Gave 30 day notice to vacate, WA -- if I'm still paying, do they have the right to come into my home, & why?

Geekomatic on 19/06/2017 - 21:19

I'm just flying this out there, because it seems really inappropriate & unsafe, to say the least.

The property "managers" (do-nothings) have sent an email accepting our notice to vacate with a note that they'll "notify before an inspection" of people wanting to rent it afterwards— while we're still in it & paying.

WTF? I'm paying my rent until that time— why should I have to allow people through the house I'm paying for until I leave? They, could be casing the place, for all I know?

I understand they'll advertise it— but actually walking people through- while we're still here??

Is this right?

Home & Garden

closed Comments

  • whooah1979 on 19/06/2017 - 21:21
    +38

    Is this right?

    re-read your contract?

        • trongy on 21/06/2017 - 20:46
          +3

          This section covers entry rights:

          https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/privacy-a…

          The lessor may enter the premises if:

          • they need to show the premises to prospective tenants in the 21 days before the end of an agreement, and have given you reasonable notice in writing;
        • twocsies on 22/06/2017 - 01:43

          @trongy: According to that it must be in writing, so OP should demand all requests accordingly (if trying to give them a hard time). That will prevent them from the halfhearted call announcing a visit in 30 minutes.

        • whooah1979 on 22/06/2017 - 14:28

          @twocsies:

          According to that it must be in writing, so OP should demand all requests accordingly

          email ok?
          The property "managers" (do-nothings) have sent an email accepting our notice to vacate with a note that they'll "notify before an inspection" of people wanting to rent it afterwards

      • ronnknee on 20/06/2017 - 11:37
        +60

        Hey OP, your comments are getting fainter and harder to read.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 14:55
        +25

        I think what you have to understand here are 2 things.

        1 - It's not your property. One day when you buy your own and should you decide to rent it out you too will find that you will want to get tenants in smoothly and streamline them one after another so you don't struggle with mortgage payments.

        2 - What do you plan to do when you move to your next property? One thing you will notice if you happen to be moving into a new rental is that you will probably do your next inspection as a prospective tenant while others are still living there before their contract finishes.

        And there is a third in here - it's part of your contract and is standard practice.

        • gunnar777 on 20/06/2017 - 18:43
          +2

          Hey @Michegianni, I agree with you on the 2nd part. What I have to somewhat disagree with is that you're suggesting that the primary reason an outgoing tenant needs to be inconvenienced during an inspection is simply because they don't own the deed to the property in which they live.

          In a sense, the tenant does own the property as long as they're paying for it. I always find it odd that landlords so often forget that renting a property is a transaction like any other. One is exchanging a good or service for money. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you don't want money for your property, don't rent it out. That being said, it is totally reasonable to ask the tenant to vacate the property, within reason, so that as you said, a landlord can smoothly transition to the next tenant. Totally agree, and that is in basically all rental agreements AFAIK.

          Lastly, I am very happy to say I currently have a respectful landlord who lives at the front of the property. He is timely with occasional repairs and I help out where I can. I pay every rent bill on time so I can have a place to live and so he can hold onto his investment till whenever he wants to sell. He treats my rented unit as my own, his as his own. Sometimes he and his friends are a bit loud on a Friday, and sometimes my guests and I are a bit loud on a Saturday, and we both get that and compromise.

        • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 21:14
          +8

          @gunnar777:

          Nah, the way I see it is that you don't own a place while you are renting it - it's more like you are paying to use it (rather than have it) for a while.

          It's not that it simply becomes yours on some agreement where you just pay and then hand it back in the same condition you got it. You may have some rights and standards to maintain but bear no responsibilities for actual ownership of the house. Otherwise you wouldn't have to ask if you want to change permanent fixtures, or if something stops working you're not the one responsible for repairs/maintenance, you don't pay the land rates or state water charges, you don't pay insurance on the house, they aren't temporarily signing the deed over to you, etc. You are just paying to live there for a while under a set of conditions which you have agreed to pay for. It's not that there is a need to inconvenience the outgoing tenant but between the inconvenience of a tenant and the livelihood of the owner, one just weighs out to be higher than the other while trying to maintain at least some convenience for the tenant.

