Help - Tenants Did a Runner!

baybeejuice on 18/09/2025 - 22:31
Last edited 19/09/2025 - 21:14 by 1 other user

Our tenants put in notice to vacate and when we went to inspect the property it was left with furniture, food, personal belongings, carpet trashed, overall bad conditions, cockroach faeces and just dirt everywhere from ceiling to floor to outdoor.

They apparently left the country (according to a phone call from their friend to our agent). They were also behind in rent. We are heartbroken and it will cost a fortune to remove their rubbish, furniture and get the place back in a condition to rent again, including cleaning and repair. We have landlord insurance. But our insurance doesn't include cleaning and furniture removal etc.

Any advice, tips, please please help 🙏. Surely these people can't just get away with this? What if they're still in Australia? Can NCAT help? What can I do to prevent them doing this to other people in the future? Or if they come back to the country, they would be flagged until this is resolved?

Home & Garden

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • askbargain on 18/09/2025 - 22:33
    +24

    Just think about the capital growth your property will have in a few years!

    askbargain on 18/09/2025 - 22:33 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • DontNeedThis on 19/09/2025 - 11:18
      +16

      Yeah, negative gear and enjoy!

    • fredblogs on 19/09/2025 - 13:11
      +7

      Not if it's an apartment

  • Far Cough on 18/09/2025 - 22:36
    +75

    Document everything, claim the bond, and apply to NCAT for cleaning/repairs, unpaid rent, and disposal orders, you can also list them on tenancy databases (TICA/NTD) to prevent future rentals.

    • boomramada on 18/09/2025 - 22:51
      +48

      And lodge a insurance claim 😊

    • baybeejuice on 19/09/2025 - 00:22
      +5

      How can NACT help if they have "left the country"???

      • life is suffering on 19/09/2025 - 09:12
        +6

        The only weapon that Colombians used - extradition

      • 7ekn00 on 19/09/2025 - 09:19
        +25

        Do you have proof of "left the country"?

        It's a lie - wake up :/

        • Fredfloresjr on 19/09/2025 - 09:51
          +2

          Yeah OP saw on Instagram story

      • drfuzzy on 20/09/2025 - 16:30
        +5

        If they are on a boat then Trump can bomb it

      • Franc-T on 21/09/2025 - 18:21
        +1

        Their "friend" said they did - didn't mean they did, could be a lie for lots of reasons.

    • Dr Phil on 20/09/2025 - 12:22
      -8

      Welcome to Australia OP

      And our governments are always looking to provide more protection from tenants?

      Why?

      Its the landlords that need protection the way I see it.

      A tenant puts up 4 weeks rent as a bond then can literally do this.

      The tenants risk is in fact ZERO!

      The landords risk an entire property.
      In Sydney the average apartment is now worth about $967,000 and an averge house is $1,500,000.
      And the poor landlord is probably paying a huge mortgage as well.

      What OP has posted is not uncommon unfortaunately.

      Poor OP stands to loose thousands even after claiming the entire bond.
      The cost of cleaning, repairs, replacements, unpaid rent and loss of rent whilst getting the place back to an acceptable state.

      OP does have landlords insurance but even that doesnt cover OP's losses

      • Secret ID on 20/09/2025 - 19:27
        +8

        Not sure why all the neggs!?
        I'd like to know which part of what you've said isn't making sense to people.

        • happy1923 on 21/09/2025 - 13:23

          Although I wasn't one of the people that negged, I agree with the sentiment. Landlords are 'risking' it after reviewing bank statements, salary slips, past references and a month's deposit. How much deposit do you keep for a rental car?

          Landlords are in the business of renting apartments, be it one investment property, or a massive portfolio. They have insurance for exactly this reason.
          With all the negative gearing going on, the rent clearly isn't what's making them money.

          Although the situation may not be uncommon, it is definitely not the norm.

          • Secret ID on 21/09/2025 - 15:03

            @happy1923: Considering the value of the car compared to the value of a rental property, car deposit works out to be much higher.
            Also, there's usually $2k-4k insurance claim excess if your damage the car. We don't see that for landlords do we?

            Based on the negative gearing logic, the OP and all other landlords should just not worry about their property getting trashed and tenants chucking a runner.

            • happy1923 on 21/09/2025 - 18:12

              @Secret ID: Cars are depreciating assets. A trashed car will sell for even less.
              A trashed apartment or house will sell for the same price after repair.
              Based on the comment, repair costs are in thousands for a place worth a million, so <1% loss.

