Wow, it sounds harder there than in QLD. Once we register it with the Magistrates' Court, they issue and serve the summons. Are you sure that all this is in your court?
Verbal Agreement?
- Thread starter bradcon
- Start date
Since you know where the LL lives, ask a friend to serve him, while you video it.If you go to the door, he may not answer it.
Your friend will just need to sign an affidavit.
It can be frustrating, as we have been through this as well, several times.
Once we had to drive 400 km each way, spend the night in a motel, because the ex-tenant didn't work until that next day. All we knew is where she worked, so we served her..in phone store in the mall
Thankfully, after all this effort, we did get paid.
The "mini working vacation" was tax deductible for us...so it wasn't too bad.
We have a few more waiting to be served when we return to Canada in May.
Well i can employ someone to do it but that is up to me. The court wont serve him. I have alot of people telling me its 'Not my problem' from the REA to the LL to the Police. Its a civil matter.
Since you know where the LL lives, ask a friend to serve him, while you video it.If you go to the door, he may not answer it.
Your friend will just need to sign an affidavit.
It can be frustrating, as we have been through this as well, several times.
Once we had to drive 400 km each way, spend the night in a motel, because the ex-tenant didn't work until that next day. All we knew is where she worked, so we served her..in phone store in the mall
Thankfully, after all this effort, we did get paid.
The "mini working vacation" was tax deductible for us...so it wasn't too bad.
We have a few more waiting to be served when we return to Canada in May.
Yeah i think that is my next step. I dont need it filmed, just the affidavit will suffice in this instance but i do like your thinking. In fact the more i think about it the better that sounds!!!
We were faced with the same thing. The sherrif would have served at $200 fee, but we had to tell him where to find the person and what time they would be there.
We didn't know, so decided we would have to do it ourself.
The time we couldn't find the tenant , we were granted permission to serve the papers to his father.
The tenant showed up in court then.
Just for anyone that doesn't know the legislation for particular states, this is incorrect for Victoria and may well be for different states.
Yes you can do this, but personally I think it's a bit harsh. I wonder what would tribunal would have to say about it..
If its on paper then its real.
In Queensland, this is the only way that you can prevent tenants from reverting to a month-to-month lease, and as such, it's close to standard procedure. Given that this is what the legislation requires, I can't see that Tribunal could have any problem with it.
Or do you think it's harsh to insist that tenants stay on fixed-term agreements?
as a tenant i wouldn't have an issue with that happening. I expect it to happen at the end of our current lease. Is it bad to say that if it didnt happen i would have no hesitation in not signing unless the PM actually follows up? As a LL you need to protect your investment and a fixed-term lease does this (to some degree). In our case we knew we didnt want to stay the 12 months, checked out where we stood and simply didnt sign. Its up to the PM to follow up on these things, to protect the LL, HOWEVER i would like to think that there is room for negotiations if the tenant didnt want to stay the full 12 months (6 month lease for example).
Serving the 2 notices concurrently i think is smart business sense, i decent tenant will see it for what it is.
Not at all; if I were a tenant I'd do the same.
But that's why my PM always follows up. I'm not fussed about fixed re periodic for a standard house, as I find they can be let any time of year, but with my student accommodation, the leases simply *must* end around 1 Feb and 1 Jul or I can have them empty for months. We don't make the leases an even 6- or 12-months, but whatever length is necessary to end in the peak windows.
We never do that. I'd view it a threatening the tenant to sign a lease or leave, and I don't think the tribunal in Vic would see it a being fair as you'd have to give a 120 day NTV for no specific reason, but there is a specific reason - the tenant doesn't wish to sign a new lease.
Plus it's also not fair if a tenant is more or less *made* to sign a 12 month lease but then incurs fees if their situation changes and they must break their lease.
Don't get me wrong, I work for the landlord, I've just never heard of this until now.
It's not so much a "threat" as a statement of the two options available to the tenant.
But it's fair for the landlord to have to wear a vacancy, because the tenant changes circumstances?Lil Skater said:
Are you *sure* you're on the landlord's side? Admittedly, my situation's a bit different; I don't think its unreasonable to require students to commit for a semester.
