What a joke !

[Dazz]

First rule of property investing ......"The tenant has all the rights". Actually I'm not sure why this statement isn't written into every lease agreement ...

This is the bit that Chris01 doesn't quite get yet.

He's still under the old paradigm where he believes that as Landlord, he is the boss.

 

[Y33]

Chris, if you are really worked up about the situation:

1) Get the exit report.
2) Check for the items that you claim are missing.
3) Lodge an insurance claims on grounds of theft for missing items.
(or ask pm to contact previous tenants for return of items or insurance claim for theft will be lodged with both insurance company and police)

Or you could put this into the annoying file and move on.

I'm sure you've got better things to concentrate on.

 

[skater]

All I can say is, thank your lucky stars that you didn't have a nightmare tenant that didn't pay the rent for 6 months and trashed the place making it uninhabitable, especially if this is firing you up.

Well said!

 

[chris01]

I think it's time to end this topic.
Firstly I would like to thank all the input posted here.
Secondly I will return 2 days rental.
Thirdly I still believe that tenants should clean and tidy up the property before handing over the key and the IP should be ready for the next tenants. If they fail then they should face consequences.

I now realised that the drama was caused by poor communication. What happened was that our PM was acting as a messenger, cutting and pasting emails from us and tenants. This caused a lot of confusion. It's not good enough.
Of course there are some other issues regarding exit condition of the IP, which still need to be resolved.
Yes, I need to find another PM. If I had a tenant refusing to pay rent for 6 months then I would have been in big trouble.

PS: I'm not going to report missing Yellow Pages to police. This may be a minor "crime" but it does tell you how "good" these tenants were.

 

[Y33]

The insurance/police report is more for the expensive light globes and filter system or have I read it wrong?

 

[chris01]

The insurance/police report is more for the expensive light globes and filter system or have I read it wrong?

Sorry Y33, I was responding to someone else's discussion regarding missing Yellow pages.

 

[kathryn d]

Chris01,
I will take the opposing view to most of the others here, as usual

The tenant gave up possession..then asked for it back to continue cleaning.
We would consider that possession continued until they handed back the keys the second time.
If more cleaning was required to bring it to the standard in which they initially rented it, take lots of photos, and charge them for the additional cleaning.
If the rent they paid did not cover these additional days, claim it against their bond.

If they don't agree, let them file against you.

 

[Lil Skater]

If the rent they paid did not cover these additional days, claim it against their bond.

You have the right idea - But this wouldn't get through tribunal.

Most residential tenancy laws here are in the favour of the tenant. Like the LL must give so many days notice to vacate and if there isn't a reason it's 120 days, but for the tenant it's 28 days no matter what and if you serve them with a notice to vacate they can give you 14 days notice within that period (Vic).

If you took this case to tribunal saying they had to go back and clean and you want to keep the rent for the two days they had the keys, the tribunal would probably say that the tenant has the right to try and rectify any issues with the cleanliness of the property and any repairs before you can claim their bond - Even once they've vacated as long as they didn't take up residence in that period.

 

[Perp]

the tribunal would probably say that the tenant has the right to try and rectify any issues with the cleanliness of the property and any repairs before you can claim their bond - Even once they've vacated as long as they didn't take up residence in that period.

I'm sure they would. I think kathryn_d would have us try and fight to change the precedents. But spending $10s of K in Court to win the right to pursue tenants for a couple of $100... no, thanks.

I'll just accept being labelled as lazy and apathetic by kathryn_d.

 

[kathryn d]

All I'm saying is put the onus on the tenant to claim.Most times they won't even bother.
Why would you be paying $$$ going to court?

We have very similar rules in Canada. In many ways yours are more lax.Our tenants need to be 30 days in arrears, and then give them 15 day Notice to Quit. If we allow them to be on a monthly lease, they must give 30 days notice, but we need to give 3 months., if they want to leave.That is why we generally use Fixed term Leases. They must leave at the end of the lease unless we permit them to stay.

