Tenants Have Handed Back Possession Early during 90 Day Notice Period

LRoscoCheapo on 07/03/2021 - 10:19
Last edited 07/03/2021 - 10:33 by 1 other user

My wife and I recently became landlords.

Signed a 6 month lease, rolled over into monthly. We decided we wanted to make changes to the property and it wasn't going well with the tenants for reasons I won't get into so we gave the tenants 90 days notice to vacate as per fair-trade NSW advice. We even waited until after Christmas period because we wanted to be fair on the tenants.

But now the tenants have vacated before the 90 day expiration and without any communication to us. We were deliberately misled, earlier we offered to let them use the trailer to transport some heavy items. We asked when could I come install the new range hood. The tenants had many opportunities to do the right thing and let us know they had found a new place and would be vacating early.

On Friday a moving truck arrives to our surprise, and later that day the tenants hand back keys to us. They then informed us (rather gleefully) they would not be paying any more rent - like they got one over on us.

Now we have an vacant property and we haven't even started to look for new tenants because we had more than 30 days to go until the 90 day notice period

Do we have any recourse? The bond is still with NSW Fair-Trading BTW.

Surely the tenants had to give some prior warning before they handed back possession.

The tenants deliberately deceived me so naturally I feel cheated. Not seeking revenge, just some sense of fairness/justice.

I'll call fair-trading when they open again tomorrow but appreciate advice on this forum as I'm very stressed.

Cheers

Financial

closed Comments

  • Muzeeb on 07/03/2021 - 11:24
    +50

    This information will help you out op. None of this smart @rse stuff above will help. Just a bunch of self serving trolls.

    reiv.com.au/90days

    • deme on 07/03/2021 - 11:28
      +1

      Was about to neg because of url, but I lold

      • AusGeno on 10/03/2021 - 17:03

        I was about to neg her too until I saw your reply and looked closer

    • oscargamer on 07/03/2021 - 11:49
      +2

      Was also about to neg and say that OP is in NSW and your link is for VIC, but I think that's a federal violin !

      • kevinMario on 08/03/2021 - 13:15

        what's a federal violin? ( ⊙᎑⊙ ) does it sound better than a normal one?

  • GoldenDragon888 on 07/03/2021 - 11:37
    +15

    Leaving before the date given by landlord
    Periodic agreement

    You can give vacant possession (move out) and stop paying rent at any time before the termination date listed on the notice. You are not required to give notice to the landlord/agent, however it is prudent to inform them, in writing.

    https://www.tenants.org.au/factsheet-10-landlord-ends-agreem…

    The tenants not being “prudent” has probably something to do with
    We decided we wanted to make changes to the property and it wasn't going well with the tenants for reasons I won't get into

      • dizzle on 07/03/2021 - 11:54
        +5

        You don't need to turn up for an exit inspection. It may be advisable so the Landlord doesn't claim things they shouldn't. But it's not compulsary.

        In fact with most Real estates you would probably have to make a special request for a joint inspection.

      • deme on 07/03/2021 - 13:57
        +2

        Wrong. It's a good idea to, but not mandatory.
        Landlord just can't make shit up either.

        Take a video of the place before exit leave the keys and go.

    • dizzle on 07/03/2021 - 11:48
      +3

      This.

      OP has given them the notice they are required to. The reason for this notice is so tenants have time to find a new place to live and they have done so.

      Tenants in similar positions are only liable for further rent (until the end of their lease) if they are on a fixed term agreement.

      Move on, do the renovations quickly and advertise for a new tenant.

    • ronnknee on 09/03/2021 - 13:06
      +1

      Interesting, I was previously under the impression the tenant still had to give notice to leave earlier. Good reference.

    • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 10/03/2021 - 19:47

      Also, as someone else pointed out, see their bit about "leaving us no time to find a new tenant"

      Unless they've got some way to rent for a month, that leaves their "booting them for renovations" look even stupider.

  • holdenmg on 07/03/2021 - 11:47
    +10

    I figure the longer this thread goes the more the OP should pay me for reading it and keeping me in Popcorn. (Salted Caramel would be OK).

    • SF3 on 07/03/2021 - 12:14
      +8

      But you’ll have a fixed time to eat it, not more, not less. Otherwise expect a new post about it.

      • tik tok on 09/03/2021 - 08:56

        You made me laugh so hard my popcorn popped out of me mouth. Now where do I post about this?

