-supplied) which will help landlords to fill their properties. Was 1.5% in Dec 06 as opposed to 4.0% on the Gold Coast.

Despite all that, 20 weeks still seems to be "over the top" - could it be that they weren't overly pressed to find someone else as YOU would be paying rent until someone else came along? I'd be sitting in front of my Solicitor on Monday if I were you.

Regards,
 
I did sign the Monaco St lease under duress as I had no intention (as did the actual owner of the Watson Esp. unit) of moving. I handed in my lease to re-new on the Watson Esp. unit before signing the Monaco St lease. I only signed the Monaco St unit under the mistaken impression that I only had days (thus was desparate - how many times do I have to repeat myself?) to find a place.

In the end, the eviction notice was null and void and my original tenancy re-newal on the Watson Esp. unit which PRE DATES the Monaco St one was accepted.

Regardless, I have an appointment today at 2pm and will know more then and update more about the whole situation then.

As for the vacancy factor, 20 weeks is still TOO long a time for anyone to have any unit vacant. The Gold Coast market is tight from my experience so the most a place should be un-rented (unless there is something really wrong with it so i'm damn glad I did not move into it) is just over a fortnight (or month) not 20 weeks!!!

As for me paying, I still stand that I only signed the Monaco St unit lease as I was panic-ed, desparate and scared due to the threat of eviction in a couple of days. Plus my Watson Esp. unit lease which was accepted by the owner (and PM of the Watson Esp. unit) pre-dates the Monaco St one.

I never lived in the Monaco St unit. I had no intention of moving and the owner of Watson Esp. also had no intention of wanting me to go.
 
I'm putting applications in to the Small Claims Court.

I am seeking an order for the termination of my tenancy agreement backdated to [date]. I never moved in to the property due to my circumstances changing. I signed 'Break Lease' documentation on [date]. [Property Manager] wrote to me on [date] stating I owed $1092.96 for rent, advertising etc. That was on top of my $960 bond which they had already claimed for rent etc. I was under the understanding that the re-letting matter and my liability was then finalised, some 3 months after the re-letting proces started. (I paid the $1092.96 on teh [date].)

Now I have received further correspondence stating I owe a further $1620.84 as new tenants have been found to move in on [date]. So in ttoal it appears that it has taken the agents 20 weeks and 3 days to re-let. I believe they ahve failed in their duty to mitigate loss. I have taken my responsibility seriously but think 20 weeks is excessive.


QUOTED WORD FOR WORD from what I shall be submitting to the Small Claims Court tomorrow (the documentation was done today). So now after I submit the documentation, I await a date and go from there. The PM has to proove that they did everything possible to try to re-let this specific unit.

If they posted a decent advertisement and took plenty of applications (or at least interest) then I will loose the case and have to pay up (and happily will do so). I will also loose if the "judge" is a by the book type of judge as such. I will win if the Judge agrees with me that 20 weeks is rather excessive a time for a place to be untenanted.

So this won't be resolved for another month or longer now. I did take it all seriously as I paid the $1092.96 as well as rent on the place and gladly gave up the bond..

Yes, I will be happy to pay the $1620 IF the ruling works out against me. Until then I want to try this action to see what happens.

This is all very intersting to me as I have never ever had to do this before and I feel this experience will serve me well in the future when I do become a landlord myself...

I'm not forgetting this whole experience in a hurry.
 
Okay, got an email back from the PM that I'm disputing with ....

Please find attached a copy of the list of advertising that was done trying to secure a tenant. The owner even agreed to drop the price of rent and offered 1 weeks free rent trying to help with securing a tenant. Under normal circumstances average vacancy period is 2 weeks, during the slower months which unfortunately is when you gave notice it can take upto 2 months for older style properties.


The advertising shows that it is listed:
SURFERS PARADISE
Party furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, 1 week rent free.... $230

with other ads prior to the rent decrease and "1 week rent free" offer

SURFERS PARADISE
Partly furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, centrally located.... $240

SURFERS PARADISE
SURFERS PARADISE
Partly furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, centrally located.... $250

So it was basically a couple of lines of text amongst other lines of text (other properties). The $250 per week is what I was paying and have paid so far in re monies owed.

So according to them it is not "unusual" to have a property go for up to 5 months UN TENANTED ???

I know that all this might show that they tried to mitigate loss yet the 20 weeks and 3 days in total is still rather excessive overall.

I have to ask myself what is so wrong with the property that they had to drop the rent from $250 per week to $230 per week with one week rent free?