Who ever files, usually has the onus of proof.
The premises was handed back, as far as you are concerned, on the second time. What is the tenant going to say? Um...we left it in a really big mess and it took 2 days to clean? Don't think so.

It won't cost you anything.It would be the tenant filing and paying the cost.

Do you LLs ever push the envelope?
No wonder tenants are getting all the rights.
You just bend over and smile.

I just did a quick glance..but it seems to be on $20 to file in Qld.

 

[Lil Skater]

The premises was handed back, as far as you are concerned, on the second time. What is the tenant going to say? Um...we left it in a really big mess and it took 2 days to clean? Don't think so.

Those rules do suck.. In Vic we have different notices to vacate depending on the situation.

Anyway, back to the rent money. All I know is the tenant is allowed time to rectify any problems outlined in the final inspection or they can nominate to have it taken out of the bond. If the problem wasn't rectified then you can go after the bond.

The thing is, rent is different to claiming for cleaning out of the bond. If the tenant vacated when they were meant to and handed the keys in but they still had money on their account, they must be given back the rent money, because that money was for rent and occupancy of the property - Not cleaning expenses.

Chris also cannot claim the rent out of the bond as the tenant wasn't in arrears, he can however, claim for cleaning of the property if it wasn't in a reasonable condition when the tenant handed the keys back the second time.

It's stupid, it should be done right the first time, but the agent must allow them the choice to clean it themselves, get someone else to clean it and they pay out of their own pocket or have that amount taken out of the bond.

If they did not occupy the property you cannot take rent as it is separate to bond, as I said you can only do this if they paid too much, but you can keep it if they said they were vacating two days later than they did.

 

[kathryn d]

Lil Skater,
I was looking at this
http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/when_the_tenant_moves_out.cfm

but can you show me where in this or any other ACT where it states the tenant must be permitted to return to clean the premises, free of rental charge?

Just because a PM allows it, doesn't make it so.

 

[skater]

I think you will find that Lil is right. Having properties in more than one State, you quickly realise that the rules are different in each State. Usually not by a lot, but there certainly are differences.

The Act you quoted is for QLD, whereas Lil is in VIC.

I know that with my own IPs there have been times when a tenant has been allowed back to clean, however they are mostly too lazy to do this, so we clean and they pay from their bond.

 

[kathryn d]

I understand that Skater, but the OP is from Qld.

Our rules are different in every province too.

I'd be interested in seeing where it states it in Victoria too.

I'm not trying to be rude here.Really.
I just think you need to be more pro-active.

 

[skater]

I'm not trying to be rude here.Really.

I know that!

I just think you need to be more pro-active

.
I would mostly agree with this too, but sometimes I feel (if it isn't a biggie) that I just can't be bothered. Maybe I'm just getting soft in my old age.

 

[Perp]

All I'm saying is put the onus on the tenant to claim.Most times they won't even bother.

If you're just "trying it on", well, good luck, but in my experience, that money means a lot to tenants and they'll fight it.

Why would you be paying $$$ going to court?

Because I've been to more than a few Tribunal hearings and you'd only get the tenant to pay for cleaning time if you established a binding precedent in a higher court. That would require going to the Court of Appeal. You'd have to lodge for leave to appeal, first permission from QCAT to take it to Court of Appeal, then secondly, get leave from Court of Appeal for them to hear it. Filing the appeal costs $505, and I'm not sure, but you may have to pay that twice - once for leave to appeal, and then for the appeal proper.

So you're talking at least 3 days of attendance (and it's rarely less than a 6-hour trip, in my experience), plus at least $505, before you even get to representation. And since you want to overturn the entrenched precedent set by all the Tribunal members (senior jurists) in QCAT over many years, I'm thinking you'd want to be represented by a pretty good Counsel, which will cost you many thousands. (You can self-represent, but I'm thinking the odds of the Appeal bench saying "oh yes, all you bush lawyers are right, our fellow jurists at QCAT are all wrong" are pretty minuscule. )

What is the tenant going to say? Um...we left it in a really big mess and it took 2 days to clean? Don't think so.