  • p1 ama on 07/03/2021 - 12:42
    +127

    I'm not a tenant (so I don't have a personal stake in this) and I'm also an investor, but I genuinely despise most landlords. One of the things you have to accept when investing is that sometimes shit happens. There is always a risk/return trade-off that investors in any asset class seem to understand, but for some reason, property investors (i.e. landlords) always seem to feel entitled to their income/capital gains.

    Signed a 6 month lease, rolled over into monthly. We decided we wanted to make changes to the property and it wasn't going well with the tenants for reasons I won't get into so we gave the tenants 90 days notice to vacate as per fair-trade NSW advice. We even waited until after Christmas period because we wanted to be fair on the tenants.

    Monthly means that the tenant can exit the lease at any time. You gave the tenants 90 days notice to vacate and the tenants vacated within those 90 days. Isn't that what you wanted?

    But now the tenants have vacated before the 90 day expiration and without any communication to us. We were deliberately misled, earlier we offered to let them use the trailer to transport some heavy items. We asked when could I come install the new range hood. The tenants had many opportunities to do the right thing and let us know they had found a new place and would be vacating early.

    They did do the right thing. You said to vacate in 90 days and they did so. You didn't say "vacate in 80 - 90 days", you said "vacate within 90 days". What's wrong?

    On Friday a moving truck arrives to our surprise, and later that day the tenants hand back keys to us. They then informed us (rather gleefully) they would not be paying any more rent - like they got one over on us.

    They don't have to pay you any more rent. You told them to vacate and they did so.

    Now we have an vacant property and we haven't even started to look for new tenants because we had more than 30 days to go until the 90 day notice period

    That's your own fault for being disorganised.

    Do we have any recourse? The bond is still with NSW Fair-Trading BTW.

    No.

    Surely the tenants had to give some prior warning before they handed back possession.

    They did, the prior warning was your 90 day request to move out.

    The tenants deliberately deceived me so naturally I feel cheated. Not seeking revenge, just some sense of fairness/justice.

    How did they deceive you?

    I'll call fair-trading when they open again tomorrow but appreciate advice on this forum as I'm very stressed.

    Lol, sell your property and quit the landlord game. You're shit at it.

    • Muzeeb on 07/03/2021 - 13:11
      +81

      Lol, sell your property and quit the landlord game. You're shit at it.

      Gold

      • Fredfloresjr on 08/03/2021 - 08:35
        +4

        hahahaahahahahaah this made my monday morning at work.

    • dizzle on 07/03/2021 - 13:25
      +2

      Monthly means that the tenant can exit the lease at any time.

      It doesn't affect this case (as LL had given the 90 days), but normally tenants have to give 21 days notice to end a periodic agreement in NSW

      • p1 ama on 07/03/2021 - 14:50
        +4

        Yes, I'm aware, but my point is that it can be ended on a month-to-month basis and they are not subject to any nonsense like 90 days.

    • Nyclix on 08/03/2021 - 20:53
      +1

      Roflll that last bit.

    • jv on 09/03/2021 - 13:19
      -3

      but I genuinely despise most landlords.

      Unless you've actually met most landlords, then
      sound's you're just jealous of people who own multiple properties…

      • ThadtheChad on 10/03/2021 - 13:50

        No! Bad jv. Back to your room.

        • jv on 10/03/2021 - 13:53
          +2

          Not sure how someone can claim they despise people without ever meeting with them or knowing anything about them.
          No different to making a racist comment.

          • ThadtheChad on 10/03/2021 - 19:25

            @jv: If you frame it that way… sure! Fair call.

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 10/03/2021 - 19:49

        Don't like pointing out the obvious, but if they're not a tenant they probably are a property owner.

        Anyway. Their phrasing indicates they are talking about landlords they do have experience with/knowledge on. They would've just said "I hate landlords" rather then "I hate most landlords"

    • jayzee on 09/03/2021 - 14:21

      Lol, sell your property and quit the landlord game. You're shit at it.

      This is probably a good advice, sell high, now.

  • garetz on 07/03/2021 - 13:26
    +24

    As soon as you give 90 day notice, they can leave day 1 if they wish, you have no control over that.

  • Dagwood-Dog on 07/03/2021 - 13:30
    +3

    LOL

  • Orico on 07/03/2021 - 13:42
    +41

    The tenants had many opportunities to do the right thing

    You literally told them to go find a new place to live. Do you know how stressful it is to find a new place to live, change all your details with companies and government bodies and have no security where you live?

