The saga continues or so it seems

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,


Please re-read my post in re what I submitted to the Small Claims Tribunal. I'm not going on about the duress and all that... I'm trying to say I'm not liable for any extra costs past May because I feel that the PM didn't do their job to mitigate loss as well as that the time the property was not re-let within was excessive.

BTW, I did advertise it! I actually "officially" broke lease two weeks after originally signing the lease contract even tho' I gave the PM the keys back to the property and informed them I wanted to break lease two days after I signed it. I did everything possible on my end to "mitigate loss" (get the place re-let).

I took it all very seriously. I even paid the $1096.92 that I owed (got a letter saying I owed in May - paid in June as I agreed with them).

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?

At all times I wanted to be kept informed .. I had sent emails, phoned them. It was them that was lack lustre in informing me. I also signed the lease for $250 per week for six months then an increase in rent after that period (I've forgotten the amount most likely $260 or something) as it was a 12 mth lease.

The eviction notice was served because the unit next door was being vindictive towards my landlord ultimately. My landlord was okay with me 110%. The owners of unit 1 & 2 (which was one unit) were okay with us. (BTW, there were only four units in the whole complex - I was in Unit 4 and the only permanent resident as all the other units were holiday homes until v. recently when the owner of unit 3 recently rented out his unit.) Just this unit owner that had a problem. We all realise now why he did what he did.. politics. It really had nothing to do with me honestly. I was just being used. After my landlord found out about the eviction notice, it was over-turned straight away as he agreed it was ridiculous.

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.

Please update yourself by reading this thread through. I've approached the Tenancy Advice Service, they helped me lodge docs with the Small Claims Tribunal. I am now just awaiting a hearing date.



Unfortunately, GoAnna, what has happened and is happening in regards to the Monaco St property has nothing to do with the original PM of my Watson Esp. property. Regardless, I honestly would not have chosen the Monaco St rental property if I wasn't desparate at the time to find a place.

This may be a real mess yet I am glad I never moved into that unit. It was ****.. the laundry was in the bathroom (the washing machine at least), it was small, cramped, had a carport... where I am now (Arundel) is so so so so much better.


In the end, if the Small Claims Tribunal rules in the PMs favour and I have to owe the money. I will. I won't argue that yet at least I am trying to get something done (instead of lying down and taking it like a good doormat) about this excessive amount of time that the property has been un-tenanted.

If I ever become a landlord, I wouldn't stand for my property to be un-tenanted for longer than two weeks let along two months and never for 20 weeks!!!!!
 
HI GCG,
The owner didn't have an untenanted property for 20 weeks. They had you responsible for the rent.You were the absolute best tenant a landlord can ask for. They don't use water, don't ask for repairs, and there is no fear of damage moving in or out.
I wish all our tenants were like that.


Like everyone said hindsight is 20/20. You could have also subletted the property at a reduced rate to minimize your loss.

We did go thru a very similar situation a couple months back. A woman put a damage deposit on a unit that was coming available in July. She signed a lease for 6 months. About 5 days later she called and changed her mind. They were buying a small house instead. She wanted her deposit back.
Rob spoke the Tenancy Officer and said he would most likely rule in her favor if she took us to Tribunal. Timeline was short from when she changed her mind, and it was about 2 months from July.

Good luck at Small Claims Court.
 
Like everyone said hindsight is 20/20. You could have also subletted the property at a reduced rate to minimize your loss.

You're telling me. Hindsight! :D As for subletting the property, I honestly didn't think I could! Believe me, I would have taken on a tenant myself for only $150 or something per week if I could have done so temporarily... I just didn't know.

I never moved in so the property was in the exact condition as the previous tenant to me had left it ... and so yes you could say i was the perfect tenant in that respect. No damage, no need for repairs, lol!
 
For those interested, my hearing date is August 6th @ 2pm. So it will be awhile before we all find out (including me) as to the verdict. I've taken this all very seriously and will honour the verdict if it does not rule in my favour. I'm preparing for it tho' (naturally) I want to win.
 
Sorry to hear of your situation GoldCoastGirl. From your story I'm not sure what else you could have done, or do....however, I also can't see anything the agent has done wrong either. I think you'll find the ruling to come back with many of your points as just clutching at straws.

You may have felt some personal pressure to sign the second lease but that was nothing due to what the agent did...and I wouldn't call that signing under duress. Once you have signed a lease responsibility is on you to find a suitable tenant if you want to break lease, after all as kathrynd said, they had a signed lease with a tenant.

Your situation sucks but I'd recommend keeping things in perspective and keep to facts as this is what any judgements will be ruled on. They will be impressed that the agent is able to provide evidence of advertising the property and the owners willingness to accept a reduced rent to solve the issue. If their files are in order they are not likely to be ruled against in my experience.

Seems to me the agent and owner of the property have done more than required. From reading your story I'm with Goanna, if you have any angles I would have thought it was with your first agent. They seem to have sparked the problem in the first place.