Sure they do; absolutely! I've seen tenants say exactly that, and QCAT has still not required them to pay for the cleaning time. Perhaps you should go spend a day or two at QCAT... I suspect you'd find it quite interesting.

I don't think we Aussies are more inclined to want things to go the tenants way, just perhaps that we know what we're up against, and don't see the point in getting worked up fighting battles which experience has told us we'll lose.

 

[Peterw]

Perp, we have had some success with telling tenants, their rent is upo to the time that they hand back the property in an acceptable condition. Like you, we will not waste out time trying to argue it in the tribunal.

 

[JamesGG]

In Victoria, the requirement for the property to be kept in a reasonably clean condition is specified under s63 (or, s188 in QLD).

From there, we can see under s419 that the landlord may apply for bond moneys to be withheld and paid to the landlord, if that condition is not met at the conclusion of the lease. (In Qld, s125 allows the landlord to apply for bond moneys, with s136 requiring notice to be given to the tenant to allow for conflict resolution before payment).

So far, so good.

Now, s39 (or s97 in QLD) states that rent accrues on a daily basis and is payable or refundable accordingly.

s219 and s235 (for Victoria, depending on which party issued notice) allow for a lease to be terminated on a specific date. Taken with s39, above, means that rent is payable or refundable based only until that specified date. (Termination of leases for QLD is dealt with by s277, for either party giving notice, and s97 per above would also apply equally).



So! We can see that the Act allows for a lease to be terminated by either party. That termination takes affect on a specified date so many days in advance, depending on the type of notice given. The landlord thus has no right to collect rent for use of property beyond that date; the tenant has no right to use the property for their own means beyond that date, either. A landlord, then, would be liable to refund rent if the tenant has paid beyond the termination date. That settles that side of the argument.

Now if the property is not in a reasonably clean condition at that point, the landlord may then request the appropriate funds to be withheld from the bond to cover the cost of doing so themselves. There is no part of the Act (for either state), I believe, which provides a right for the tenants to return to the property and clean it themselves afterwards.

However, legislation is translated in terms of case law, and precedent by many tribunal hearings has taught property managers to allow the tenants to come back and clean the property after the lease has ended. It's usually faster and more effective than fighting through both the tribunal and the bond authority, even if there is no right for the landlord to collect rent for that period.

 

[Lil Skater]

A landlord, then, would be liable to refund rent if the tenant has paid beyond the termination date. That settles that side of the argument.

Now if the property is not in a reasonably clean condition at that point, the landlord may then request the appropriate funds to be withheld from the bond to cover the cost of doing so themselves. There is no part of the Act (for either state), I believe, which provides a right for the tenants to return to the property and clean it themselves afterwards.

Thanks James!

So I was right about withholding the rent, but I wasn't about the access after the keys were handed in. I could've sworn that I read through this in my course though, so maybe it's just what's taught to agents to keep VCAT for bigger matters.

Personally though, as these are separate matters I would refund the rent and go after the bond money for cleaning the premises, as rent is for the occupancy of the property.

 

[kathryn d]

Perp,
Bad tenants are mostly full of hot air.

We "try it on" all the time. When our feral tenants leave the place disgusting, we take most of their bond. They get angry and say they are taking us to court. We tell them go ahead. they cash the Bond cheque, and most of the time we never hear from them again.
Sometimes we do end up in a hearing, and sometimes we lose.That's part of the game.They had to pay the $28 for the hearing.

How do you know there is not a precedent? Has anybody looked?

Do you think a tenant is going to come back from interstate (as the OP said) to attend a hearing for possibly 3 days?

Where was the Pm in this, when the keys were handed back. Did they do an inspection before accepting the keys? Doesn't seem likely.
There are 2 parties here the LL can go after for this financial loss to the LL.