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that in all of those advertisements only TWICE has it got the "OPEN FOR INSPECTION" listed. That's 11 advertisements with the property listed amongst other properties with the "open for inspection" note (in bold) in only two of them.

So does this mean they only had it open for inspection twice in all this time? They had the keys. I gladly gave them back as soon as I signed the break lease to PROVE I wasn't living there.
 
The advertising shows that it is listed:
SURFERS PARADISE
Party furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, 1 week rent free.... $230

with other ads prior to the rent decrease and "1 week rent free" offer

SURFERS PARADISE
Partly furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, centrally located.... $240

SURFERS PARADISE
SURFERS PARADISE
Partly furn., 2 bed, 1 bath unit, centrally located.... $250

So it was basically a couple of lines of text amongst other lines of text (other properties). The $250 per week is what I was paying and have paid so far in re monies owed.

<snip>

I have to ask myself what is so wrong with the property that they had to drop the rent from $250 per week to $230 per week with one week rent free?

I understand that in the break lease situation you are responsible for all of the costs for advertising and covering the gap if the re-let rent is less than that you were paying for the duration of the lease. So, if you'd like them to advertise harder, it would probably cost you more.... you can't have it both ways. They obviously tried to rent it out at the same rate you paid to minimise the ongoing impact to yourself. After no luck, they have tried to advertise it for less - which would mean an ongoing shell-out by you for the duration of the lease.

The only thing I can really see that they have done wrong here is not keep you fully informed and given you some options where it's your money involved.

As for the duress etc - well, to be harsh, that's your issue, not theirs. The lease conditions are spelt out in the contract and you have to abide by them. The people you should really be directing your ire at are your current PM / landlords for forcing your hand to look elsewhere (I question whether we have the full story - why was there an eviction order on your current home, and why stay under those conditions?).

I agree that it's a sh?tty position to be in - I certainly have empathy for you, but the need to keep across what is going on, when you are liable until it is cleared up, is also your responsibility.

Perhaps you can advertise it also, or work with the PM on other alternatives. Whilst it is empty, you continue to be liable. Spending time arguing about it may mean that you are just up for more.

I hope it turns out well for you.

Cheers,
 
Just a quick question, did you ask the agent to let you know when they had found a tenant for the break lease? Did you sign the lease at $230 a week or $250 per week? I, like Barracuda, am intresested to know what situation led to an eviction notice on the place you are currently in?
 
I have had a situation where a tenant broke the lease, and was paying rent for a few weeks. After two weeks, they claimed that the PM was not making sufficient effort to find a new tenant, and was going to go to the tenant watchdog.

GCG, it's hard for anybody here to give advice, as we're mostly all just on the other side of the fence. You are probably better to go to an authority who can give you fair and impartial advice from both sides of the fence. In Queensland, the body is the Residential Tenancies Authority. Contact them ASAP.
 
(I question whether we have the full story - why was there an eviction order on your current home, and why stay under those conditions?).

I believe GCG was given a "notice to leave" (from the original rental) accidentally by the PM, without the consent/knowledge of the owner...when the owner found out he withdrew the notice....by which time GCG had already signed the new lease..(as described by GCG in the original post..)

It sounds a crummy situation - most likely what should have been done was for her to move into the new property as per the new lease...but of course hindsight is wonderful! However, in reality the crumminess of the situation, doesnt change the fact that signing a lease is binding, and someone has to pay the cost of finding a new tenant...who really knows if the the PM did a proper job to locate a new tenant...will be interesting to see what the outcome is...most would agree I think, that the RTA favours the tenant...:confused:

Nadia
 
I don't understand why the costs are not carried by the original PM. It was due to her that you unknowingly signed two leases. If you had not recieved an unauthorised eviction notice you would not have been looking for another apartment. I would have thought that the two PM's could have put their heads together and sorted this one out and that if costs were to be borne that they be done so by the first PM. Did you keep the eviction notice as evidence shoudl it be required?

I think that if you let the situation get too complicated or are too emotive about it that it might not help your case.

I think it could be argued that you didn't sign under duress although you may have made a chocie of apartment under duress. Neither of these are issues for the second PM .

I think the length of time taken to let the second property is perhaps a red herring and that it comes down to ....who was responsible for this mess? The PM for acting without the authority og the owner!
 
Hi Gcg

I can't seem to add up your figures and come to any conclusion as what you are being charged for.

Your rent of $240 pw for 20 weeks 3 days = $4902

The amounts paid by you are $960 bond and $1107 = $2067

The difference is $2835 and this is the amount you would still owe, if the property had been empty for the 20+ weeks.



Cheers
 
Last edited:
Back
Top