Tenant Trashed Rental Property and Has Done a Runner - Tips

MementoMori on 05/05/2023 - 22:45

Hi guys, hope you're all well!

I've got a situation where a long term tenant has moved out of my property, leaving the place in a complete disaster - holes in practically every wall, significant damage over and above fair wear and tear (not 'malicious' as such, just filthy pigs) and lots of hard rubbish on the property, junk in the backyard, garden overgrown and in a very bad state.

I estimate around $10,000 - 12,000 to get it back to a basic, rentable standard (inc. lost rent).

The place was professionally managed by a Harcourts in SE Melbourne.

I was very surprised to hear there is no bond, during a changeover (tenant?) of some kind the tenant was refunded their bond a new one was not collected! I also asked the PM why the holes in the wall were not fixed during the tenancy and was told they deal with that during tenant move out… also a surprise.

I have up to date Tenant Insurance through Terri Scheer. I have had the property for 10+ years and it has been insured most of this time, although I am concerned Terri Scheer might cause issues with my claim because I only renewed the policy a month ago after having it expire for 1-2 years previously (pure coincidence - over the years I forgot to pay the renewal from time to time but it has been mostly insured).

The tenant is a real ACA type, who has threatened legal action over a hole in the bathroom floor. This was caused by the tenants negligence, allowing water to sit on the bathroom floor over the years causing it to rot through. It was 'made safe' ASAP (the same or next day) we were notified of the issue, which caused me to then look further into what was going on here then shortly after the tenant moved out.

The tenant is blocked all contact, has verbally said she doesn't have to do anything and has bought a new property somewhere.

Anyway, while emotionally it's a real blow - I understand I just need to clean it, fix it and get it rented ASAP as well as trying to claim as much as possible through insurance and VCAT.

Can anyone who has been through this offer any tips and tricks?

Thank you

Home & Garden

Comments

  • AustriaBargain on 05/05/2023 - 22:50
    +105

    Claim insurance. Get your current PM to clean up their mess as much as they can. Get a new REAgency and new PM. It's not the most difficult job in the world, to not have a bond collected is inexcusable considering the percent of the rent they collect for their fee.

    Also, consider selling the property and invest in something a bit more honourable instead. Like hotdog stands or stocks and bonds.

    • DASHCAM NOW DUDE on 05/05/2023 - 22:53
      +28

      Get your current PM to clean up their mess as much as they can. Get a new REAgency and new PM. It's not the most difficult job in the world

      This statement works for both Property Manager and Prime Minister.

      • payless69 on 06/05/2023 - 01:49

        Maybe PM of NZ, if you choose a Kiwi agency….

      • superuser on 07/05/2023 - 11:25
        +2

        I always read it as prime minister.

      • AustriaBargain on 05/05/2023 - 23:03
        +45

        This property already exists. If you, a property investor, sells it, and if all property investors stop favouring property and invest in something else instead, then prices will come down and professional landlords will buy the house and rent it out. Being a landlord used to be a profession once upon a time. Owning and letting property wasn't always a get rich quick scheme.

        I promise you that without property investors existing houses won't stand vacant while people sleep on the streets. Property investment does not help renters when it comes to existing properties. Only when new properties are built and added to the pool are renters helped. Except property investors don't favour new builds do they, they favour existing properties because that's where the ez money is.

            • jjjaar on 06/05/2023 - 05:34
              +32

              @MementoMori:

              I live in a country with no banker control nor mass immigration, and properties are $50-150k each.

              So you’re an offshore property investor?

              • MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 19:22

                @jjjaar: I'm an Australian who is living overseas who rented out his house

            • SBOB on 06/05/2023 - 07:39
              +32

              @MementoMori:

              Your problem is with the banks and mass immigration

              You left off foreign investors….

              • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2023 - 12:36
                -7

                @[Deactivated]: lol, keep the downvotes going, I love watching the most useless and hated members of society seethe. I stand by my statement, landlords like op deserve what they get and need to be booted from the rental market. The guy cut corners at every point and expected easy money. Hired the cheapest property managers, didn't check if bond was collected, didn't ask for photos from inspections (for a seemingly 'long term tenant'), "forgot" to pay insurance(or just saw it as an unnecessary additional expense… I have run into a number of small landlords who intentionally do this). If he couldn't be bothered taking basic steps to protect himself I can't imagine him being proactive in handling basic tenant claims related to repairs..etc, which probably ties into this scenario.

                I honestly hope you get nothing and VCAT throws out your case because you were negligent. Insurance agents for sure are going to have a laugh among themselves after hearing this and give you nothing.

                • MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 19:24

                  @[Deactivated]: Cheapest property managers?

                  I love the imagination!

                  • [Deactivated] on 10/05/2023 - 21:25
                    -2

                    @MementoMori: Move along instead of trying to save face on a stale thread. The consensus among most people here is you are incompetent as a landlord with your laundry list of comical (profanity) ups. Again, maybe try a high interest savings account or something that requires less effort.

        • parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 07:53
          +67

          FFS…it boggles my mind, these little landlords who think they are providing a community service

          • serpserpserp on 07/05/2023 - 08:46
            +20

            @parsimonious one:

            FFS…it boggles my mind, these little landlords who think they are providing a community service

            Underrated comment. Little landlords are very self entitled and make believe that they are not in most cases, spend thrift slum lords.

          • MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 19:24

            @parsimonious one: It boggles my mind that you think I think this. I don't.

        • FlyingMiffy on 06/05/2023 - 22:55
          +2

          Yawn! You must be in dreamland. Private investments has always played a part in supply and demand for almost everything, and theres a very simple reason for that but ill let you and your righteous condemnation work that out.

        • richrichie on 07/05/2023 - 01:39
          +4

          Except property investors don't favour new builds do they

          I always thought they do, at least for the few property investors that I have ever spoken to. New builds in general attract lower stamp duty (in certain state), higher depreciation, require lower maintenance in the first few years, and attract higher rents.

          they favour existing properties because that's where the ez money is.

          Out of curiosity (honest question), why existing properties are where the easy money is? In the current market, I can understand with so many builders went down, and so it is a higher risk. But wouldn't investors then have very limited depreciation schedule that are tax deductible anymore for established properties? Why would these still be attractive to them vs new builds? In my very limited experience trying to enter the market (on established properties), I've met and being outbid more (if not all the time) by first-home owners or those that are looking to downsize / upsize.

            • stringbean402 on 07/05/2023 - 09:28
              +26

              @AustriaBargain: Don’t use ChatGPT to do your homework.

              • AustriaBargain on 07/05/2023 - 13:21
                -8

                @stringbean402: An ad hominem argument is a fallacious argumentative strategy where someone attacks the character, personality, or circumstances of the person presenting an argument instead of addressing the substance of their argument. It would be an ad hominem attack to dismiss something ChatGPT suggests solely because it was suggested by a bot. It is important to evaluate the content of the suggestion or argument based on its own merits rather than attacking the source or the presenter of the idea.

                • Eeples on 07/05/2023 - 20:16
                  +7

                  @AustriaBargain: ChatGPT ideas were not being criticised; only your laziness.

                • resisting the urge on 07/05/2023 - 20:41

                  @AustriaBargain: And it seems that auto correction could contribute better content;

                  E.g. It is important to evaluate the contentignore bot created content.

            • trapper on 08/05/2023 - 11:28

              @AustriaBargain:

              There are several reasons why an existing property may be an easier investment than building a new house for a property investor:

              This wasn't even the question.

              Investors want to buy the new builds, not actually build them.

              • AustriaBargain on 09/05/2023 - 21:46

                @trapper: If they are already built, then they aren't new builds they are existing properties. If no property investor bought it and priced deflated, a landlord would buy it and rent it out, or (the horror!) someone might buy it and live in it!

                • trapper on 10/05/2023 - 11:57

                  @AustriaBargain:

                  If they are already built, then they aren't new builds they are existing properties.

                  No that is incorrect.

                  A new build is a recently constructed property that has not been lived in before.