Good luck for August 6 and I hope it works out for you.

Kev
www.gogecko.com.au
 
Well it is today at 2pm we all shall find out what happens! ;D

I have been to the Tenant Advice and Advocacy Service locally. I've organised all paperwork on my end. I will (only if the PM does point out the advertisements as 'proof' first) point out that they only put in one advertisement for the month of April... and there are on inconsistencies in their advertising of the property.

I have my timeline done all correctly in table form on one piece of paper.

I wonder if they will bargain/negotiate with me prior to the actual hearing today? Granted, I have a figure in mind if they do want to offer me something. I'm willing to pay a certain amount by the end of October (due date) otherwise to court we go.

I'll post tomorrow or this week the result.
 
We ended up settling and thus not really actually going ahead with the whole tribunal.

I'll be paying the 'debt' off in installments (an amount i know i can easily afford thus agreed to) over the course of 15 weeks.

Why? Well, they showed me more information about the whole she-bang and thus after seeing the information I didn't know about and being informed about it all... well.. it was plainly obvious to me that I had no chance in winning the case. They had valid reasons (and evidence) why it took them so long.

They actually had someone lined up in April to take on the lease except the person (at the last minute as such) decided to go with another property. Then the feedback they received from people inspecting the property (and they had inspections even on a Sunday for a few people) was valid as I knew the problems with the place.

I always took this whole deal seriously. I paid all monies owed up until this point. I adhered to being bound by the binding nature of the lease.

So they put it to me that I am allowed to pay the debt off in installments that I can afford per week (automatically debit-ed from my account starting Friday next week) instead of having to pay the whole $1620 (etc) off in one payment.......... which was unaffordable for me.

So you could say I lost the case yet ultimately I just realised after being filled in on the whole deal that the $1620 (etc) is justified and actually this PM did do all they could at the time to try to get a tenant... it was just a not ideal unit and thus the unit itself worked against itself from being re-let easily.

So this whole saga and drama is over. YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*happy dance*
 
For the curious, here are some of the reasons (well the ones I remembered) that was given in feedback to the PM about the unit.... thus making the unit it's own worst enemy:

The only readily visible staircase is a spiral staircase at the "front" (or street end) of the property. People would only see and use this spiral staircase during inspections... some of them didn't see the straight stairs at the back of the units where they could easily move furniture into the unit.

The unit is partly furnished. Alot of people thought partly furnished meant that the bedrooms were furnished not just the living room and bits n pieces in the kitchen.

No phone point.

Whilst a washing machine was provided (part of the "party furnished" aspect) it was situated in the bathroom between the toilet and shower. Thus the "excess water" from the washing machine (tube) was pointed to empty into the shower... not the best look. It would've been better to just not have the washing machine in the first place (imo).

The spot where the person would be parking - the carport space alloted the unit - is on a vertical not straight. I can see how that can be a problem... it was for me!

Then the whole advertising "one week's rent free" in the advertisement was not exactly the best move marketing wise IMO. Whilst some people would see the word FREE and especially see that one week's rent is FREE in this supposedly tight competative rental market is a positive... I can easily see how this is a negative... there would've been people going "why are they offering one week's rent free for this property? what is so wrong with it?".

It actually took them 2 weeks less time than the 20 weeks and 3 days in total it took them to find a tenant. Just that the person taking on the lease needed to give his current place two weeks notice thus didn't want to take on the new lease after until his old lease had finished (after his two weeks were up) not during it.
 
So in the wisdom of hindsight would you have moved out of the property you were "evited from" and moved into the unit mentioned above? Or something else that you wish you had done?

I can imagine that its sticks in your throut that the agent that sent you an eviction notice without authority has not paid any penalty for this or shall you being trying to recover some damages from her?
 
In hindsight, I wish had made a simple phone call to my landlord as soon as I heard about the eviction notice.

I had always had his number as he wanted me to ring him direct with any problems etc so therefore I could've asked him if he could explain about the eviction notice I received. It would have been over-turned immediately pretty much at that point (like it did anyway).

Then I would never have started to look at a whole heap of properties... I would never had gotten desparate and taken on the lease. I would never had signed it in the first place let alone looked at the property.

As for the original PM. No. I'm not going to recover any damages from them. Why? I feel the loss of business that happened to them pretty much within a week or two of all this happening back in February (due to the landlord opting to deal with me direct and thus me becoming a private renter) was payback enough.

They lost business. They also will continue to loose business as I won't be recommending either PM anytime soon unfortuantely. Nor will I be inclined to use either PM if I can help it. The Gold Coast PM market is competative enough so there are plenty of other options.

Even with the Southport PM (the one I'm paying the debt to now) showing me proof that they tried their darnest to get a tenant in .. it still took them 20 weeks and 3 days to find a tenant. The most I would tolerate for a property to be vacant (and no one living within it) is 3 months.
 
Back
Top