          Some landlords are more relaxed and understanding like yours - since you're neighbors and all yours may be more friendly and have more contact/interactions with you, but if you have property managers in the middle they might treat it more as business as usual, where you only see them during inspections, call if you need something and you might never even see your landlord once.

          That's how I see it anyways.

        • gunnar777 on 20/06/2017 - 23:00
          +3

          @Myrtacaea: That's a good response and it made me think about why landlords and tenants often disagree so bitterly. We and our landlord do actually have property managers in the middle and we both despise them dearly (as they have been rude, expensive to the landlord and quite ineffective for us) so my landlord will be firing them next month. I understand that not everyone has a good relationship nor perhaps any relationship at all with their landlord and vice-versa, so the property manager can act as a fairly evenhanded mediator.

          But I do stand firm in my belief that we tenants aren't paying landlords to "look after" their investment property, which our previous landlord asked us to do. Likewise, landlords they have no obligation to offer their property to someone who won't agree to their terms.

          I still think of this as any other transaction, so I would call it temporary ownership (rent is also used to pay for rates, insurance, etc.)

    • abb on 22/06/2017 - 12:28

      re-read

      Implying OP read it in the first place. Seems to be an incorrect assumption…

  • bion83 on 19/06/2017 - 21:24
    +55

    Yes its absolutely normal

    • ItsMeAgro on 20/06/2017 - 13:17
      -4

      …and you can definitely refuse.

  • PeterA07 on 19/06/2017 - 21:30
    +30

    Of course they can do that. Not only is there nothing "inappropriate" about it, it is their legal right. It's right there in the statutory standard terms which apply to all residential tenancy agreements in your State (similar/equivalent laws apply in all the other States and Territories).

    Your landlord (or their agent) has a right to enter at any reasonable time and on a reasonable number of occasions in the three weeks before the agreement ends for the purposes of showing prospective tenants around, so long as they give you reasonable notice in writing.

    • Kangal on 20/06/2017 - 08:33

      Geekomatic… it's usually the people coming from the inspection that are more embarrassed.
      So you got nothing to worry about, just picture them in their underwear.

      **but hide the crack before they come ; )

      • xoom on 20/06/2017 - 08:37
        +2

        You mean he has to hide the hydrophonics pot plants?

      • cameldownunder on 20/06/2017 - 09:26

        Oh wow, what an Idea, Just leave vibrators in the bathroom toothbrush cup. Print out ladies in skimpy outfits, and put them in picture frames, and spread them around. Party candles in shape of Dicks and Balls. If you're around, when the inspection happens, put a bleutooth speaker under the bed, and when people pass through, play loud music, or cat meowing or "monster under the bed" noises.

        • Kangal on 20/06/2017 - 12:37

          Seth Rogen, is that you??
          Give Zack a break!

  • undercut on 19/06/2017 - 21:37
    +25

    That's very routine. How else could they show the place to prospective tenants? The landlord/their agent has the right to enter the premises to show it to a prospective tenant. However, they can only enter your home 21 days before the end of the tenancy agreement, and need to give you reasonable notice (usually 24-48 hours).

    You'll need to take care to secure your valuables if you can't be present during the inspections.

      • ronnknee on 19/06/2017 - 22:09
        +61

        This must be your first time renting.

      • xoom on 19/06/2017 - 22:37
        +4

        i have walked in property i was looking to buy with tenants in it. their personal belongings in the place. its common for real estate agents to do this.

      • PVA on 20/06/2017 - 08:45
        +7

        Yes, I think it's wrong, personally, too. I think it should be after you leave.

        But in the real world the rules allow it and it's very common.

        Remember they need to give reasonable notice each time, not just one blanket notice.

        So if the tell you someone will inspect a 2 pm Friday and they turn up at 3pm, say no.

        We own our property but next door is rented out, the owners from Singapore decided to drop in one day unannounced and the property manager actually refused them. Well done manager.

      • Piranha2004 on 20/06/2017 - 08:56
        -5

        By your ludicrous logic, you cant have friends or family over because THEY havent paid for the possession of the apartment. See how silly this sounds?

      • TenaciousTom on 20/06/2017 - 13:07
        +3

        You don't own the property, you're renting it by their terms.