                  • AustriaBargain on 10/05/2023 - 12:03

                    @trapper:

                    In the Australian property investment context, a "new build" refers to a property that is newly constructed or under construction, and has not been previously occupied or sold. An "existing build," on the other hand, refers to a property that has already been built, previously occupied, and may have been previously sold. New builds are often marketed as attractive options for investors, as they can offer potential tax benefits, lower maintenance costs, and a greater sense of security in terms of the property's condition. However, they may also come with a higher price tag compared to existing builds.

                    Not previously lived in or sold. So basically it was built for you the first owner, either directly or indirectly. And I think you'll find most "new builds" are already sold off the plan before construction is finished. In any case I think it is broadly understood that when people talk about the government limiting investment incentives to new builds they don't mean houses that were recently build and have already had one or more owners to justify them being built in the first place, regardless of whether anyone has lived in it or not. It's already built, there is no need to incentivise the construction if it is had already been built and bought and sold by one or more "property investors". The idea is to incentivise new properties being built, not to inflating the value of and incentivise the trading of recently built properties.

                    • trapper on 10/05/2023 - 12:10

                      @AustriaBargain: You said.

                      If they are already built, then they aren't new builds they are existing properties.

                      This is wrong.

                      Glad we now agree.

                      • AustriaBargain on 10/05/2023 - 12:14

                        @trapper: Okay so tell me if a house was finished and a property investor bought it, or bought the whole block and sat it on for a few years because they were sure the bubble would inflate, then they sold the block to an investment fund who sat on it for another year, then sold you one of the houses would you still call it a "new build" in the sense when people talk about "new builds" in the property investment context?

                        • trapper on 10/05/2023 - 12:23

                          @AustriaBargain:

                          if a house was finished and a property investor bought it

                          Then that property investor just bought a new build.

                          He didn't need to build it himself, or buy off the plans etc

                          Get it?

                          • AustriaBargain on 10/05/2023 - 12:59
                            -1

                            @trapper:

                            Then that property investor just bought a new build.

                            He didn't need to build it himself, or buy off the plans etc

                            Get it?

                            Well having read a lot of the discussion over the years about proposals to end incentives for and impose limits on existing properties and only have them for new builds, I can tell you that your definition of a new build for these purposes will be redefined into an existing build, as a property sitting vacant for years and being traded between investors trying to time the housing bubble would not fit in with the spirit of the proposed new laws around existing/new builds in response to the housing affordability crisis.

                            So if your property which has sat vacant for years and sold and bought multiple times over the years counts in your head as a new build, it would under definitions by proposed legislation be counted as an existing build.

                            Get it?

                            • trapper on 10/05/2023 - 13:10

                              @AustriaBargain: You are the only person here talking about a property sitting vacant for years and being bought and sold multiple times.

                              Of course that isn't a new build.

                              • AustriaBargain on 10/05/2023 - 13:18
                                -1

                                @trapper: I specifically asked you what you would call a property in that scenario and you said

                                Then that property investor just bought a new build.

                                Anyway I think I explained clearly what the intent of proposed legislation for investment incentives for new builds are and that it would redefine what you call a new build under certain circumstances as an existing property, as in the incentive to build it would no longer exist if it has already been built. I'm not sure what you want to hear here. If you've picked up a newspaper or read the internet in the last 10 years then you're surely already familiar with the concept of removing incentives from existing structures anyway so I'm guessing you're being obtuse because you don't like the idea of public opinion increasingly turning against the property bubble you've hitched your wagon to.

                                • trapper on 10/05/2023 - 13:24

                                  @AustriaBargain: Jesus, this is not rocket science…

                                  If a house was finished and a property investor bought it, then that is a new build.

                                  If a house is sitting vacant for years being bought and sold multiple times, then that is not a new build.

            • MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 19:26

              @AustriaBargain: Not at all - new builds are the way to go.

              Massive deprecation, better construction, longer life, preferred by tenants, can be made to fit the market demand for size, style and quality, zero stamp duty in Victoria

              AustriaBargain is not the expert he thinks he is

        • Sxio on 07/05/2023 - 17:13
          +7

          I really don't think this issue is all the land lords fault personally. People sleeping on the streets is 100% a government issue, laying it at the feet of people who are trying to get ahead by investing in property is a far, far reach.