But it's fair for the landlord to have to wear a vacancy, because the tenant changes circumstances?
Not at all, but it's just seems to say "you're here for years, or not here at all".
As a landlord you're always going to have vacancies and your tenants are going to more than likely move on at some stage, but why should they be charged to break their lease if they didn't want the lease?
I'm off to VCAT tomorrow, maybe I should ask
I agree with Lil Skater I have never heard of the option of sign a new lease or a notice to vacate before until reading this forum, some tenants have valid reasons for not wishing to resign leases. I do not think the CTTT in NSW would view this type of thing in a positive way.
From our Landlords point of view we would always recommend to them a fixed term lease is best for them as it does help to control the time of years you get vacancies i.e. not having agreements expire in December, it also alleviates the 90 day notice period required on expired agreements. There is also the insurance issue where many policies will not pay rent default without a fixed term agreement.
However the OFT have been holding public seminars in Sydney and they were advising the tenants NOT to resign into new agreements as it reduces their rights.....I did not think the OFT were there to give opinions!
This is off their website
Community activities
Over the next few weeks and months, Fair Trading will be visiting shopping centres and community spaces across NSW to give tenants and landlords the opportunity to find out about the new laws. Go to the Tenancy reforms events page for a complete list of all activities in regional and metropolitan areas.
From our Landlords point of view we would always recommend to them a fixed term lease is best for them as it does help to control the time of years you get vacancies i.e. not having agreements expire in December, it also alleviates the 90 day notice period required on expired agreements. There is also the insurance issue where many policies will not pay rent default without a fixed term agreement.
However the OFT have been holding public seminars in Sydney and they were advising the tenants NOT to resign into new agreements as it reduces their rights.....I did not think the OFT were there to give opinions!
This is off their website
Community activities
Over the next few weeks and months, Fair Trading will be visiting shopping centres and community spaces across NSW to give tenants and landlords the opportunity to find out about the new laws. Go to the Tenancy reforms events page for a complete list of all activities in regional and metropolitan areas.
I dont think its a case of here for years, its more about security for the LL. I would hope that if i was in a property for a few years and decided that maybe i wanted to move in 6 months or was about to buy that something could be worked out. Communication is the key. It just seems that as soon as the initial rental period lapses the pendulum swings pretty strongly in the favour of the Tenant in terms of vacating.
I love how this thread has moved in a diferent direction!
UPDATE ON ORGINAL SITUATION: Still waiting for the cheque. Agent/Co-Owner of agency has claimed that he has been alone in the office for the last few days and put in the mail 'today' (being yesterday). Little does he realise that if i dont get the cheque by Tuesday i wont have enough time to make sure everything is above board and ill have to take his LL to court. Clock is ticking....
No, it's not about how long they stay for, but about timing their departure.
Because in this past week, and in about the 2nd week of July, I could let 100 rooms (I have 16), but in 4 weeks' time I'll struggle to let 1, if 1 became available. If I agree to knock back heaps of other people and hold a room for somebody and assure them that they have accommodation for the whole semester, then they have to do the right thing in return and agree they'll stay for the whole semester.Lil Skater said:
I don't have a problem with that. And if they want or have to leave, they can usually find somebody to take over more easily than I can, because of their networks in the student world.So given that you admit that there can be very good reasons for wanting only fixed term leases, how do you help your landlords achieve that?
Exactly.
And thanks for not minding us detouring.
Accepting Bradcon does not mind the detour, there is a view, that a tenancy agreement, has a start date, and no end date. It does have an end date of the "fixed term". That is, that tenant will not vacate any sooner than .....
So, if the tenant, is uncertain about them being there for a full 6 months, they vacate, and then sign an agreement for their new premises, for 6 months, and the landlord pays a new let fee, may have a short period ot time vacant inbetween tenants, to secure a new fixed term, with an end date of their choosing. The new tenants circumstances suddenly change within the first month, they give notice of intention to vacate (2 weeks required in Qld), and the LL has to mitigate their loss, and advertise the property for rent. It is a quiet period, and there is some period of time with no applications. The tenant applies to QCAT for a determination, and the Tribunal member decides that had the LL done all they could have to mitigate their loss, including reducing the rent if they had to, the property should have let within the month, and awards only one months rent patable by the departing tenant to the LL. This was a recent and publicised decision of QCAT. On balance, trying to find some common ground between what a tenants needs are, and the LL's, and the costs all round canm be reduced. Perp, your circumstances are a little different, and I do appreciate that you really do only have 2 windows.