    • djkelly69 on 19/06/2017 - 21:58
      +5

      So you think all landlords should have to leave their properties vacant for ~2 weeks or more after every tenant moves out?

        • sghetti on 20/06/2017 - 07:16
          +19

          I haven't even rented before and know this is standard practice. If you want inspections to occur after you've left the property, you should pay for the additional weeks where inspections occur after you've left.

          You do realise that negative gearing can be utilised by regular families? do you even know what it means? They are making a loss, so any unpaid or vacant weeks on the property are paid for by the property owner, who could be a family trying to get ahead, paying for the property they live in on top of the property you're renting from them.

          As a renter, you're paying someone else's mortgage, don't like it? Then your only other option is to buy. It's not always that easy and I understand that. But as a renter you escape quite a few fees, interest charges, council rates etc. at the expense of not knowing if you will be in the property from contract to contract, and inspections occurring from time to time and occasionally moving properties when leases aren't renewed.

          I can't help to think that this post is just a troll…

        • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 22:32
          +3

          Not everyone who rents out a house is wealthy enough to throw away money. Not every rental property is negatively geared and even if it is, two weeks gone is nearly 4% of rental income lost. If they planned to miss two weeks of rent every year in consideration of you, would you let them charge you 4% more to live there? (someone above said 3 weeks is within the rights, so nearly 6% in that case)

          But if you're happy to try negotiate that, then by all means - if I had a house to rent to you I would certainly happily accept that deal because it works out better for the landlord. They rent it out expecting that they won't risk losing that much if they get inspections done during overlap, its like subsidizing monetary costs by bartering with risk. If it was a mandatory right of the tenant, this loss would simply be passed on via increases in rent for all, because you are being charged for it's market worth and if it was that bad of a problem because so many people were interested in inspecting that they needed to lay down a law, I doubt they would struggle to find tenants.

          The loss is at the cost of your privacy (which is the default) or your $$. Since you consider this to be leaning towards "An end to human rights, all over" I suspect you may value your privacy more than a few weeks of rent.

          But not all of us consider it a complete and utter violation of human rights just because someone we don't know personally was shown around our house that doesn't actually belong to us, and we fools may be too naive to have considered that there was another option available to us of inadvertently forcing rental increases upon those of us who can neither afford it nor care that much for a privacy slight.

          If you are home and you know they are coming, hide your valuables. It's the managing agent who is responsible for your rights and belongings (or so I was told by an agent during an inspection this one time) things like photographs need your permissions and the agent is responsible for damages to the tenants privacy/belongings and is normally insured for this.

        • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 22:37

          @rickadlee:

          It feels like it was serious but turned troll after salt.

        • Powershopz on 21/06/2017 - 19:29
          +1

          You seem like a real (profanity).

          If you want peace of mind - pay another 3 weeks rent and move out 21 days before the lease ends.

          Then you're out of pocket instead of the landlord.

    • Peter Enis on 19/06/2017 - 22:00
      +6

      Good luck changing the law.

      Maybe next time you should read & understand the contract before you sign it and thereby agree to all terms & conditions?

        • tomleonhart on 20/06/2017 - 06:26
          +7

          Unfair for you but completely fair for us landlords.

        • tonydav on 20/06/2017 - 10:21
          +1

          @tomleonhart:

          I don't think it's unfair.

          I've got a rental property and have always tried to do the best by my tenants. Look at their requests fairly etc.

          If I had to lose 2 weeks or more rent 2 or more times a year it would be a nightmare and I'd have to sell the property.

          I've also been on the other side of the coin. Never had an issue with this. After all, I'm looking to leave, it's not like I've been kicked out.

        • andyholloway on 20/06/2017 - 10:24
          +1

          @tomleonhart: It's not unfair for anyone. As someone said earlier, if you want them to have inspections after you leave, you should pay a couple of extra weeks rent.
          If you actually changed the law, this would just mean weekly rent would go up to cover the expected vacant period at the end of each lease.

          These are your options:
          Accept they will come through when you are still there.
          Tell them you are leaving 2 weeks after you are actually leaving and they can do inspections after you leave (but are still paying rent).
          Change the law, then just pay a higher weekly rent to cover 2 weeks vacancy at the end of your lease.