              I'm not saying they shouldn't worry about their property. They should review rental history, employment details, past NCAT claims from the significant number of applications they get, and choose a tenant wisely.
              And if their tenant still does a runner, since this is a business/investment and those things can sometimes make a loss, so take out landlord insurance to mitigate the risk.

              The part of the comment that doesn't make sense is that landlords don't simply take 4 weeks from a stranger on the street, and 'risk an entire property' makes it sound like it's a write-off.

          • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 13:42

            @happy1923:

            Although the situation may not be uncommon, it is definitely not the norm.

            Even if it is uncommon, it's not like it's some super secret risk that you have no opportunity to contemplate or attempt to mitigate during your informed decision making process.

            Most investments involve risk. This is one that is well known of in this asset class.

            With all the negative gearing going on, the rent clearly isn't what's making them money.

            Not all properties are negative geared and for some at least, I get why rental income would be important to them (if it wasn't, then why all the emotive rhetoric around the amount of the LL's mortgage repayments?)

            Alternatively, regardless if negative geared or not, for some people, this source of revenue is their passive income or retirement plan.

            Regardless, whilst negative gearing is nice, how much benefit do you actually believe this provides for a property investor?

        • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 21:44
          +2

          I'm a LL and even I'm cringing at that post.

          "risk an entire property*

          =>how? No insurance?

          "poor landlord" =>

          Seriously? - what definition of "poor" is
          he even using here and why
          does it apply?

          "huge mortgage"

          => why is that even relevant?

          "OP may lose thousands"

          => most investments work like that. Sometimes you win, sometimes you don't.

          And WHY does OP have the potential to lose thousands? Is it because he is under insured perhaps?

          Spends a million bucks (with the possibility it's not even his million bucks) and then doesn't insure it enough so he can save a few hundred bucks?

          Well that didn't work out very well for him, did it. It won't work out any better next time and there will be a next time. Count on that.

          And now it might cost him a few grand even though he'll likely make more than a few grand somewhere else on the roundabout?

          Let's put that into perspective. A few grand on a million bucks, much of which he's probably already realised at least some depreciation and other tax advantage for.

          Was the place new when the tenant took possession? If not, for how long was the tenant there? The tenant isn't a new for old insurance policy.

          A few thousand bucks? He's lucky that it wasn't more, especially if he's under insured.

          In fact, it sounds like he's damn lucky that they actually decided to leave of their own free will. Often regaining possession of a rental property can take months and months if the tenant is suitably motivated to stay.

          Sheesh, Elon Musk lost in the ballpark of two billion dollars in just a few hours the other week, and I don't think that insurance is even available for his kind of loss.

          I get the place is pretty grubby and maybe even damage that extends beyond fair wear & tear.

          Yes, the OP really does get to feel brokenhearted. I'd be broken hearted if I lost a few hundred dollars. I like money and I especially like my money.

          No one else gets to tell you how you should feel about something.

          But c'mon hey, it's an investment, the OP has experienced a known risk for that type of investment which is not only heart breaking, but also disappointing, frustrating and inconvenient, but definitely not surprising.

          Let's maintain some perspective here, eh?

          It seems like OP had some crap tenants. Hopefully he has a better outcome next time.

          Do we even know why the tenant left the property like that? Just maybe, it was out of their control and they didn't have a choice. Maybe, for them at least, it was the lesser of two evils.

          I mean, they even left their food. If they really aren't overseas as we suspect, who leaves their food behind!

          Just be grateful that you're not that tenant (for whatever reason they left that situation) and in a "there but for the grace of God, go I" situation.

          Would you want to be them after what they've done, for whatever reason they did it?

          Seems like they started out trying to do the right thing (if their true intention was to screw the LL, then why bother notifying them of their intention to vacate at all?) and then the wheels fell off for some reason before they did vacate.

      • Shutterfish on 20/09/2025 - 20:48
        +1

        Well said!

      • Seni0r El Cheapo on 20/09/2025 - 22:28
        +1

        Well said. Sad reality.

      • Cordless on 20/09/2025 - 23:28
        +7

        The tenant's risk is homelessness? These people now have zero references for the next place they need to rent, and four weeks for someone who lives like this is probably a lot. Sounds like they have mental health issues or something else preventing them from living a productive life.

        Might as well say that people overdosing and dying in a public space have no risk and the public fronts the cleanup. Anyone doing this is at the absolute bottom ebb of society and a landlord might lose some percentage off their gains for that year.