    I really hate homeowners of Australia, including my parents, because they're so fking entitled.

      • Orico on 07/03/2021 - 14:02
        +15

        go fly off a cliff and hand me a $1 million so I can live close to work

      • deme on 07/03/2021 - 14:06
        +13

        Have you seen what essential workers get paid?
        squat?

        They work their asses off.

        Try being a nurse

      • Vinodra on 08/03/2021 - 19:00
        +2

        I can't believe people as ignorant as you exist.

      • N1NJ4W4RR10R on 10/03/2021 - 19:52

        Most would do that if rent counted as proof of being able to afford house repayments.

        As is, most rent simply because

        A - They don't have hundreds of thousands on hand

        B - They aren't able to get multi hundred thousand dollar loans.

        Of course that's assuming they have a stable job and we'll paying job as well. With today's labour market you could live next to your job one day then need to go to the other side of the city the next. Or earn minimum wage for essential positions.

    • Ughhh on 07/03/2021 - 14:14
      +6

      because they're so fking entitled.

      There's pros and cons for both tenants and landlords. You don't have to worry about paying ~$100k+ upfront for a house and keeping up with mortgage payments. You can invest your cash elsewhere and enjoy life without huge financial commitments. Convenience comes at a cost, don't ignore the sacrifices others have made.

      • Orico on 07/03/2021 - 14:15
        +7

        DUDE! Every one wants a house. But people that have one want 10 more and will do anything to drive up prices.

        You don't have to worry about paying ~$100k+ upfront for a house and keeping up with mortgage payments.

        You're literally making my eyes bleed.

        Convenience comes at a cost, don't ignore the sacrifices others have made.

        You mean buying a house at record low prices with one income. Give me a break.

        • Ughhh on 07/03/2021 - 14:20
          +3

          But people that have one want 10 more and will do anything to drive up prices.

          If they want to buy 10 more, would they not want the house prices to come down so they can pay less?

          Their cash is now tide up with housing, not being to evict tenants who are taking advantage of Covid laws etc. Enjoy life and not having to fix or replace the broken oven yourself.

        • Ughhh on 07/03/2021 - 14:22
          +4

          You mean buying a house at record low prices with one income. Give me a break.

          ??? I bought a house with one income, not very high either. I know other people who did too, don't look down on yourself too much..

          • brendanm on 07/03/2021 - 16:14
            +3

            @Ughhh: You probably had realistic expectations, unlike these others who think they should be able to get a penthouse with a pool in the CBD for $150k.

        • p1 ama on 07/03/2021 - 16:56
          +8

          DUDE! Every one wants a house.

          This statement is patently false. There are many people I know who have no interest in purchasing real estate. They have investments which are yielding them higher returns elsewhere, are generally moving around to different cities every few years for work/career…etc.

          But people that have one want 10 more and will do anything to drive up prices.

          FWIW, I'm an economist who has spent years researching housing markets in Australia and one of my colleagues is one of Australia's most eminent researchers into housing affordability. What most people seem to forget is that the vast, vast majority of people only own one house. Whilst it's a convenient scapegoat to talk about people who own "10 more", it's an irrelevant talking point.

          The reason why house prices have climbed so significantly is because the population has grown, people have gotten richer, and with that, time has become more valuable, as people spend more hours at work, pushing people to move towards the city, which has had the net effect of skyrocketing prices of suburbs closer to the city. The story should not just be about house prices increasing, but that the "distance premium" (i.e. how much more you have to pay to be closer to the city) has increased drastically over the past 2 - 3 decades. This primary driver of this is that the workforce has become increasingly white-collar city workers.

          Much of the shifts in the housing market are due to demographics as opposed to anything to do with "greedy investors". If you want to see evidence of this, have a look at Singapore, where you can't even "own" land, you just rent it from the government for 99 years. It's still insanely expensive. The fundamental issue is a shortage of land.

          • tranter on 08/03/2021 - 08:57
            +1

            @p1 ama: In my suburb:

            Apartment block next door is owned completely by the one family (mother/son)
            Apartment block where I live, 4 out of the 6 units is owned by the one person.
            Just up the road a long time family friend owns half the block of houses.

            You can word it how you like but in reality it is an issue.

            • p1 ama on 08/03/2021 - 09:26

              @tranter: Apartment blocks are a different story, they're likely owned by the original developers.

