i'm surprised you'd say that. i thought you would have said 'it only matters what the tribunal grants you'
Today I became a criminal
- Thread starter BuildingBlocks
- Start date
i'm surprised you'd say that. i thought you would have said 'it only matters what the tribunal grants you'
If both parties to the Lease rigidly adhere with exactly what the executed written Lease states, then by definition both parties don't need to involve the tribunal.
I suppose if the Lease states you've been granted 6 months, after you clearly requested more but were denied, then try and hang around a bit longer, regardless of whether you offer to pay rent beyond the agreed term, then I suppose the tribunal is where you'll end up.
Enough....every sensible person knows what I mean.
There is more here than what is written down.
It's an issue of ethics.
It seems that the tenants made it clear that they were wanting a long term lease. The implication was that Yes - it's available for that long but we have to test you out for 6 months first. They would never have moved all their stuff in had they known that there was a possibility that they'd be booted out at the end of 6 months.
So...along jogs Mr LL who doesn't really care what the PM may have said. He's only looking at what's written down. He just wants to move back in which he has every legal right to do.
The way I see it is that the LL stretched the limits of good ethics in allowing his rental to be leased with the expectation that it would be extended.
The tenants stretched the limits of good ethics in holding on by using every rule in the book that they, as experienced LL's, knew they could.
Bingo! they're equal.
It's an issue of ethics.
It seems that the tenants made it clear that they were wanting a long term lease. The implication was that Yes - it's available for that long but we have to test you out for 6 months first. They would never have moved all their stuff in had they known that there was a possibility that they'd be booted out at the end of 6 months.
So...along jogs Mr LL who doesn't really care what the PM may have said. He's only looking at what's written down. He just wants to move back in which he has every legal right to do.
The way I see it is that the LL stretched the limits of good ethics in allowing his rental to be leased with the expectation that it would be extended.
The tenants stretched the limits of good ethics in holding on by using every rule in the book that they, as experienced LL's, knew they could.
Bingo! they're equal.
Well no, ethics doesn't come into play and no, they're not equal.
It's what in the contract that matters and the Residential Laws, that's what they're there for. If you're served notice, you f*** off, simple. No one likes it, but you can always speak to the PM or LL about extending it, and if they will not allow for it, then too bad.
If you wish to bring ethics into play - no one knows the real reason that the LL wanted to move back in. Give them the benefit of the doubt and we'll assume that they're circumstances changed, without notice.
it matters what the tribunal will say, not what the contract says. we all know the tribunal will favour the tenant. by the time you get the tenant out the damage is done.
this would normally damage the tenants ability to rent another place. but i think the op doesn't care as they will move back to being OO's. the op is doing unto others what has been done to him.
The tribunal doesn't always favour the tenant, it depends on the situation. In this instance my parents were in the wrong and I can almost assure you it would rule against them and the LL might've even be able to claim compensation for the amount paid for a hotel.
And just because it's "pay back" it makes it right? No. Two wrongs don't make a right, which is what my hypocritical parents have always told me.
If people followed the LAW then everything would work a little smoother.
Last edited:
Putting aside ethics, she said he said and opinion and sticking to the matter of law...from a factsheet on the matter "The landlord/agent must follow one of the processes outlined above before you can be evicted. Locking you out without a CTTT or court order is illegal – the landlord/agent can be fined up to $22,000 and ordered to compensate you."
So although a notice to vacate is issued the tenant is under no obligation to vacate without an order to vacate. Our decision to stay was perfectly legal and above board, so there is no need for you to be ashamed.
Regards
Andrew
OK people, a bit more info. The PM did originally tell us that we should have no issue in extending the lease, however it was their initial policy with all new tenancies to put them on an initial 6 month lease. We requested that she let the LL know that we did, however, wish to stay longer and that if there was likely to be a problem with this, then we would prefer to lease a different property. We were assured that this had been done and everything was fine.
We did not receive notice at the end of the 6 month term. We were prepared to move, if need be at the 6 month term but the PM said that they were happy with us and we could continue. We repeatedly asked to sign another longer term lease, as was originally agreed, but there were various delay tactics put in place. After doing this for two months we then received the termination letter stating the reason as the LL needing to move back in. As soon as we got the termination letter, although somewhat annoyed, we did immediately look for alternate accommodation. We did not stay there in order to be a nuisance, we stayed there because we had nowhere else to go. We did not withhold payment, however the PM refused to accept it.
Despite the termination notice stating that the LL wanted to move into the property, this certainly is not what happened. The house was gutted and a very lengthy reno was done on the place. This being the case, someone was certainly dishonest with the termination notice. Now, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the relevant info, but I believe that the termination should have been a termination on no grounds, which gives a longer time to the tenant to find alternate accommodation than the termination we received. From memory (although I am a little hazy on details as this was some time ago) we received about 21 days notice, when it should have been 60.
From the very start we were honest and forthright with all information to the PM. They were kept informed every step of the way.
IF it had escalated to the tribunal, I believe we would have been granted an extension due to the situation, but it never went to tribunal because we didn't overstay long enough for it to get that far. It was only a couple of weeks.