        • JIMB0 on 21/09/2025 - 08:45
          +9

          Maybe they should have thought of that before trashing the place and using mental health as an excuse.

        • Secret ID on 21/09/2025 - 14:51
          +4

          No landlord would kick their tenants out just for the sake of it and make them homeless if they're paying rent on time and keeping the property clean and tidy.
          Landlords aren't running mental health institutions or rehabs.

          And everyone's going on about "that's why you've insurance" as if it's a Slurpee dispenser at 7-Eleven where you just rock up as you please, pull the handle and the problems go away.
          Neither it's like your typical car insurance where someone rams you and you're off to buying an new car with the payout.

      • Goremans on 21/09/2025 - 13:15
        +5

        Ive been a fantastic tenant all my life, 20yrs of rental history. I dont doubt there are assholes out there. But protection for tenants needs to be balanced for people doing the right thing.

        More housing supply would help everyone. Sucks for OP. I would be going back to the real estate - clearly they didnt get a very good pool of tenants to choose from.

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 13:30
        +1

        The landords risk an entire property.

        Why don't they have insurance?

        Real property is actually an investment that you can protect with insurance.

        And the poor landlord is probably paying a huge mortgage as well.

        This isn't the tenant's problem.

        Is it ok by you to rip off a LL if they don't have a mortgage over the property?

        If a LL requires such a substantial sum of money to become an investor, if that large sum has the potential to somehow be problematic for the investor, then maybe investment in Real property isn't the right choice for them at this point in time.

        If a LL assumes such significant risk, they did this intentionally. If undesirable results occur, then whilst that is really sad, there's no "poor LL" in the investment arena. Participating is a choice. Many people do not have the ability or opportunity to "invest" in a $5 raffle, far less be in a position to Aquire rights over a property.

        Poor OP stands to loose thousands even after claiming the entire bond.

        Incase it's not a typo *lose

        Whilst not desirable, this is a very well known risk of choosing to invest in this arena. If you're unprepared to accomodate such a risk, then, as unfair as it seems, perhaps this type of investment isn't the right fit for them.

      • GodsSon23 on 23/09/2025 - 15:24

        Exactly. More and more rights for these lowlifes and this is what they do far too often.

        • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 15:43
          +1

          Then stop enabling them and invest in something else.

  • CodeXD on 18/09/2025 - 23:28
    +26

    What can I do to prevent them doing this to other people in the future??

    I take it you don't have/you are the property manager?

    Do regular inspection of the property, at minimum every 6 months.

    • EightImmortals on 19/09/2025 - 06:45
      +24

      "They apparently left the country (according to a phone call from their friend to our agent)."

      Or get a better agent. When was their last inspection? Or maybe the grubs trashed the place in a short amount of time?

      • mapax on 19/09/2025 - 07:21
        +54

        Plot twist - the property already had a cockroach infestation and that’s why the tenants fled and left everything behind…

        • serpserpserp on 19/09/2025 - 22:37
          +1

          Plot Twist - tenants still live there, just went on holiday. Sounds like the condition of my house after a big night in

          • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 13:56

            @serpserpserp: Bigger plot twist - tenants aren't even on holiday. They're still there, they just hide when you go around to check.

            Ripping off LL so they can pay for legal advice about squatter's rights and so on.

            To add further insult to injury, tenant's are discretely dismantling the house fixtures, selling them on Gumtree and prepared to claim "must have been burgled. It wasn't me, you didn't see me and you can't prove a thing".

    • iguana on 19/09/2025 - 20:35

      My rental has an inspection every 3 months.

      • Poor Ass on 20/09/2025 - 11:53
        -2

        It was trash on the first day after inspection

      • freedomofspeech on 21/09/2025 - 22:01

        Haven't had a single inspection in 2 years

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 14:23
        +2

        The tenancy laws are heavily in favour of the tenants and those laws allow this to happen due to the heavy contraints put on landlords.

        I'd be prepared to counter that by saying for anybody that really believes that this is true then they didn't understand that by choosing to invest in this asset class, you give up some of the rights that one would normally have over a PPOR.

        Too many people confuse their property rights in an investment property with those usually found in a PPOR or another asset class.

        This is why the balance sheet sometimes appears to be tilted and this is why so many people experience disappointment and frustration.

        This is an investment and as soon as LL's realise that their real investment is in people's lives, the sooner all this "the rules aren't fair" crap will discontinue and LL's can just get on with doing their job without all the "poor me" "life is unfair" crap.