              In any case, I'm confused by what you're saying. Are you suggesting that if the apartments were owned by others that somehow they'd be cheaper? How did you come to that conclusion?

              • tranter on 08/03/2021 - 10:18

                @p1 ama: They're not owned by the original developers and it's not a shift in demographics. These are people (all three cases in my comment above) who have been living in the area for decades.

                It's not just units as per my comment.

                A lot of your comments don't ring true for this suburb.

                Edit: Just recalled, the block of units located on the other side of our property is also completely owned by the one family.

                • p1 ama on 08/03/2021 - 23:21

                  @tranter:

                  A lot of your comments don't ring true for this suburb.

                  Look, I can't respond to anecdotes. Just because you happen to know some people who own a few properties does not mean that this is the case more broadly. It's generally a good idea to do research as opposed to just relying on anecdotal information. Here are some sources:

                  https://propertyupdate.com.au/how-many-australians-own-an-in…

                  The long and short of it is that only 20% of Australian households own an investment property and of those 20%, 71% own only 1 investment property.

                  The scenario that you bring up (someone owning more than 6 investment properties) is extremely rare, with only 20,756 people in the entire country owning more than 6 residential properties.

                  These are people (all three cases in my comment above) who have been living in the area for decades.

                  At the end of the day, you can come up with any anecdotes that you want, it doesn't change the facts, which is that there have been significant demographic changes. In case you don't know what that means, it doesn't necessarily mean that the people have changed. Changes in their employment, whether they have children, their priorities…etc. are all demographic factors that can change how what people value.

                  If we're going to pick and choose suburbs to tell anecdotes about, then this is a moot discussion because there are so many suburbs that picking one to suit the story you want to tell is an easy fool's game.

          • elanda on 08/03/2021 - 10:24

            @p1 ama: Has the pandemic created any noticeable reduction in pressure on inner-city prices yet, with more CBD workers likely to be WFH at least part of the week long term? Living v close to the city may not be seen as crucial to people who need to commute, say, a couple of days a week rather than five. Or maybe the proportion of city workers who can WFH ongoing won’t be big enough to have much of an impact.

      • Gnostikos on 08/03/2021 - 22:04
        +1

        don't ignore the sacrifices others have made.

        What, being born earlier into an economically robust period you had zero responsibility for and hoovering up wealth before others could?

        • Ughhh on 08/03/2021 - 23:42
          -1

          Surely you can't be that ignorant. You honestly think everyone who owns a house is from that era? I can't imagine that negative view is helping you.

          • Gnostikos on 09/03/2021 - 13:55
            +9

            @Ughhh: I'm talking about this fallacy of "hard work" and sacrifice that supposedly underpins all home ownership in the country. It's complete nonsense.

            People today are working more hours than ever before for less financial compensation than ever before (adjusted for inflation). They are sacrificing just as much, if not more, than the generations that came before them when it comes to productivity, work-life balance and financial scrupulousness all the while wage growth has stagnated and property prices have soared (factors which are completely beyond their control).

            Before the 1980s, you could leave high school and work 40 hours per week in a manual labour/menial service job with no tertiary qualifications and have enough saved up to pay off a house in its entirety well before you retired. Hell, even finishing high school was largely unnecessary for home ownership.

            Single-income households were actually a financially-sound proposition for families.

            Houses and land in the outer metro areas of most cities were practically being given away.

            Such affordable and prosperous socio-economic conditions will never return again; so yes, there is a genuinely massive discrepancy between the amount of energy, time and money home owners of the past invested into their properties versus home owners of today. And that's not even touching upon the gargantuan differences in the building and property industries, homes/land areas and ROI in property between then and now.

            Anyone who discredits the enormously different and more significant hurdles home owners of today face compared to their predecessors is simply a curmudgeonly, out-of-touch retiree or in denial as to the the reality of being middle-working class in today's world.

            You honestly think everyone who owns a house is from that era?

            Have you seen the statistics on home ownership in Australia?

            This article is also quite illuminating on the massive wealth-hoarding epidemic amongst older Australians.

            • Ughhh on 09/03/2021 - 21:28
              -6

              @Gnostikos:

              People today are working more hours than ever before for less financial compensation(epi.org) than ever before

              What about spending? Most likely spending more with uber eats, accessibility to high end makeup and clothing, after pay etc.

              You could be on a high income, but if you consider uber eats and Netflix etc "necessities", maybe you'll never be able to afford a property as easily as one who doesn't drink, smoke and party away their money.