          • AustriaBargain on 07/05/2023 - 18:20
            -4

            @Sxio: While it is true that homelessness is a complex issue that involves multiple factors, including government policies, it would be incorrect to absolve property investors of their role in driving up housing prices and exacerbating the problem.

            When property investors purchase multiple properties with the aim of renting them out for profit, they often do so at the expense of homebuyers who are unable to compete with their buying power. This drives up the demand for housing and causes the price of housing to skyrocket. As a result, the cost of housing becomes unaffordable for many people, which can lead to homelessness.

            Furthermore, property investors are known to engage in practices such as gentrification, where they buy properties in low-income areas, renovate them, and then charge exorbitant rents that the original residents cannot afford. This forces these residents out of their homes and contributes to the problem of homelessness.

            While government policies play a significant role in addressing homelessness, it is important to recognize that property investors are not blameless in this issue. They have a responsibility to ensure that their actions do not contribute to the displacement of vulnerable people and to work towards solutions that benefit everyone, not just themselves.

            • Sxio on 07/05/2023 - 21:53
              +8

              @AustriaBargain: Seriously… what law have they broken?

              Then it's not their fault. Full stop. If you want to change society, then you need to change the laws. Making people feel guilty for doing something like buying a property is just insane. They have done nothing wrong. Yes some scum bags are landlords but so are a lot of people who aren't.

              It's like BP or shell making billions off selling fossil fuels and then getting people to 'çalculate their carbon footprint'. Sure, it was the people's fault. Not the multi-billion dollar corporation that financed the whole thing.

              Look at the government, look at the banks. They are the ones driving this whole thing.

              • AustriaBargain on 07/05/2023 - 21:59
                +4

                @Sxio: I could follow a chubby kid around all day calling them fatty fat fat fat and I wouldn't be breaking any laws either. Doesn't mean I'm contributing anything to society and not making things worse overall for my own selfish gratification. And just because I'm not breaking any laws doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to talk openly about how what I'm doing is making them feel, how it is affecting other people negatively, and how we should think about ways to stop it in the future. Making existing houses less affordable for people who actually need to live in them is not a good thing, no matter which way you slice it.

                • tonka on 07/05/2023 - 22:41
                  +1

                  @AustriaBargain: The thing that drives housing prices up more than anything is people's insistence on living in the same half dozen locations in this giant country. Investors aren't the cause of the problem just a symptom.

                • BargainBogan99 on 08/05/2023 - 12:25
                  +3

                  @AustriaBargain:

                  I could follow a chubby kid around all day calling them fatty fat fat fat

                  Youre besically doing that right now to this landlord.

                  • AustriaBargain on 12/05/2023 - 15:57

                    @BargainBogan99: Maybe there should be laws preventing the general public from openly questioning property investment.

                • Sxio on 08/05/2023 - 14:08
                  +1

                  @AustriaBargain: Way to completely miss the point my man. Ok. Keep on blaming the wrong people for the wrong reasons. I guess it's easier than actually facing the sheer scale of the issue.

                • sakurashu on 12/05/2023 - 15:42

                  @AustriaBargain: I think you'd find that would fall under harassment/stalking

            • MementoMori on 10/05/2023 - 19:32

              @AustriaBargain: I explained the main two parts of the problem to you already, but it goes against your ideology. Go after them.

              'Gentrification'… lol. Owner occupiers do this, property investors are more like to do exactly what I did - just rent it out and keep it simple.

              Obviously we are forced to renovate when a scumbag tenant trashes a property, but it'll be a basic, simple one (you think I'm going to be installing water features, stone benchtops and wine fridges?).

              Hmmm… on one hand I'm a scumbag landlord because I didn't upgrade and improve the house, yet if I did that then I'm evil because I'm 'gentrifying' the suburb?

              Where do you get these ideas from? You should try getting some from experienced property investors instead of the communist manifesto.

              Improvements are rarely worth the effort and cost for the extra rent or capital gain (unless you're a builder or similar).