    • PeterA07 on 19/06/2017 - 22:27
      +31

      The house is owned by the landlord. What you paid for is this: temporary possession subject to certain overarching rights of the landlord set out in your contract and in the statute that governs residential tenancies. If you did not understand that, you should have; and hopefully you do now. It is what you agreed to when you signed the lease.

      I do not blame anybody for not understanding every last line of their lease. But this is not some arcane legal point. The right of entry of a landlord to enter your property in certain circumstances, including these circumstances, is a very basic matter which any tenant should be capable of grasping.

      As for the notion that the law needs to be changed, apply some common sense. Imagine you were the owner of a property which you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for as an investment. If you were signing a lease that turned over possession to people you didn't know, you would rightly expect that you would retain some basic rights over the property for the duration of the lease. The law balances the rights of the owner with the rights of the tenant.

    • TheBean on 21/06/2017 - 19:05

      I'm sure a lot of people don't like it, like you do. However, it is standard.
      Just as many landlords are happy for the reasons everyone else has pointed out.

      Can only imagine what you would be like as a landlord…

      P.S. Hahahaahahahaha

  • Savas on 19/06/2017 - 21:55
    +14

    Weird that they want to rent it to someone else when you sound like a well behaved tenant. Might want to ask them why but the rest is normal….

    • PJC on 19/06/2017 - 23:00
      +5

      I think OP initiated the process with a notice to vacate.

      • Savas on 20/06/2017 - 15:50
        +3

        Lol my comment was wrong, no idea why it got up voted!

        • gimli on 20/06/2017 - 19:09
          +3

          Because Savas spelt backwards is…

          :D

          Sorry couldn't resist!

        • Deridas on 20/06/2017 - 21:18
          +5

          I think a lot of people are upvoting everyone else's comments because we have run of of neg-votes for OPs comments.

        • Savas on 20/06/2017 - 21:37
          +4

          @Deridas: Hahaha i like that! Used up all my negs as well.

        • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 22:33
          +4

          I for one, thought it was a fully informed comment laced bountifully with sarcasm hinting towards something more untoward.

        • BartholemewH on 21/06/2017 - 01:51
          +2

          @Deridas:
          Have a + lol.

  • FeRGan on 19/06/2017 - 22:01

    Yes, this has happened to me. As a renter, you just have to "grin and bare it".

    • Geekomatic on 19/06/2017 - 22:12
      -8

      What I expect is that this "database", identifies (good vs. bad) tenants, and gives a "thumbs-up" to those who do well.

      As it is, it's basically a "nothing". In fact, encourages "not" doing the best you can.

      Imho

      • whooah1979 on 19/06/2017 - 22:14
        +13

        sorry, but what is this post about?

      • OzWizard22 on 20/06/2017 - 08:52
        +12

        Geekomatic…At this rate you will run out of ""s. So use them sparingly!

    • whooah1979 on 19/06/2017 - 22:17
      +6

      why don't you purchase your own property? that way you can manage the property the way you want.

      • Geekomatic on 19/06/2017 - 22:22
        +1

        Too inflated, ta.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 06:04
          +4

          Just like your rent?

        • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 21:15

          @Hotkolbas:

          Zing!

      • xoom on 19/06/2017 - 23:43

        why? and have tenants like the op expect you to have the property vacated first before showing it out to future tenants. i think not.

      • xuqi on 19/06/2017 - 23:02
        +38

        Because no matter how many times it's explained to you, you still insist on repeating yourself.

        If you're so worried then by all means try to insert a clause in your next rental agreement to disallow this. Good luck getting anyone renting a place though, so best save up a deposit for a place of your own.

        The prices in the west are nowhere near inflated as Melbourne & Sydney, so instead of bitching and moaning about standard lease contracts, buy your own place..

        • xuqi on 19/06/2017 - 23:13
          +3

          @Geekomatic:

          It's the law of the land and something you would have signed for as part of any standard legal tenancy agreement in WA.

        • Ughhh on 20/06/2017 - 00:10
          +18

          @Geekomatic:

          Sorry you're one (amongst others rolling onto their backs) happy to accept & to never question it.

          Isn't that what you did when you signed the contract?

        • PeterA07 on 20/06/2017 - 09:27
          +2

          If you're so worried then by all means try to insert a clause in your next rental agreement to disallow this. Good luck getting anyone renting a place though, so best save up a deposit for a place of your own.

