Why you shouldn't accept rent up-front.

Hi All,

I just wanted to share my recent experience that relates to a landlord accepting rent up-front, and share a general warning regarding this common practice.

When people apply for properties through our agency, they often will ask if the owner would be likely to accept their application instead of others, if they offer to pay for the entire 6 month/12 month lease upfront. It is our practice to tell them that it is unnecessary, and the best tenants are the ones who pay on-time, every time.

Recently we signed up a tenant who had offered to pay the balance of rent for an 8 month lease upfront (had just sold their PPOR) around $21,000. The owner was very excited at the prospect of a windfall, which allowed them to do renovations to a second IP.

After 1 month, the tenants who had paid rent upfront decided to break their lease. They paid the fees, and did everything by the book. When a new tenant was found, they expected their rent back ($19,500). The owner had spent their rent money, and had no way of giving it back. The owner wanted to pay them back weekly, as much as they could afford. Went to QCAT, the owner was given 30 days to pay, were over-committed, couldn’t draw down their other loans, and ended up having to use cash-advance on their credit cards. Not a cheap option.

Taking rent up-front is fine, as long as you have the capacity to pay it back very quickly if you need to. Keeping it in a savings account is the obvious solution, and relying on that advance money to do renovation work is ill-advised.

Also – many of our clients are first-time investors, and don’t realize that if a tenant pays rent 12 months in advance in June 2011, it will affect their tax. You don’t want to be caught in the trap of having an artificially inflated rental return one financial year and then getting nothing the next.
 
Hi All,

I just wanted to share my recent experience that relates to a landlord accepting rent up-front, and share a general warning regarding this common practice.

When people apply for properties through our agency, they often will ask if the owner would be likely to accept their application instead of others, if they offer to pay for the entire 6 month/12 month lease upfront. It is our practice to tell them that it is unnecessary, and the best tenants are the ones who pay on-time, every time.

Recently we signed up a tenant who had offered to pay the balance of rent for an 8 month lease upfront (had just sold their PPOR) around $21,000. The owner was very excited at the prospect of a windfall, which allowed them to do renovations to a second IP.

After 1 month, the tenants who had paid rent upfront decided to break their lease. They paid the fees, and did everything by the book. When a new tenant was found, they expected their rent back ($19,500). The owner had spent their rent money, and had no way of giving it back. The owner wanted to pay them back weekly, as much as they could afford. Went to QCAT, the owner was given 30 days to pay, were over-committed, couldn’t draw down their other loans, and ended up having to use cash-advance on their credit cards. Not a cheap option.

Taking rent up-front is fine, as long as you have the capacity to pay it back very quickly if you need to. Keeping it in a savings account is the obvious solution, and relying on that advance money to do renovation work is ill-advised.

Also – many of our clients are first-time investors, and don’t realize that if a tenant pays rent 12 months in advance in June 2011, it will affect their tax. You don’t want to be caught in the trap of having an artificially inflated rental return one financial year and then getting nothing the next.

interesting and unusual story - i would only presume that someone who paid rent in advance wanted to stay there for that duration. Also with the rental in advance depending which month of the financial year you are in - you could possily ask the the agent to withhold to after the financial year to remit the rental to you.
 
Mebournian - These tenants did intend on staying for the term of the lease, however things change. People accept rent up-front all the time, and without incident, but you can never be 100% sure when dealing with 'people'.

Also, in QLD the PM (trust account trustee) cannot withhold funds from an owner unless they are then used to pay debts (land tax, utilities). Also, this shouldn't be carried across financial years, i.e. - money should be disbursed at the end of the financial year. The auditors don't like this and many won't do it (it could potentially affect their professional indemnity insurance).

Ergophobia - This was on an 8 month fixed term lease. In QLD, the lease terms are set in stone by the RTA (residential tenancy authority). You CAN add a special term in the lease to say that the tenants must not break their lease, but as this contradicts the RTA rules about breaking lease agreements (which is allowed, as long as the tenant pays reasonable advertising and re-letting costs, and pays rent until a new tenant is found), if it were challenged in court it would definitely be overturned by the court. So it's really a waste of ink writing it in the lease.
 
Ouch! Reminds you to always have a buffer!

I had a few tenant who paid 6-12 months in advance, but luckily not many did it and it was also surprisingly the longer term tenants who did for my properties, or ones who had money in a term deposit.

Handyandy - I'd say the legislation is similar to Vic. You cannot ask or enforce a tenant pay more than one month in advance (calendar in Vic) however we can accept more than one month if the tenant has volunteered and in some cases, they didn't even tell us until they were handing over a cheque!
 
One reason for up front payment!!

You may have seen in the news lately there have been a lot of drug busts.

People who set up these drug labs will pay 6 months in advance so you cant kick them out.

Then if they are busted the property has a history and at least in NSW you have to declare that history if it is known to you to all prospective tenants.

Years ago I had a person moving from Melbourne want to pay one year in advance

It was all too suss......... for me and after the last few drug busts in my area in rental properties I am so glad I never did that.

I just looked at a house where it was purchased last July 2011 and there was a drug raid on it about 2 months ago and it was put to auction for proceeds of crime.

It took 3 days to clear all the drugs out by the cops

I knew this history and went to the open house for kitchen ideas as it has a lovely kitchen. The agent was so sly he never told me the history.

The house has just been fully repainted. You could still smell the dope slightly.

the auction was today and a sold sign went up yesterday

At least it was the drug lab, not the purchase point.

So Land lords beware!!!
 
As per the Qld tenancy act - for fixed term a maximum of 1 month rent in advance

In NSW the maximum is 2 weeks.

Cheers

Unless the tenant offers, of course.

I always recommend that landlords place the money in their offset account (covers the temptation to spend it on other properties etc as well as reducing interest charges on P&I loans).

Good point about tax implications of receiving rent up front as well.
 
Ergophobia - This was on an 8 month fixed term lease. In QLD, the lease terms are set in stone by the RTA (residential tenancy authority). You CAN add a special term in the lease to say that the tenants must not break their lease, but as this contradicts the RTA rules about breaking lease agreements (which is allowed, as long as the tenant pays reasonable advertising and re-letting costs, and pays rent until a new tenant is found), if it were challenged in court it would definitely be overturned by the court. So it's really a waste of ink writing it in the lease.


Interesting stuff matty!

It is even more fundamental than that as I see it. While many here would like to take parties who breach contracts out the back and shoot them, as a basic principle the party who was wronged will only be put back in the same position so far as money can that they would have been had the breach not occured. You could try to liquidate the damages for breach but even then they cannot be punitive and be a genuine pre estimate of the loss anyway, so that will not get you anywhere except for certainty for both parties as to the cost of a certain type of breach.

You don't need regulations for that to happen it is a common law principle.

So in this case and in every state I would expect the tennant would just breach the contract and then ask, so what do I owe you? Clearly if the answer was the whole lease term, it would be giving the owner a windfall from the breach should they be forced to pay for the whole term when the owner is going to get paid twice for the same period.

All those things you mention in that paragraph above is how I would see such a breach playing out even without the regulation. Get your costs back associated with it but no more.
 
Back
Top