Lil, there were many things that transpired during that time that you were not aware of and I take great offence to some of your statements here. If you want to talk about it, I am more than happy to discuss this with you over the phone. This was a time of great stress to both of your parents who did the best they could with the particular situation we found ourselves in at the time
We did not receive notice at the end of the 6 month term. We were prepared to move, if need be at the 6 month term but the PM said that they were happy with us and we could continue. We repeatedly asked to sign another longer term lease, as was originally agreed, but there were various delay tactics put in place. After doing this for two months we then received the termination letter stating the reason as the LL needing to move back in. As soon as we got the termination letter, although somewhat annoyed, we did immediately look for alternate accommodation. We did not stay there in order to be a nuisance, we stayed there because we had nowhere else to go. We did not withhold payment, however the PM refused to accept it.
Despite the termination notice stating that the LL wanted to move into the property, this certainly is not what happened. The house was gutted and a very lengthy reno was done on the place. This being the case, someone was certainly dishonest with the termination notice. Now, I don't have the time at the moment to look up the relevant info, but I believe that the termination should have been a termination on no grounds, which gives a longer time to the tenant to find alternate accommodation than the termination we received. From memory (although I am a little hazy on details as this was some time ago) we received about 21 days notice, when it should have been 60.
From the very start we were honest and forthright with all information to the PM. They were kept informed every step of the way.
IF it had escalated to the tribunal, I believe we would have been granted an extension due to the situation, but it never went to tribunal because we didn't overstay long enough for it to get that far. It was only a couple of weeks.
Lil, there were many things that transpired during that time that you were not aware of and I take great offence to some of your statements here. If you want to talk about it, I am more than happy to discuss this with you over the phone. This was a time of great stress to both of your parents who did the best they could with the particular situation we found ourselves in at the time
Last edited:
Well you didn't say you didn't receive an order - you said you received an NTV but stayed longer than you were meant to.
No, I wasnt aware of any of it - I was what, 11? The point I was trying to make was that you two, and many people, complain about tenants doing this and that - but when it's on the othe foot it's okay.
You never said you didn't get an order, you basically just said you were served then decided you'd be a PITA to the LL because it's "not fair".
I would've said what I had said earlier to anyone, just for the record. You know that, I don't mean to offend but I was very surprised at the way you both described the situation.
I believe in being fair. If you recall, the only time I have ever complained about tenants is when they have trashed a place or they don't pay their rent. Oh, and maybe the ones that whinge about a rent rise too. The tribunal often gives the tenant repeatedly more and more time to 'catch up' and leaves the landlord out of pocket.
IF I had a tenant that was looking after a property and promptly paying their rent I would have no issue at all with them overstaying for a couple of weeks for the settlement of a property. Likewise I have also given grace to another tenant for arrears when they were in a tough situation. The difference is communication.
In the instance of the tenant that we were lenient with, they contacted the PM immediately they knew there was going to be a problem and kept us completely informed of the situation. They knew beforehand the date that they could pay, and they were honourable and paid up exactly as was agreed.
In another instance I had a long term tenant who left a lease early because they had been given a H/C home. At the time, I was within my rights to chase her for break fees, but I chose not to. Again, she was honest and informed us straight away. She also appeared to care that she was inconveniencing us, unlike some of he less than honourable tenants we have had.
Life is a two way street. Yes, I'm the first to stand up and take action when a tenent does the wrong thing, but there can also be give and take, and not all things are black and white. Like I said before, communication is the key.
We are in a similar situation now.
The tenants asked for a couple of extra weeks as they are buying a house. We said no, they had to pay for another month, but if we found a tenant to take it earlier, they wouldn't be charged for that extra time.
They have decided to move at the Feb, and be inconvenienced for a couple of weeks. We have secured a new tenant for March 1.
Whenever possible, we do try to work with a tenant, unless they have been a real PITA.
The tenants asked for a couple of extra weeks as they are buying a house. We said no, they had to pay for another month, but if we found a tenant to take it earlier, they wouldn't be charged for that extra time.
They have decided to move at the Feb, and be inconvenienced for a couple of weeks. We have secured a new tenant for March 1.
Whenever possible, we do try to work with a tenant, unless they have been a real PITA.
So BuildingBlocks........have you trashed the place yet?
changed the locks and demanded:
air conditioning
dishwasher
security screens
new carpet
lawn to me mowed
rubbish bins taken out on a weekly basis
You demanded all those things?
Sheesh! if you were my tenant I'd be giving you an earful of "You rented the place 'as is', so we won't be providing any of your 'demands'." And if you really annoyed me, you might just find that your stay in my property was not for as long as you hoped.Oops! I just realised that the quoted quote was not made by Building Blocks. My appologies.
Last edited:
- Brought in your five Doberman's and requested a rent decrease as the backyard isn't really big enough for them?
- Sublet two of the bedrooms out to those 'mates' you met in the pub last week?
- Informed them you're probably going to be late with rent payments for the next month or two as your wife is about to have a baby and you need to have some extra money for those expenses?
- Told the PM your neighbour is a jerk and they need to do something about him?
- Sublet two of the bedrooms out to those 'mates' you met in the pub last week?
- Informed them you're probably going to be late with rent payments for the next month or two as your wife is about to have a baby and you need to have some extra money for those expenses?
- Told the PM your neighbour is a jerk and they need to do something about him?
You demanded all those things?
Oops! I just realised that the quoted quote was not made by Building Blocks. My appologies.
yes it was sarcastic extension of steves post.
Yeah, I realised after I'd posted, but thought rather than delete the post, I'd just appologise and let everyone else see how silly I am.
i think you're being far to reasonable. why would you bother telling the LL you will be late?
you left out:
car on blocks in the front yard
washers need changing
air con isn't cold enough
beer bottle collection on balcony
Similar threads