        No private LL is doing this as a charity, their intention is to realise some kind of financial benefit at some point in time and they are attempting to achieve this financial benefit in partnership with people who have no long term financial benefit in your choice of investment/source of income/revenue.

        Don't want to deal directly with real people? This isn't the right asset class/revenue generator for you.

        This comes with real people with real people's intrapersonal variables and other situational circumstances.

        None of this is a secret, or even new. So how come so many people continue to express surprise about this?

        Even if the laws were skewed, it's not like they're a secret, you were never obligated to invest in this asset class and you are never obligated to continue investing in this asset class if you try it out and don't like it.

        THIS is why there's disparity between tenants and LL, the LL who doesn't understand what their job really is/what they are actually investing in and then crying foul to the ref when they don't like the rules of the game.

        • tenpercent on 23/09/2025 - 19:18

          the LL who doesn't understand … and then crying foul to the ref when they don't like the rules of the game.

          ROFLMAO

        • Ughhh on 23/09/2025 - 19:39

          So how come so many people continue to express surprise about this?

          I would say people generally try the see the good in people before making assumptions. It's always surprising to see or hear when a a feral disrespectful person is considered the same species as the general population.

          • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 23:29
            +1

            @Ughhh: But see, we already know that this is likely to happen in residential real estate investments, that's why I don't get why it comes as a surprise when it does happen.

            Of course, we all hope that it doesn't happen, but to be surprised when it does?

            Yeah, they did a crappy thing (and let's be honest, this LL has gotten off quite lightly), but so far we don't even know why they did that crappy thing.

            I don't believe that they intended to screw over the landlord. They didn't plan to do this.

            If they did, then why bother giving notice to leave at all?

            I'm more inclined to believe that they intended to at least try and do the right thing but something caused the wheels to fall off before they got to vacate and now they've at least got the decency to be ashamed about it (why they're avoiding the OP cos none of us really believe that they're overseas).

            They even left their food behind. Who does that?

            They did a crappy thing. That doesn't mean that they're not a good person, both things can be true, even at the same time.

            And seriously, let's say you are right and they really are a "feral, disrespectful person" and a criminal too, someone else is accusing them of vandalism.

            Ever wonder why they're a feral, disrespectful person? Ya really believe that they chose to be that way? On purpose?

            Yeah, I know that the "why" isn't supposed to be the LL's problem, but…

            You don't even know if this a result of a domestic violence issue. Maybe it wasn't even the tenant who created that situation but rather somebody else from whom they couldn't escape and couldn't otherwise remove them from the property in a better manner…

            Maybe google the 2016 Gabriel Tostee murder trial or the 2020 Clark family murders via Rowan Baxter, their husband and father. Both from Qld.

            Addiction issues as a result of something like PTSD, for example?

            And you're already talking about them as being an alternative species to other people.

            How do you even sleep at night with that judgmental conga line going through your head?

  • JIMB0 on 19/09/2025 - 00:16
    +26

    One furniture is bad enough, but a whole house of furnitures? That’s next-level plural. Any damage besides the Grammer

    • ihbh on 19/09/2025 - 07:08
      +3

      or from a hammer.

    • tenpercent on 19/09/2025 - 07:12
      +17

      Kelsey Grammer's grandma is shocked by the grammar.

    • Dslrfirst on 19/09/2025 - 09:29
      +3

      as is "notice to vacant".

    • afah0447 on 19/09/2025 - 09:38
      +3

      Hey…leave my furnitures alone! They never did anythings to them!

    • Dr Phil on 20/09/2025 - 12:35

      Thats was totally uncalled for.
      OP has suffered heavy losses and you bag poor OP out?

      • JIMB0 on 20/09/2025 - 14:48
        +3

        Settle down Dr Phil, AmazingOne, HeWhoKnows, you’ve had more rebrands than OP’s had furnitures and not one of them has been accurate. Surprised you didn’t just reply to the first comment like usual.

        • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 14:31
          -2

          Settle down Dr Phil, AmazingOne, HeWhoKnows, you’ve had more rebrands than OP’s had furnitures

          On an unrelated tangent, I continue to wonder why people care about this if done within forum rules?

          The forum allows you to change names every 12 months. It's not a secret and it's not nefarious or dishonest and it's not as if that name change erases the history of that account. As far as I know, that's easily available to anybody who wants to look.

          Most of these people are strangers on the internet, why do they care what name they go by?