              Property investing is not 'The Block'.

        • trapper on 08/05/2023 - 11:21
          +1

          I promise you that without property investors existing houses won't stand vacant while people sleep on the streets.

          Almost all new house construction would come to a halt though.

      • idonotknowwhy on 07/05/2023 - 10:24
        +5

        Who would then provide rental properties for those that want to rent?

        Yeah, I was very grateful to the guy who bought a few PS5's at launch, then provided one to me for $1050.

        • tomfool on 08/05/2023 - 10:26
          +2

          Not the same, you could live without the PS5. Had you and everyone else that had to have it now not bought there would be no market for scalper PS5's

        • MementoMori on 09/05/2023 - 23:43

          Yeah, I don't think anyone wants to rent a PS5

          They always want to buy outright

          Housing is different, not a good example

      • coolfriendjoachim on 07/05/2023 - 14:45
        +2

        Nobody's forcing you to be a landlord.

    • tharlow on 06/05/2023 - 03:57
      +9

      Also, consider selling the property and invest in something a bit more honourable instead. Like hotdog stands or stocks and bonds.

      Supremely well put

    • Bronnie on 06/05/2023 - 12:11
      +14

      Unfortunately, the insurance company will probably say it is "bad housekeeping" and that is not claimable.
      This happened to us when our tenant went to hospital and his young rellies moved in (unbeknown to us or the PM). We let his rent go overdue, thinking he could catchup when he was out of hospital - but he died while still in hospital. The young rellie punks, must have had some doozy of parties as lintels were pulled off windows & doors, holes in walls, beer splashes on ceiling(!!), rubbish and junk everywhere - like you see on ACA. Something was even put into the oven that must have exploded, as it was blackened to the ceiling. Insurance (Alliance at the time) said they do not pay for "bad housekeeping". The bond didn't even cover the backrent. It cost us several thousand$ to clean up, cart away, repair and repaint. All unclaimable.

      Maybe the PM should have been more aware, but as we know, PM jobs are left to the newbies or juniors, particularly with longterm tenants. In our experience, we only ever had a good and thorough PM for a year, but she soon moved on to the more lucrative commercial rental property management.

      We are no longer landlords, as it was impossible to get good property management and we were not in a position to do it ourselves. We had been shafted too often by tenants and it wasn't worth the grief and added expense to keep a house for rental.

      • jolee3 on 06/05/2023 - 23:20

        Our insurer also said that 'tenant neglect' is not claimable, and lost rent also not claimable as the house was "habitable". I certainly would not ask anybody to pay to habitate there in that state, disappointing that the insurers apparently have very low standards on how renters should live!

        Not collecting bond is a huge miss though by the REA.

        • serpserpserp on 07/05/2023 - 08:57
          +1

          Assuming you both have landlord insurance. All your have to do is prove malicious conduct, so as long as you can prove that you did regular inspections, fixed things in the house when the tenant asked, and generally invested in the upkeep of the house, you'll get your money.

          Properties which have been purchased and basically left as is as rentals find it harder to argue that it isn't just wear and tear. Even though it might have looked like it happened at a party, often you don't actually know if a door has been damaged for ages.

          Things like physical damage to walls and doors that are clearly provable are an easy claim.

          • jolee3 on 12/05/2023 - 11:49

            @serpserpserp: There were some components which were classed as 'malicious damage', which they covered. However there was additional excess of 4 weeks rent, on top of the base excess which meant our payout was ~$400. Everything else they called tenant neglect and bad luck. It was around $10k to fix the house up.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 07/05/2023 - 18:12

          re Insurance - except it sounds awfully like the insurance was renewed once problems with the tenant became evident.

          Re: REA Bond: Indeed, Professional negligence claims against property managers are becoming more common for this sort of thing… just saying

      • congo on 07/05/2023 - 18:33
        +1

        Same thing happen to us. The tenants was a hoarder and left a huge mess!
        Alliance only gave us $700 back after excess.
        We ended up selling the property at a loss. This was a few decades ago before the property boom.
        We were scared by the experience and never purchased another investment again ….