              There are also people who are not interested in investing in property.

              • Gnostikos on 10/03/2021 - 13:42
                +1

                @Ughhh:

                What about spending? Most likely spending more with uber eats, accessibility to high end makeup and clothing, after pay etc.

                You could be on a high income, but if you consider uber eats and Netflix etc "necessities", maybe you'll never be able to afford a property as easily as one who doesn't drink, smoke and party away their money.

                Jesus Christ.

                Yes genius, Uber Eats and Netflix, neither of which offered their services in Australia until 2015/2016, are single-handedly responsible for the plummeting rates of home ownership for younger generations which began trending downward in the late 1980s, before the Internet existed. That $89.99 annual Netflix subscription is literally bankrupting more families than the COVID-induced recession.

                It's hilarious that you called me ignorant and yet your post is dripping with ass-backwards ignorance and denial of the fundamentally changing nature of life for the working class in the Western world over the past 4 decades. You sound like a goddamned boomer meme right now.

                Here's a more simplistic analogy for you: subsistence farming was a perfectly sustainable way of life for a majority of Australians in the 1800s. It no longer is today. What changed? Could people suddenly no longer farm because they were "too lazy" to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Or did the nature of working class life fundamentally and irrevocably change due to technological, political and socio-economic shifts that were brought about by international interests far beyond the influence of any lone nation, government or class of people?

                Home ownership was a realistic possibility for a majority of Australians in the 1950s. It no longer is today.

                It is simply not the fault of some generational failing of character and ambition; today's generation have had the rug of financial independence and security pulled out from under them by decades, if not a century, of incredibly short-sighted and reckless economic and political decisions.

                This problem didn't fall out of the sky in 2010; you don't arrive at a point where a housing affordability crisis makes Australian cities some of the most expensive places to live in the world and millenials born after 1990 who were sh*tting in their nappies when politicians were basically saddling them with several lifetimes' worth of debt and financial disenfranchisement, didn't contribute to the problem in any meaningful way (unless you're some Malthusian eugenicist who thinks they shouldn't have been born in the first place). We are economically and politically incredibly mismanaged and have been so for decades now.

                You seem incredibly bitter and spiteful towards a generation of people that you refuse to concede have experienced any kind of distinct hardships and historical misfortunes, as every generation does. That… is a negative view, to quote your stupendous characterisation of my early comment and being that selfish and callous is precisely the kind of attitude that drives the economic free-for-all and consumerist dog-eat-dog world that we live in.

                • Ughhh on 10/03/2021 - 17:48

                  @Gnostikos: Lmfao. Genius, Netflix is only one example, expenses all add up. Maybe $1 is nothing to you, but it's what has helped others get the house.
                  But hey, if you want to blame it all on other things and give up trying, go right ahead and eat your smashed avo.

                  I'll tell you my secret. I time travelled to the 80s to buy my house, so I can own one now in my 20s.

                  Edit: must've been me and my 10 other friends who time travelled too.

  • deme on 07/03/2021 - 13:59
    +23

    New post on whirlpool: help I'm a landlord and am getting bullied on OzBargain should I contact the esafety commissioner?

  • imperialchef on 07/03/2021 - 14:05
    +8

    Hey buddy you told them to vacate and they did just that. You want them to pay rent up until the last day on that notice. Pretty unrealistic.

    • deme on 07/03/2021 - 14:07
      +12

      I thought being a landlord meant I got to abuse peasents to extract money?

  • buckethat on 07/03/2021 - 14:08
    +5

    Didn't you get exactly what you wanted? You gave them 90days to move out.. which to my understanding would be from day 1-90, they're free to move out any time. Pretty strange that you expect them to pay rent up till the 90th day.

  • deme on 07/03/2021 - 14:10
    +4

    Nek minute OP finds out tax deductions are not tax offsets and blames everyone but themselves.

    I only saved 21%..

  • tomleonhart on 07/03/2021 - 14:34
    +10

    Asked tenant to move >Tenants moved > Landlord #triggered

    I see you thought the tenant must stay the full 90 days of the notice you give. LOL.

  • Axelstrife on 07/03/2021 - 15:12
    +4

    How do you know they didn't actually find a new place to live?

    I know something VERY similar happened to me a few years ago, owners wanted to move in and gave us the notice to move out so i started looking for a new place and got extremely lucky finding one i liked and having my application accepted the same day i submitted it, moved within a few days.