          It's not even a question of whether the landlord would be willing. In Western Australia, it is not legally possible to agree to a clause which removes the landlord's statutory right of entry. It's one of the rights that is expressly provided for in the residential tenancies legislation, and it is expressly prohibited to "contract out" of it.

        • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 13:02
          +1

          @Geekomatic:
          Just because someone isn't fighting back doesn't mean that their conceding.

          You seem to want to fight the system for the sake of gaining ground. The rules and the concept of fairness works both ways; both parties make compromises.

          You had the opportunity to inspect the place and enter the premises before paying rent. I bet you didn't whinge about wasting a property manager's time etc.

        • goodcopbadcop on 20/06/2017 - 15:24
          +2

          During the mining boom WA thought that it was Sydney because everything from rent to groceries was priced high to grab $'s from the FIFO mining employees. The rest of the population had to struggle. Glad that the times have changed and things are a little more normal.

        • R-Man on 20/06/2017 - 23:37

          @Ughhh: best comment mate!

      • secondstory on 20/06/2017 - 21:20

        Cash me outside

    • djkelly69 on 19/06/2017 - 22:27
      +10

      Yes, we understand, you have paid rent to the end of your term. That is how it works - they have to show it to people in order to rent it out after you move out.

      By your logic, they should also have no right to inspect the property at all during the tenancy because you have paid your rent.

      I don't personally know WA tenancy laws, but assuming it is like other states (as has been noted above), then you signed a contract which contained these terms. I don't think you are going to find too many people to support your 'change the unfair law' cause, as the tenancy laws are put in place to strike a balance between the interests of renters and landlords. You seem to only be considering yourself in this particular situation, rather than the bigger overall picture.

      Also they are not kicking you out or making you pay for when you are not living there, they are slightly inconveniencing you for maybe two half-hour inspections per week for a couple of weeks. Despite your repeated cries about the risks of druggies casing your joint, this is just really, really unlikely to happen.

      When you move out, are you expecting to live out of your car for a week or two while you find a new place with all of your stuff in storage, or will you be moving straight into a new place which you have more than likely inspected while another tenant was living there?

        • xuqi on 19/06/2017 - 23:03
          +5

          Read the contract you signed for, listing the conditions both parties agreed to…..

        • djkelly69 on 19/06/2017 - 23:06
          +16

          You are not paying for 100%-exclusive use and enjoyment of the property. You are paying for 99%-exclusive use and enjoyment, subject to the terms of the agreement you signed which include rights of entry in fairly limited circumstances.

        • xuqi on 19/06/2017 - 23:11

          https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/fil…

          Before giving notice of entry to the tenant, you must make a reasonable effort** to negotiate with the tenant a suitable time** and day.

          Proper notice must be given. You can use Notice of intention to enter premises(Form 19) to advise the tenant you wish to enter the premises and the reason why.

          • to show the premises to prospective tenants at a reasonable time in the 21 days before the
          end of an agreement, after giving the tenant reasonable written notice;

          •to show the premises to prospective buyers at a reasonable time, after giving reasonable
          written notice;

          ** - A reasonable time for entering the premises is defined by the Act as being between 8 am and 6 pm on a weekday, 9 am and 5 pm on a Saturday or any other time agreed between you and the tenant.

        • theStinge on 20/06/2017 - 11:55
          +1

          Resigned to it. Not resolved.

        • Beanvee on 20/06/2017 - 14:03
          +2

          It's not your home.
          You wouldn't say a car you're renting is your car.

        • phocus on 20/06/2017 - 14:08
          +2

          @enceladus94:

          The OP certainly would. It is under his ownership up until the time he has paid for it. Op doesnt have the firmest concept of ownership

        • phocus on 20/06/2017 - 14:10
          +2

          in this case: your home ≠ your house

      • Geekomatic on 19/06/2017 - 23:03
        -4

        I'm considering myself, as no one else does, you're correct.

        There is NO "strike the balance"— it's ALL OWNERS RIGHTS & no renters.

        I'm aware you're championing owner's rights- so will address from there.