          Surely it's the content of their contributions that are the important bit?

          • JIMB0 on 23/09/2025 - 18:06
            +1

            @Muppet Detector: He just does it to avoid the negs, not that it's working.

            • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 18:23
              +1

              @JIMB0: Fair enough.

              The negs on here is another thing I don't get.

              Some people seem to get off on whatever power they perceive this gives them.

              Sure, disagree with me, but seems kinda cowardly if they're not also prepared to disagree with me to my "face", and maybe even tell me why they disagree with me.

              The only time I usually neg is if I'm engaged in a debate with somebody and someone else gives a neg to their post.

              If they've only got one neg when I notice this, I feel compelled to neg them too, just incase they think it was me who negged 'em….

              And if somebody negs me just because they don't like me very much… well, the jokes on them cos I just don't care what strangers on the internet think about me.

              • JIMB0 on 23/09/2025 - 18:27
                +1

                @Muppet Detector: Haha. I feel the same way, I don't care about negs either and don't bother to neg unless a lone person has already done it. For the mystery negs it would be nice if they offered a counter a argument instead of just negging a comment.

                • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 18:43

                  @JIMB0: LOL, I've currently got two negs on a post simply wondering about the significance of negs.

                  Negs cos they don't like me?
                  Negs cos I asked about negs?
                  Disagreed with me asking about negs?
                  Negged me just because they could?

                  Unlikely to ever know cos of course the cowards won't ever have the courage to tell me why they did it.

                  Who knows? Could be they're denying me the opportunity to learn something really useful. What a shame.

            • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 18:58

              @JIMB0: Just taking this opportunity to clarify something…

              My real name isn't Muppet Detector or nucleus accumbens….

              Maybe when I change it next year, I'll create a thread in the "introduce yourself" section just to let people know and don't think I'm trying to be sneaky or something.

    • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 16:29

      Any damage besides the Grammer

      You mean apart from the punctuation?

  • screensaver on 19/09/2025 - 00:38
    +28

    Our council does a free booked furniture removal, just have to put it out on the kerb. Remove the carpet and replace with an easier to clean surface like tiles or lino or floorboards, This is a tax deduction, and claim depreciation

    • foxmulder on 19/09/2025 - 00:42
      +8

      This. Book with Council fast as they are not available anytime.

    • Muppet Detector on 21/09/2025 - 00:55

      Hold on, as unfair as this seems, you can't just dispose of other people's crap. It will have abandonment issues!

      Seriously, the unethical have rights too. Just because they do illegal/dodgy stuff doesn't mean the harmed party gets to also do dodgy stuff.

      There are laws about the disposal of property left behind and a whole heap of it about how to deal with abandoned property.

  • bunkr on 19/09/2025 - 01:16
    +36

    I would not trust word of "friend".

    Proceed will all necessary reports to NCAT and elsewhere as advised on this forum.

    If they are really gone, it will help you when you claim insurance or tax deductions or whatever. If they do turn up, you have all necessary paperwork to start proceedings against them.

    • Eeples on 20/09/2025 - 10:09
      -1

      *adviced

      :/

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 16:31

        *advized

        Since we're making stuff up an all…

  • elgrande on 19/09/2025 - 07:09

    The property makes it messy, there may be steps required before you simply dispose of it.

  • tenpercent on 19/09/2025 - 07:11
    +31

    It sounds like the property manager wasn't doing their job.
    In addition to making use of council hard rubbish collection, claiming the bond, lodging with NCAT, claiming insurance, etc as others have suggested, I would also look into legal advice about how you can hold the property manager to account for not doing the job you paid them to do.
    The property manager should have been conducting routine inspections per the tenancy agreement to catch any signficant cleaning or damage issues long before it got to the state you are describing. They should have also been chasing unpaid rent and proceeding with eviction after just a couple of weeks unpaid.
    I assume you've already fired the property manager?

    • Lurk Hartog on 19/09/2025 - 08:11
      +5

      Or more likely, OP didn't have a property manager.

  • stickingly on 19/09/2025 - 07:41
    +15

    At least they gave notice to vacate. This happened to me, except that they didn't give notice, which meant that I couldn't even go in and start cleaning up without getting a possession order from VCAT, which took ages. Make sure you check the law - you aren't allowed to just go in and start chucking out their stuff.

    Unfortunately you will be the one who will end up losing here.

