Verbal Agreement?

[kathryn d]

What is called a Fixed term Lease here , is what we (Canada) refer to a year lease.At the end of the year, a tenant is permitted to ask to go to a month to month lease. It is granted unless the landlord can provide a good reason for objecting.This in fact would make the tenant be the one taking the LL to court..which most wouldn't.
If a LL stated it makes finding tenants difficult during nonpeak times, wouldn't that suffice? Has anyone ever tried?

LL-
If the tenants are going to be an inconvenience to you and your profit..get rid of them.
Simple, do not resign. Pm's do not work for you. They are paid by you. They work for their company, who hires them.
The sooner you learn this, they better off you will be.

 

[Perp]

I bet if you served a 120 day no specific reason along side the new lease and say it will be withdrawn if they sign a new lease, the tenant may take you to VCAT and they'll probably win as they have a right to remain on a month to month basis

Are you seriously suggesting that tenants have a "right" to go off a fixed-term lease and onto month-to-month, or is that just what you think is fair, and reinforcing that that's what happens by default? Nobody's denying that it's what happens unless one party intervenes, and that tenants may assume that that's what will happen, but that's a long way from making it a "right".

How would you reconcile the existence of such a right with the landlord's need to maintain their landlord insurance?

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 think this is actually less transparent and up-front, because you're presenting the fixed-term lease like it's an option, whereas in reality, their options aren't fixed or variable term, the tenant's options are fixed or nothing. At least when you do it the way that my PM does it, the tenant knows where they stand when they decide whether or not to sign the fixed lease. In fact, it was doing it precisely this way which landed liverpoolharryk in trouble!

All my tenants are given a heads-up when they first sign up that they'll be getting a vacate notice and offer of a new lease simultaneously, so it's not a big shock. The covering letter from the agency also explains the situation.

This practise is widespread in QLD and we also have an extremely tenant-friendly Tribunal, believe me! I'd be interested to see a case - if one exists - where such a practise has been ruled unacceptable, in either state.

I hope you would know that I'm not criticising you or anybody else, Sam; I know you're smart (as well as gorgeous!), I'm just interested to hear different viewpoints, and probe where they come from. Much of what people think is fact is actually "common practise" or "what we've always done" or "what I think is fair" - including my own beliefs, of course! And I'm trying to figure out whether we really have differing laws and/or Tribunals, or whether it's just the exposure we've had to various practises which differs.

 

[Peterw]

Perp, having lived and worked in real estate in Victoria, yes there are differences (albeit subtle ones) in the laws between each state, but also there are differences in day to day practices. In my reading of both your and LS's comments, you both basically have the same view, its the subtleties of the differing practices in each state that flow to slightly differing approaches, but outcomes are not that far away from each other. I believe our QCAT, is newer that VCAT, so LS may have a bit more experience on their view, that we do on QCAT, however my early experience tells me, I would have done no better, if I had not turned up. I do agree, that just because we used to do it that way, is always worth questioning. is there a better way.

 

[Lil Skater]

Perp, maybe one day I'll toy with it to see what happens.

I do know that a previous PM of my office served a 120 day no notice NTV after trying to get them out after some indiscretions and it was deemed by VCAT that the notice was to be revoked, as there was actually a reason.

I just feel that is how VCAT would look at this kind of situation as well.

As far as different laws/tribunals go, it is a reality - This is why there is not a national blanket for agents. Which quite frankly, I think is stupid, it would be much easier for all to understand if everything was standardised.

 

[Perp]

I do know that a previous PM of my office served a 120 day no notice NTV after trying to get them out after some indiscretions and it was deemed by VCAT that the notice was to be revoked, as there was actually a reason.

I must say that the whole idea of "you can't give a notice with no reason if there is a reason" is absurd! In reality, there must always be some reason why a landlord wants a tenant out - whether it's because they want to do a renovation, they want to move into it themselves, or whether they'd rather it were vacant than have the hassle of renting it. Nobody truly has absolutely no reason for their choices - if they did, they'd be psychotic.

I've not heard this particular issue dealt with by QCAT, but I fervently hope they'd take a differing view and say that a "no reason" notice was exactly that - for no particular reason and thus unable to be disputed.

As far as different laws/tribunals go, it is a reality - This is why there is not a national blanket for agents. Which quite frankly, I think is stupid, it would be much easier for all to understand if everything was standardised.

Oh, I know the laws are different, I was just trying to identify whether this particular issue is related to different *laws* or different *interpretations*.

And yes, national laws/compatibility on tenancy, as well as sale of real estate, motor vehicle registration, licencing of various types, schooling, hospitals, pharmacy, and undoubtedly many other issues would make life a LOT simpler. When we run this country and have all the states on side, Lil, we'll sort 'em out.

 

[Whozat]

All my tenants are given a heads-up when they first sign up that they'll be getting a vacate notice and offer of a new lease simultaneously, so it's not a big shock. The covering letter from the agency also explains the situation.

This practise is widespread in QLD and we also have an extremely tenant-friendly Tribunal, believe me! I'd be interested to see a case - if one exists - where such a practise has been ruled unacceptable, in either state.

That sounds like good approach. If at the beginning of the tenancy the tenants are also given the heads up that the property will be available on an ongoing basis for 'fixed lease only', then any follow up where lease and NTV are sent simultaneously will be 'situation normal' for the tenants. As Bradcon says, many would in fact expect it. That should improve the tenants understanding of the situation no matter which State laws apply.

Until the tenancy law changes in Qld in July 2009, I didn't feel there was an issue with expecting tenancies to be on a fixed term lease and previously, as a tenant, that's what I expected as well. Situation normal. Now it just takes more notice to establish the same situation. Tenant can choose to leave at the end of the lease, or sign a new fixed lease agreement, and in the ideal world, that term will suit both parties.

I think some agencies have been slow to deal effectively with the changes and ended up letting leases run over before they realised that they needed to be more organised at around 90 days in advance (in Qld).