    • lonewolf on 06/05/2023 - 17:27
      +14

      100%, A house first and foremost should be someone's home and not looked at as investment options. So many things to invest in, Houses should not be up there but sadly thats the route government has gone down. So many people i know with multiple property investments , some up to 50. Each one of those could have been someone's home. When I went to auctions trying to buy myself a home to live in, time and time again the people who outbid me were people looking for more investment properties as they had so much more capabilities of bidding / assets due to the previous properties they own.

      • Thaal Sinestro on 07/05/2023 - 03:50
        +9

        As I've said before, the government should socialize investment properties and convert them to public housing. Housing should be a human right, not a money making operation for the middle class.

        The reason why people trash rental properties is because they don't have any equity in them. People only look after things they own. Even with public housing, people should be given the option to buy the property off the government. Singapore does exactly this, builds public housing and them sells it at a discount to lower income people.

        • ssfps on 07/05/2023 - 12:22
          +4

          People only look after things they own.

          Very wise.
          And the flip side of this coin is, if someone trashes what they're given, they don't get continuous handouts. If someone burns their house down, they can be homeless, but we should give everyone the chance to participate in society.

        • tomfool on 08/05/2023 - 10:31
          +2

          Where do you stop? Should the government socialise supermarkets and convert them to public supermarkets, eating is a human right as well not a money making operation for multinationals.

      • morse on 07/05/2023 - 14:59

        Who would people rent from if no one invested in property? Not everyone can and will buy a house for themselves, especially at particular life stages even if housing was cheaper.

        • Eeples on 07/05/2023 - 20:18

          From a profession called 'Landlords' not from individuals who view rental properties as a quick way to make profits.

          • morse on 07/05/2023 - 20:45
            +1

            @Eeples: Who are those people called ‘landlords’ if not investors? Absolutely they need to provide a fair product, but no one is doing if not to make profit either through rent, capital gains or both. Not necessarily quick (it’s never really quick to make real profit in RE).

        • morse on 08/05/2023 - 19:42
          +4

          The negs on something so straight forward are honestly very surprising. In OPs case there’s obviously some issues, but the concept of people privately renting out properties for profit, I thought as pretty mainstream in Australia. I’m not a landlord, yet, but probably will be at some point. I’ve also been a renter and absolutely some PM and landlords are terrible.I’m also a believer in strong public housing. I just don’t see a world where it’s all private ownership and public rentals. Private investors will only do it if they are profiting, even if modestly.

    • hueylewis on 06/05/2023 - 19:11
      +31

      "invest in something a bit more honourable"
      WTF?

      • JPerez on 07/05/2023 - 15:41
        -6

        Virtue signalling.

        Moral police.

        Bots vote it up to make it look good/legit.

        👎👎

        • jaimex2 on 08/05/2023 - 10:22

          lol, you hurt the bots feelings

    • HeWhoKnows on 06/05/2023 - 20:00
      +12

      There is sufficient evidence to suggest your property manager has both mismanaged your property and furthermore acted negligently. You would have a legal claim against them.

      But no need for any threats.

      Take the matter up civily with the licensee of the business suggesting you pay them to ensure this does not happen.
      As such the licensee should accept responsibility for damages and financial losses as they are the one employing and managing thier property management staff.

      • Yola on 08/05/2023 - 07:22
        +2

        I had a PM that did not collect the rent for 2 months and did not follow their own written policy of commencing eviction and did not advise me ever. I followed that path and in the end, they gave me $500 to go away. Less than 25% of my loss. The REIV were not interested and the company despite being one the largest franchisee Real Estate agencies and having a nominated Hearings officer was unbelievably unprofessional and incompetent in their responses.

        • JimB on 08/05/2023 - 11:46

          Did you take them to xCAT?

          • Yola on 08/05/2023 - 12:06

            @JimB: Yes and got to keep the bond, but the tenants did a runner and could not get any money from them. By not chasing the rent the PM made it worthwhile for the tenants to abscond. It was cheaper for them to do so then pay up.

            • JimB on 08/05/2023 - 14:26

              @Yola: I mean take agent to xCAT for not doing their job?