So, if the tenant, is uncertain about them being there for a full 6 months, they vacate, and then sign an agreement for their new premises, for 6 months, and the landlord pays a new let fee, may have a short period ot time vacant inbetween tenants, to secure a new fixed term, with an end date of their choosing. The new tenants circumstances suddenly change within the first month, they give notice of intention to vacate (2 weeks required in Qld), and the LL has to mitigate their loss, and advertise the property for rent. It is a quiet period, and there is some period of time with no applications. The tenant applies to QCAT for a determination, and the Tribunal member decides that had the LL done all they could have to mitigate their loss, including reducing the rent if they had to, the property should have let within the month, and awards only one months rent patable by the departing tenant to the LL. This was a recent and publicised decision of QCAT. On balance, trying to find some common ground between what a tenants needs are, and the LL's, and the costs all round canm be reduced. Perp, your circumstances are a little different, and I do appreciate that you really do only have 2 windows.
I don't think that's unreasonable; why did the landlord not advertise at lower rent, I wonder? If the first tenant was paying $400pw, and the landlord can only get somebody to finish the lease by dropping the rent to $380pw, I think it's fair that the first tenant should pay $20pw for the remaining length of the lease, and would hope the Tribunal would support that. I'm assuming if you start at $400pw and drop price each week in a similar pattern as you would do if it were vacant, Tribunal will back the landlord's right to be compensated for losses.
My circumstances are unusual, but that doesn't detract from the fact that many people have, for example, insurers who require fixed term leases. Aren't these landlords also entitled to protect themselves? (I know you're not explicitly saying that they aren't, but some other posters seem to be suggesting that insisting on fixed term leases is unreasonable.)Peterw said:
How would priscilla and Lil Skater advise such landlords to protect themselves?
Continuing on the detour.....
I'm strongly in favour of having only fixed term leases and think its good business sense for my situation. I would also be very interested to hear of how PM's are successfully dealing with this in Qld so as to avoid periodic tenancies.
I agree. Communication is key. The length of a new lease can be negotiated to suit the needs of both parties. There will be tenants who value having a lease, and there will be tenants who only want periodic. I'll happily take those that want a lease, at the expense of having perhaps more relet fees along the way.
I'm strongly in favour of having only fixed term leases and think its good business sense for my situation. I would also be very interested to hear of how PM's are successfully dealing with this in Qld so as to avoid periodic tenancies.
I agree. Communication is key. The length of a new lease can be negotiated to suit the needs of both parties. There will be tenants who value having a lease, and there will be tenants who only want periodic. I'll happily take those that want a lease, at the expense of having perhaps more relet fees along the way.
I would always recommend a fixed term lease, I would also always add someone to a lease if they've moved into the property to protect the landlord. I do work for the landlord.
But the laws are different in Victoria and Queensland, I bet if you served a 120 day no specific reason along side the new lease and say it will be withdrawn if they sign a new lease, the tenant may take you to VCAT and they'll probably win as they have a right to remain on a month to month basis, personally I don't think it's a good way to do business either - Especially if you have a good tenant.
If a landlord wants a fixed term lease, I would issue the new lease documents, if they haven't been returned after following up with the tenants then I would speak to the landlord and then serve the 120 day notice period for no specific cause, if this is what they wish.
I am surprised at how many people have taken this all the wrong way.
Put it this way, I went to VCAT the other day for a 14 day NTV for rental arrears. It would've been a clear cut case - Although the tenant had a social worker there who said they will fund everything for them. We can now no longer issue a 120 day no reason NTV because of the social worker, as we would actually have a reason to kick them out. Sounds silly, but that's how the system works here and that is the point I was trying to make, not that you can't kick out the poor little tenants.
