Hi, I rented a property in Sydney with 12 months contract. 9 Months later I had to break lease and move out due to my personal arrangements. As per my contract, the lease break fee was 4weeks rent and had to inform the agent 2 weeks before. However, I informed the agent 2 months in advance, and corporated with many inspections. Owner found a new tenant to move in a week later I moved out for a 20% higher rent! Even though I knew there’s a chance of loosing the bond, I did my part by hiring professional cleaners to clean etc. This morning the agent informed me that the owner doesn’t want to release the bond, and charge the entire lease break-fee! Is this fair? I know as per the contract I have to pay 4 weeks rent as the lease break penalty. However, (due to my help) the owner already secured a higher paying tenant! I don’t mind they charging me their costs for securing another tent (advertising, agent fees etc), but I still feel it’s fair I should get the remainder of the bond. 1. Is the owner’s action fair? 2. Should I take this up with fair-trade? Thanks in advance!
Lease break fee is 4 weeks rent after you have moved out regardless of whether the agent has re-leased the property. There's no other liability. What grounds are they keeping the bond? Lodge a dispute with oft.
Sorry, the Owner wants to keep the bond as the lease break fee (lease break fee is 4 weeks rent). No double charge. (I haven’t clearly stated this in the first post. I’ll try to update it)
. I’ve done a terrible job at wording this. It should be that “owner doesn’t want release the bond, instead use that as the lease break fee.” My question is that, although this is legitimate, is it fair given they already secured a tenant for extra 20%? Shouldn’t the owner charge only a portion of the lease-break fee to cover the costs of finding the new tenant?
Well, assuming you had a fixed break fee it is fair, reasonable and fully disclosed. Seems very reasonable to me. When signing the lease, you could have asked for the alternative termination arrangements where you take the risk of paying until a new tenant was found (which would be until the end of your original lease term.) In your case you'd only be up a few weeks rent once costs were taken into account.
Technically you are paid up to the end date, 2 weeks after giving notice....? So who allowed a new tenant to move in prior to this date ? I'd agree that there should be some form of negotiations to reach a suitable outcome for both parties. Keep in mind that it has likely cost the landlord up to 4 weeks worth of rent to the managing agent as a letting fee (but considering you were 3/4 thru the lease )
If they rented the property out under different terms, i.e. higher rent, I'd be pushing to pay nothing.
The owner likely has also incurred re letting fees that may include advertising, agent lease fees etc. This isnt known or something you a privy to. Or a matter for your knowledge. Your lease terms indicate a break fee. Whether the land lord breaks even, loses or profits isnt a factor. If you were made redundant and get a new job the next day the employer isnt able to ask for their payment back.
Thanks for the responses. I’m going to lodge a dispute for this. At least I will not think back and regret