              • Yola on 10/05/2023 - 07:47

                @JimB: No, I complained to their professional association REIV and they told me to go away.

                • JimB on 10/05/2023 - 09:46

                  @Yola: REIV is there to protect their members not to help you out.

                  You should have taken them to the tribunal.

            • HeWhoKnows on 08/05/2023 - 15:31

              @Yola: Name and Shame the agent

              • Yola on 10/05/2023 - 07:47

                @HeWhoKnows: I don't want to get sued. They are a very large company.

                • JimB on 10/05/2023 - 09:46
                  +1

                  @Yola: You can't get sued for stating facts.

                  • Yola on 10/05/2023 - 11:06

                    @JimB: Yes, you can but you may win in the end after huge expenses and stress.

                • HeWhoKnows on 14/05/2023 - 14:44
                  -1

                  @Yola: Just stick to the facts.

    • nujee on 07/05/2023 - 07:46
      +2

      lol- too because thrashing a peppery and then taking no responsibility is way more honourable. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word.

    • JPerez on 07/05/2023 - 15:38
      -1

      Also, consider selling the property and invest in something a bit more honourable instead. Like hotdog stands or stocks and bonds.

      Stop this. Let people spend/invest how they want to.

      No need for moral police.

      • Eeples on 07/05/2023 - 20:26
        +5

        Everything has a moral dimension.

        1. getting into property for quick profits and for negative gearing. (…pretending they are doing renters a favour)
        2. taking advantage of a tight market by increasing rents forcing ppl onto the streets (…current renters out on to the street)
        3. buying properties and having them stand empty (… because they can)

        One can moralise all day about the points above.

      • dec1an on 08/05/2023 - 10:43
        -1

        Grow up. Markets always have a moral dimension. That's why we don't let kids down coal mines or companies own slaves anymore.

    • The Wololo Wombat on 08/05/2023 - 13:59

      As an experienced property investor who's had a similar situation, they way you've described things here, you will NOT be successful with your insurance claim. Perhaps the loss of rent, but not the damage. I'd be claiming the holes were malicious as, if they were, then you will be successful… however it sounds like your PM has been negligent and that will affect your ability to claim (they should be providing you with quarterly reports and the insurance company will demand this). You could sue your PM of course… but… good luck with that! This is of course not taking into consideration your insurance lapse. Just bite the bullet and pay for it yourself!

    • sashatheman on 08/05/2023 - 14:59
      +2

      "more honourable" what a stupid thing to say.

    • LlamaFace on 08/05/2023 - 17:10
      +1

      There's money in the banana stand!

  • caramellokoala on 05/05/2023 - 23:16
    +11

    The tenant is a real ACA type, who has threatened legal action over a hole in the bathroom floor. This was caused by the tenants negligence, allowing water to sit on the bathroom floor over the years causing it to rot through

    How does this even happen? Unless the tenant plugged all the drains in the bathroom, the bathroom should be incapable of pooling water..

    have up to date Tenant Insurance through Terri Scheer. I have had the property for 10+ years and it has been insured most of this time, although I am concerned Terri Scheer might cause issues with my claim because I only renewed the policy a month ago after having it expire for 1-2 years previously (pure coincidence - over the years I forgot to pay the renewal from time to time but it has been mostly insured).

    Good luck with that most of the damage would have done when the property was uninsured. Fortunately these insurance companies can see through landlords whom forget to renew then suddenly do it and make a claim.

      • parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 07:54
        +80

        Mate if your bathroom is tiled and sealed properly the wooden floor wouldn’t rot with normal use

        • hueylewis on 06/05/2023 - 19:14

          does that make it ok to trash the place?

          • parsimonious one on 06/05/2023 - 20:21
            +13

            @hueylewis: No, it’s not ok to trash the place, but as others have pointed out a poorly sealed floor or any subsequent damage resulting from such isn’t the tenant’s responsibility

          • idonotknowwhy on 07/05/2023 - 10:27
            +10

            @hueylewis: If they're blaming the tenant for a hole in the floor, (which they also refused to fix until legal action was threatened), then they're likely not being honest about the state of the property either.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join