    • sandman20104159 on 19/09/2025 - 08:44
      -1

      yeah im a renter and i do not bother contacting my landys or real wanky agencies to get things fixed, i pay for it myself, i hate dealing with landys and real wankys. a part of me is loving this, and the other half is annoyed as it will just jack up price

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 16:34
        -2

        i pay for it myself, i hate dealing with landys and real wankys.

        That sounds like a you thing.

        • sandman20104159 on 24/09/2025 - 10:28

          yeah, i never said it was anyone else so thank you captain obvious

    • knobbs on 19/09/2025 - 09:21
      -3

      Did you read op? Literally states they have insurance and won't cover it all.

      With attitude might as well hope someone crashes into your car you use to get to work, insurance won't cover it and we laugh at you when you come here to ask for advice. Just apply some elbow grease it will get those dents out

      • ripesashimi on 19/09/2025 - 10:12
        +14

        Dude the car you use for work is not an investment, you are not gambling your car. What they did was wrong but using everyday asset as an example is silly.

      • pegaxs on 19/09/2025 - 11:00
        +2

        might as well hope someone crashes into your car you use to get to work

        How the (fropanity) is this even remotely related to OP's situation? Your analogy is bad, and you should feel bad. That is my car, not a car I am "renting out" that I can just write off on tax…

        (fropanity) me, landlords certainly are a whingy bunch of (fropanity). "Wahhh, money printer stop go brrrrr…"

        Also, "username checks out…"

        • knobbs on 19/09/2025 - 11:32
          +9

          How the (fropanity) is this even remotely related to OP's situation

          You missed the point entirely. Doesn’t matter if it’s a car, a house, or a toaster — if someone damages your property, it’s not suddenly “deserved” just because you own it. By your logic, if I rent out my car on Car Next Door and someone trashes it, I should be thrilled because, hey, “money printer go brrr.”

          You and the rest of the people that automatically have it out for this person just because they have an investment property have no idea. Funny how it’s suddenly different when it’s your stuff. But nah, if it’s a landlord, then vandalism is a spectator sport and we all clap. Totally consistent.

          • ThithLord on 19/09/2025 - 12:19
            +4

            @knobbs: Nah, your analogy is just bad

          • Beef jerky time on 19/09/2025 - 12:31
            +8

            @knobbs:

            You and the rest of the people that automatically have it out for this person just because they have an investment property have no idea. Funny how it’s suddenly different when it’s your stuff. But nah, if it’s a landlord, then vandalism is a spectator sport and we all clap. Totally consistent.

            "All investments carry risk" (except for the Australian housing market apparently, where people just assume that they will make money forever and there are no downsides).

            No one said they deserve it and no one is cheering for the shit tenants (well, except that one guy). But maybe if their insurance doesn't cover it, and they decided to take on an investment property anyway, maybe they should own the risk not paying off and deal with it, rather than looking for "outs" on a bargain forum.

            • knobbs on 19/09/2025 - 14:01

              @Beef jerky time: I agree with everything you have said, apart from them looking for 'outs'. I may have mistook the OP request but I see them looking for advice on what to do, not looking at how to dump this on someone basically.

              If you take a look at pegaxs post history he comments on most if not all LL posts, putting down LLs as basically the scum of the earth. I know it is the internet but I really can't understand these people that just shit on a LL because of a decision they made to invest in property.

              • Beef jerky time on 19/09/2025 - 14:55
                +3

                @knobbs: @knobbs Sometimes your investment goes negative. This is one of those times. Except the OP doesn't seem to see it like that. See: "heartbroken" comments - they probably treat it as if it's their house and not an investment asset. It sounds to me, and probably most people here, that they're looking for a solution that doesn't cost them money. The optics on having a cry about having to deal with one of the known risks of this investment and doing so while so many are struggling to pay for somewhere to live at all is what is causing the negative sentiment here.

                • knobbs on 19/09/2025 - 16:25
                  +3

                  @Beef jerky time:

                  The optics on having a cry about having to deal with one of the known risks of this investment and doing so while so many are struggling to pay for somewhere to live at all is what is causing the negative sentiment here.

                  May be the case, but pegaxs has been on this “landlords deserve it” crusade long before the current cost-of-living crisis. It’s just an overall sheltered view of the world.

                  Reading OP again, yeah, they might be a bit emotionally involved — but who wouldn’t be? Knowing the risks doesn’t make it easier when you’re likely in debt and someone causes thousands of dollars in damage. That feels very personal.

                  Market dips are one thing; they’re faceless, logical movements. Vandalism is a person or group targeting you directly. Different ballgame entirely.