    The tenants did nothing wrong in fact they did exactly as you asked,TO MOVE OUT!

    • smalltime0 on 08/03/2021 - 16:41

      We had a landlord give us 3 months notice that they intended to sell the house at the end of the fixed lease, then Covid lockdown happened, and then they gave us another 3 months after lockdown ended, leave any time we found a place.

      I think we stayed just over a month in that last phase, paid until the week we moved.

      Great landlord too, they were really into their garden, so paid for a gardener and a pool-guy at no extra charge.

  • elgrande on 07/03/2021 - 15:14
    +5

    like they got one over on us

    They did

  • holdenmg on 07/03/2021 - 16:30
    +2

    The Book "Renting for Dummies" outsold "Landlord for Dummies"

    • robbyjones on 07/03/2021 - 16:57
      +16

      Tenants need to give 21 days notice on a periodic lease if they wish to move out but once notice has been given to them they can move out whenever they like within the notice period.

      • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 17:06
        -5

        Ah I see. Surprising that the tenant doesn't have to give any notice at all while they can move out at any time within 90 days.

        I guess it's best for LL to never go on periodic agreements, at least in NSW.

        • robbyjones on 07/03/2021 - 17:12

          I have had a rental for years and mainly on periodic lease, it's not generally a problem. Having to renew the lease can be a pain and some tenants may take the opportunity to move rather than sign up again for 6/12 months so there are advantages and disadvantages. I think that the OP got 60/90 days and that is great and they should be thankful.

            • deme on 07/03/2021 - 22:17
              +5

              @ozhunter: OP told the tenant to pack thier bags and (profanity) off within 90 days, they did.

              • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 22:50
                -6

                @deme: No issue with them moving out any time with 90 days. Just seems unreasonable to not give any notice when moving out. I don't see why any landlord would ever take the risk on periodic leases knowing the tenant could move out any day.

                • deme on 07/03/2021 - 22:53
                  +4

                  @ozhunter: You gave the notice.

                  Otherwise the tenant needs to.

                  One party needs to.

                  • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 22:58
                    -1

                    @deme: If that is true, then it sucks for LL. 90 days is a huge window to not know when you can look lease the place for new tenants or start renovations. Don't see why any LL would choose that option.

                • whitelie on 07/03/2021 - 22:59
                  +3

                  @ozhunter: They had up to 90 days to vacate, in which they did. Their notice of moving out was returning the keys. They don't need to communicate that they are moving out on day 7 or day 89.

                  • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 23:03
                    -4

                    @whitelie:

                    They don't need to communicate that they are moving out on day 7 or day 89

                    Sounds unbelievably good for tenants and horrible for LL.

                    • deme on 07/03/2021 - 23:11
                      +4

                      @ozhunter: Then don't have a periodic lease, have a long fixed term.

                      Give it up you aren't suited for this game.

                      • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 23:14
                        -1

                        @deme: I'm don't think the OP will be doing periodic leases anymore.

                    • whitelie on 07/03/2021 - 23:12

                      @ozhunter: I'm pretty sure in WA it's 60 days notice (which with the current vacancy rate makes it very difficult to find a place for the renter) for a tenant to vacate with no reason. It may even be less in this example where they are on a month to month agreement. I'd have thought 30 days would be sufficient in that case which makes it even harder on the tenant but easier for the LL.

                      • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 23:19

                        @whitelie: But if it was a fixed agreement, the tenant would only 30 days to look for a new place.

                        Seems tenants should always try to get on periodic leases and LL should only go for fixed-terms. Fixed terms seem more fair as both parties know in advance of when the house will be available.

                        • tomleonhart on 08/03/2021 - 01:56

                          @ozhunter: Don’t be a simple-ton. If you’re a tenant on periodic lease, you should know you’re always 90 days away from being kicked out. If you’re on 1-2 years fixed lease then you know you’re future accommodation is secured.

                          • ozhunter on 08/03/2021 - 02:15
                            -3

                            @tomleonhart: Try reading again.

                            If you're on a fixed lease and it's nearly finish, the LL only has to give you 30 notice beforehand. The tenant only has 30 days to look for a new place…

                            I'm not arguing about the 90 days notice. I was saying I'm surprised that the tenant doesn't have to give any notice at all.

                            • trapper on 08/03/2021 - 14:23
                              -1

                              @ozhunter:

                              I'm not arguing about the 90 days notice. I was saying I'm surprised that the tenant doesn't have to give any notice at all.