        "When you move out, are you expecting to live out of your car for a week or two while you find a new place with all of your stuff in storage, or will you be moving straight into a new place which you have more than likely inspected while another tenant was living there?"

        No, I expect to view either long-empty units or those where the current renter gave permission.

        My issue is the "automatic permission of access" to a dwelling which has been already paid.

        • xuqi on 19/06/2017 - 23:17
          +7

          It's not an automatic right whenever the owner wants. It's a reasonable/negotiated right the owner has. Read above.

        • xoom on 19/06/2017 - 23:19
          +2

          My issue is the "automatic permission of access" to a dwelling which has been already paid.

          they are not rocking up unannounced. they give you notice.

          No, I expect to view either long-empty units or those where the current renter gave permission.

          landlords have bills to pay. so vacant units mean no money coming in.

          isn't the estate agent asking for your permission or you think they just barge in when they like without telling you? thinking the former.

          when they ask you its not an option to say 'no' not while im still paying rent. its more like so you can schedule when its convenient.

        • komodo on 20/06/2017 - 09:49

          @xoom:
          I'd be willing to bet that the OP wouldn't be willing to pay the extra ~10% on their rent to cover the empty month (or more) on the already "inflated" price they say they pay.

    • pbywater on 21/06/2017 - 20:28
      -1

      Even if the people do case it out and rob the place, that's what you buy insurance for…

    • xoom on 19/06/2017 - 23:37
      +10

      you're inconvenienced like what. two half hours in a week for 2 weeks as oppose to making landlord lose 2 weeks rent maybe even more because you cant understand the balancing act between tenants and landlords.

      maybe when you are the landlord one day you will understand why the law is the way it is.

      in the meantime feel free to waste the time of your local member of government to write a stern letter about the 'injustice' you have been dealt with under your 'opprossive' landlord and 'tyrant' of a property manager.

    • overlord on 21/06/2017 - 00:46
      +1

      Sorry, could'd give you more negs "24-hours limit for voting negative on comments is currently capped at 5"

    • BartholemewH on 21/06/2017 - 02:00

      "Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!"

  • Geekomatic on 19/06/2017 - 23:50
    -4

    Again, you're a person supporting the already lop-sided, in-favour-of-land-lord-rights", of which there are most, with zero for the renter, no matter how good their record.

    For people who work- it isn't a "simple thing" to schedule time away from work to watch people walk through your already paid home.

    And your insinuation that I might, "waste time" in a complaint….you, are the reason we all lose rights. Calling out bad performance is not wrong.

    Use your head.

    • xoom on 20/06/2017 - 01:17
      +4

      you got an ax to grind with your property manager. we get it. maybe you have justification for this. thats why there are tribunals you can go to.

      like so.

      Tenancy WA
      www.tenancywa.org.au

  • Davo1111 on 20/06/2017 - 00:05
    +8

    leave a month early and pay the rent for that period.

    • sator on 20/06/2017 - 02:43
      +2

      I understand where you're coming from. Australia is a terrible place for renters. Consider buying your own place?

      I'm concerned that you would feel this way about everything that is detrimental to you e.g. police infringements, parking fines, taxes…

    • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2017 - 11:48
      +3

      "Hard-earned" good standing eh?

      So paying rent on time, every time is something special to be lauded and praised? What is the world coming to?

      • xoom on 20/06/2017 - 18:45
        +1

        Such is the world these days they like to make a song and dance number whenever someone does what is expected of them. Like paying bills on time.

    • juventino on 20/06/2017 - 00:56
      +34

      he/she doesnt have to be funny because we're all laughing at your stupidity anyway :) :)

    • spiff on 20/06/2017 - 11:48
      +3

      I laughed

  • bigticket on 20/06/2017 - 01:22
    +13

    Hey champ.
    Who signed the oppressors lease conditions. You did.
    Who is going to sign a new lease with new oppressors when you move. You will.
    Good luck.

    • xoom on 20/06/2017 - 01:33
      +1

      but op will insist on revised conditions for their new rental place will have the new clause no showing to future tenants till op vacates the property. otherwise no signing the lease.

      thats sure to wow prospective landlords and real estate agents. they will be falling over themselves to get op to sign the lease agreement.

      • tomsco on 21/06/2017 - 09:25

        Good point. I hope we don't find the OP homeless.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join