                  Maybe IP isn’t the right fit if someone can’t handle that emotional hit, sure — but realistically you only need to avoid that 1% of renters/situations like this to get by.

                • meong on 19/09/2025 - 18:51
                  +1

                  @Beef jerky time: people work hard to get an investment property set up, and it could be a lot of work (sometimes DIY work) to paint, repair amenities to the right standard and they can be heartbroken to know their business is being trashed similar if someone properly designed a cafe to be appealing and suddenly some druggies break into it and trash the place, the cafe owner can feel heartbroken too and sometimes insurance doesnt cover all.

                  just because its an investment property and there are dodgy landlords out there doesnt mean they dont deserve to feel heartbroken on this.

                  who cares if its an investment property or a bus or coffee shop etc… having damages on your business asset doesnt mean the cost is zero just because it can be written off in tax. in fact, most cases you can only get a percentage of it back from tax.

                  if the damage is $1000 and you're on a 40% tax bracket then you get about $400 back on that expense to repair the damage so you are still $600 down.

                  FYI, i was a landlord too and i sold it due to damage caused by tenants and not wanting to deal with it anymore. i didnt intend to own an IP but i was in an indecisive housing situation and had to keep my previous property rented out as a future back up…

              • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 20:53
                -1

                @knobbs:

                If you take a look at pegaxs post history he comments on most if not all LL posts, putting down LLs as basically the scum of the earth.

                I don't know his post history, but it appears that he is actually on point in this thread.

                Granted, Mary Poppins could probably have expressed her opinion a little more politely, but I don't get the impression that peg has rainbows and fairy floss shooting out of his arse, do you?

                I know it is the internet but I really can't understand these people that just shit on a LL because of a decision they made to invest in property.

                See, that's not why peg said what he did in this thread and if you take a sec to revisit what he did contribute, you will see that you're not being objective and you're letting accumulated prejudices determine your reactions, experiences and responses in this thread.

                Instead, you've seen who has created a post and then neglected to read what they've actually said but decided to put your own spin on it and declare the content of his post to be wrong anyway.

          • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 14:53
            +1

            @knobbs:

            You and the rest of the people that automatically have it out for this person just because they have an investment property have no idea

            Just for clarity I have residential investment properties.

            On this occasion, I agree with pegaxs, he's not wrong.

            For explanation, see my contributions above.

            It's not about "having it out for the LL", it's about LL's not understanding what they're actually investing in, their misinformed, faulty decision making process including contemplation of potential risks when choosing this asset class or not knowing/liking what their "job" actually entails when they voluntarily select this asset class in which to invest.

            someone damages your property, it’s not suddenly “deserved” just because you own it.

            Of course it's not "deserved", and it is very sad if/when it does happen, but it is a well known and documented risk available to everybody when considering if this is the right asset class for them to invest in.

            This is only one of the risks involved with investment in this asset class. Hold onto your hat, cos there are plenty more.

            Most investments involve risk. If you don't like those risks, then this isn't the right asset class for you.

            Nobody forced you to enter it and nobody forced you to remain in it. All of it, it's entirely the choice of the investor.

          • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 20:36
            +1

            @knobbs:

            By your logic, if I rent out my car on Car Next Door and someone trashes it, I should be thrilled because, hey, “money printer go brrr.”

            Hold on, if somebody trashed the car, exactly how does that make the "money printer go brrr"?

            Presumably, this may take it out of commission for a little while, so wouldn't that make the money printer stop going brrr, at least for a little while?

            Or am I missing some potential for a financial gain in there somewhere?

            In what was is any of that logical? And it's the opposite of what peg said anyway.

            But nah, if it’s a landlord, then vandalism is a spectator sport and we all clap.

            May I ask which definition of vandalism you are using here and why you think it applies?

            I get that there's damage, but using the information that I see in this thread & the definition/s that I know or can otherwise find, I'm not sure why that damage is vandalism.

        • Muppet Detector on 21/09/2025 - 00:59

          I didn't know that real estate losses were 100% tax deductible?

          • meong on 21/09/2025 - 09:23

            @Muppet Detector: Yes it is… But it doesn't mean you have 100% of it back.

            What it means is that you have less taxable income for that year.

            So lets say your tax is 40% and if you make 100000 and you pay tax 40000

            After the 1k loss, you taxable income will be 99000 so your tax is reduced to 39600.

            The tax rebate will be 40000-39600. So you only get $400 back.