                              Yeah this was a surprise to me too. I don't mind the tenant leaving early after being given the 90 day notice, but it does seem a bit unfair that the LL doesn't get any notice at all on the actual date the tenant will be leaving.

                              • ozhunter on 08/03/2021 - 16:14

                                @trapper: Yep, even if it was 1 or 2 weeks.

                                • Bjingo on 09/03/2021 - 20:06
                                  +2

                                  @ozhunter: I assume its because while looking for a place to live a sudden event could lead the to a situation where they need to move into the new place right away, and if there was a mandatory 1-2 week requirement to let them, you could be stuck in a situation of having to pay rent for two locations. Given the only reason you are moving is because the LL terminated the periodic lease with no reason (reason as in things that would reduce the 90 day period) I do not think anyone would be too pleased with that.

                                  • ozhunter on 09/03/2021 - 20:44
                                    -1

                                    @Bjingo: But if it's a fixed lease, you have to move on a certain date and the LL only has to give you 30 days notice whether they will continue to let you live there.

                                    Fair enough you get 90 days(which is a big window imo), but just wrong to not notify them. Apparently some other states do require the tenant to give notice. While NSW doesn't enforce it, they do say it's a prudent thing to do.

                                    • Bjingo on 10/03/2021 - 12:45
                                      +1

                                      @ozhunter: Yeah for fixed lease it makes sense to shorten it because they realistically have months of notice, as in the duration of the lease and have ample time to go to the LL during that to discuss extending the lease or renewing it.

                                      I would absolutely say it should be an expectation, and assuming the tenant themselves knows what their situation is earlier they should definitely inform the landlord, but with the chance of extenuating I understand why it would not be mandated.

  • shaybisc on 07/03/2021 - 16:50
    +15

    So you've put them through the enormous upheaval of moving, for reasons we won't go into. By some miracle they've found somewhere else within 90 days in a period of very low vacancy rates. But you're out a months rent.

    • ozhunter on 07/03/2021 - 17:07
      -4

      So you've put them through the enormous upheaval of moving

      Not at all lol. They just didn't want to renew the contract.

      • dizzle on 07/03/2021 - 22:09
        +7

        No, they were already on a periodic lease. Landlord wanted to do some renovations while they lived there and they didn't want the disruption.

        So landlord gave them termination notice. Hence landlord wants them to move.

        Depending on the renovations I wouldn't want tradesmen coming in when I'm at work, or having to have days off for it, close off and not get to use rooms, then have to repeat for other rooms. I'd probably disagree to renovations too.

        • ozhunter on 08/03/2021 - 16:13

          The other issue is the notice and if it's required. Apparently it's not in NSW.

          According to this comment, it is in VIC. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/608801#comment-10179477

          • dizzle on 08/03/2021 - 20:37

            @ozhunter:

            According to this comment, it is in VIC.

            Which has nothing to do with your comment, my reply or the OPs situation. As you have already said it's not required in NSW.

    • Yotta00 on 08/03/2021 - 23:59
      +3

      LL is a month out of rent.

      Tenant is Bond + 2 weeks rent + enormous moving costs + taking days off work + feeling like shite

      • Quantumcat on 09/03/2021 - 08:27

        They wouldn't be out bond if they haven't damaged the place

        • SewerCider on 09/03/2021 - 13:32
          +4

          The bond being returned isnt instantaneous, but they'll still have to cough up one to wherever they are moving into

        • Yotta00 on 10/03/2021 - 21:30

          This LL is going to take everything over "Lost rent" and scrutinize every little chip on cheap brittle gyprock walls as a "damage".

  • thatonethere on 07/03/2021 - 17:02

    Heh. I have had something similar in the past but the REA gave us the heads up it could happen. However we were going to move in so it was no drama - just go in earlier and started painting.

  • JimmyF on 07/03/2021 - 17:12
    +16

    Honestly OP you sound like a horrid landlord from what you have said, everything from not understanding the 'laws' around leasing, to spying on your tenants etc.

    but as others have said, you gave them 90 days to move out, they found somewhere and moved out.

    Bring your renos forward and move on.

  • Gronk on 07/03/2021 - 17:30
    +10

    What's the address? I just want to make sure none of my friends or family ever rent from you…

  • oscargamer on 07/03/2021 - 18:00
    +8

    OP has clearly gone away for a think……

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join