            FYI this is a simplified view. Tax rate vary based on your cumulative income. I just pick 40% as an easy number to use without using calculator. 😅

            Many people think that running business is the key to getting 100% tax deductible so the product are 100% free. But in reality they are only discounted and you still need to spend money.

            Most investment properties are operating at a loss due to the high interest rates no matter how high you increase the rent. Except if you're a boomer and already paid off most of your IP.

            Thats why they usually look to invest in properties that can appreciate so they can sell at a higher price later.

            However, for apartments or even town houses sometimes, the interest rate and running cost are so high you make no money when you sell them.

            Don't forget, rent doesn't even cover council+water rates, insurance.

            In my case however, my IP was the first PPOR i had. So, it was still quite annoying (maybe not heartbroken) one of the tenants trashed the carpet but eventually i got insurance to replace it.

            It's annoying cause i used to live in it and i had memories of how good it was when i left it.

            Luckily the next tenant was very clean which kept it in really good state when i sold it.

            • Muppet Detector on 21/09/2025 - 13:53

              @meong: Thanks. Ummm was trying to make the point that it's not the complete refund that a lot of people seem to think it is.

              • meong on 21/09/2025 - 17:53

                @Muppet Detector: oops! i was explaining to the wrong person i guess!

                • Muppet Detector on 21/09/2025 - 20:43

                  @meong: Nah, I see why you were explaining it to me.

                  I learned that to be polite when challenging someone's understanding of something, rather than outright contract them, to pose the challenge as a question.

                  I think the theory behind it was to prompt the other person to check their facts/understanding so they can get to the right information themselves.

                  Lets them save face so to speak.

                  Apparently, it only works in person where non verbal gestures and speech nuances are able to be recognised.

                  I'll work on another way to do better online!

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 20:15

        With attitude might as well hope someone crashes into your car you use to get to work, insurance won't cover i

        Why won't insurance "cover it"?

      • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 20:18

        Did you read op? Literally states they have insurance and won't cover it all.

        Why not?

    • Drpepper666 on 19/09/2025 - 09:54
      +5

      Yep this is why I have landlord insurance on all my properties. Tenants cannot be trusted.

      • Gareth on 19/09/2025 - 13:17
        +8

        To be fair, most tenants can be trusted.

        Like everything in life, though, there are some scumbags which give everyone else a bad name.

        • Muppet Detector on 23/09/2025 - 14:59
          +1

          And sometimes, unexpected shit happens that causes otherwise great tenants to behave in this manner, sometimes, completely out of their control or even be unable to behave in a certain way that they know is right or want on a particular occasion.

    • Iwantthebestprice on 19/09/2025 - 21:11
      -2

      Wow what a complete tosser of a take. How about common decency and respecting people’s property.

      The landlord provided a house for these tenants to live in.

      I hope one day your property (be it a house, car or tools) is stolen or trashed and you have the same attitude.

      You completely deserve it. Such a low life take. Stay poor.

      • pegaxs on 19/09/2025 - 23:36
        -3

        Lol. Yeah, sorry, all I read was;

        “I want to be angry too! You didn’t say the thing I wanted you to have said, so I am going to substitute what I wanted you to have said so I can be angry at that instead!”

        At no stage did I say what the tenants did was ok. Actually, I didn’t condone what the tenants did. In fact, I didn’t make ANY comment about what the tenants did to the house. You are literally angry at some shit you made up in your own head.

        “sUcH a LoW LiFe tAkE!!1! sTaY pOoR!1!!”

        Awwww… feel better now that you had your little tanty… over something I made absolutely no comment on… You are literally seething over something I made absolutely no reference too. 😂🤣

      • Muppet Detector on 21/09/2025 - 01:11
        +8

        The landlord provided a house for these tenants to live in

        No they didn't. They temporarily sold their right to possession.

        Landlord here.

        OP, really sorry that this has happened to you but unfortunately, this is just one of the known risks you have to take into consideration when choosing to "operate this kind of business"/ "invest in this type of product"

        Sometimes we come out in front, sometimes we suffer a loss and sometimes, breaking even is the best we can hope for. Hopefully, there's some kind of profit or benefit in the long term.

        Most businesses and/or investments come with some kind of risk. You now have first hand experience of one in rental properties. There are many more, so hold onto your hat!

        The upside of this is at least you have some insurance and hopefully a bit of bond money too.

        Hopefully you will have a better outcome with your next set of tenants.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join